The Classics Suck! (or how I learned to stop worrying about what people read and roll with it)

[lady_fellshot]

I hate Jane Austen.

Not personally, but I utterly loathe her writing far more than anyone ever should. I find the characters as dim as a box of rocks, the pacing of the prose drags as if it were hauling a dead donkey on its back and the story duller than C-SPAN discussing economics. This hardly the sort of book I would inflict upon the

Comments

[silverflight8]

Let's face it, the average reader does not get inspired by things that are boring or dull or so dense that they can't understand it.
-Hi. Thank you for speaking for everyone on the planet.

Give me swords, magic, spaceships and strange happenings!-Then don't go and read these kinds of fiction. It's not like what you want are difficult to find: often they are clearly labelled, have their own section (fantasy, sci-fi), and frequently have covers that are easily recognizable

[silverflight8]

Oops, that should say "authorial intent are pretty much unknowable to the reader".

[lady_fellshot]

And so I did speak for myself. Austen was a primary example not the blanket, but then I try not to pretend I'm an impartial writer under any circumstances. I'm sure there was a classic you hated too. :)

As for finding fantasy, I've found Jules Verne and Edgar Allen Poe in four different sections before depending on what store I've stepped into at the moment, because the classification systems for the more fantasic and sepeculative fiction can jump all over the place.

Besides one has to point out that "authorial intent" should be be pretty much irrelevant in anything except historical context. Especially if the author in question has been dead for a while. But that's just my opinion again.

[silverflight8]

...not gonna touch the first few sentences, but yes, there are classics I dislike also. (For instance, I cannot stand Jules Verne.)

It's always possible to guess at authorial intent (and I think oftentimes it's easy to do so) but you never know. Especially, yes, when you can't ask them anymore. ;)

[obsessivelyfate]

I'll try to do a better job teaching it! That's actually why I want to be a English Teacher as my second career choice (first is librarian) and going to college for it right now.

[silverflight8]

My only problem is trying to dissect a text by wondering what the author meant. That annoys me, because it introduces the "I know what the author meant but you don't" mentality, I think.

Otherwise, English's always been my favorite class. I'm not sure why, but all of my L.A. teachers have been smart and funny.

Hey, good luck! :D

[silverflight8]

I think for certain types of texts--especially anything really short like short stories and short poems--there's a lot of stuff packed in to the few words they've got, and there's probably a lot of meaning in them. Other books, you just get the feeling that it's only plot-driven and outside of that, there's not much else to examine...

[lady_fellshot]

That and there's the idea that "what the author meant" is the only possible meaning a book could have, which rather shuts out any other perspectives that might occur over time, in addition to trying to make some interpretations seem more or less valid than others.

[obsessivelyfate]

Yeah, reading comprehension is important, but most teachers do it wrong. >.< It's more important to understand what's happening in the text, and what a lot students struggle with I think, not what the author meant. D:

Though I think it's safe to say 'We can see themes and symbols in stories, although we have no one of knowing if the author intended to insert them in there or not.' Is that a better way to put it?

[silverflight8]

Well, I always thought they taught reading comprehension earlier, like grade two or something. XD But yes, I think the idea of "This is a classic" is daunting and discouraging (sadly. Because I like a lot of them and I'm sad that people are afraid to read them.)

Yeah, I think so. And my high school English teacher (after one classmate complained about the finding-symbols thing) said that the author might add symbols in the revision process: I think it gets taken too far, but some of the symbols have to be there deliberately.

And it's all a moot point anyway: the interpretation of things you read is all you get. We can't know the author's purpose; we only know what we read.

Sorry if that got rambly.

[obsessivelyfate]

Don't worry, you're fine. XD

They do, and then never revisit it. From the fact I had to tutor a lot of my classmates on what was going on in The Great Gatsby, I think it's needs a little more time spent on it at higher levels...mainly comprehension in different unfamiliar styles.

Or maybe teachers that could actually teach...that might help too

[kondo85]

Looking at authorial intention is sort of an outdated way of looking at texts, although it seems to still be present in high schools. There's definitely a movement (at least in colleges) to push for the actual content on a page, rather than trying to guess what an author who lived 200 years ago meant, like some sort of riddle. In the classes I teach, if a student can back up an argument with evidence from the text, that's enough for me.

[lady_fellshot]

Best of luck to you then! :D

[silverflight8]

Skip the tone argument; it's old.