Cranky,

Having arrived at the halfway mark of reading “Who Stole Feminism”, I can tell you that the reason your niece was more concerned about the lack of women in Hemingway’s story is because there exists a group of “Feminazis” who most fervently believe that gender feminism is vastly more important than any basic education, let alone appreciation of fine literature. Reading your words, I could comfortably visualise your niece’s teacher going on at length about “discrimination against women” and ‘sexism” when presented with such a literary opportunity as Hemingway.

While “Who Stole Feminism” addresses the ‘feminist revolution’ (in truth a brutal, unconscionable, and facist take-no-prisoners coup) at university level, it is obvious that, ten years later, the some idiotic ideology is well entrenched in primary and high schools.

The frightening truth is that—as is well illustrated by Sophie Masson’s work—too many of our kids are (generally speaking) at the mercy of—to use Sophie’s word—‘stupid’ teachers who have delusions of being intellectual and academic.

Sophie,

I always say a quiet ‘thank you God’ when I read uncommon sense by someone like you. It gives me hope, probably because the loudest and most prolific voices typically seem to come from people who are completely disassociated with reality.

We need to more regularly express ourselves as bluntly as you do when you say….
“As a writer as much as a reader I was outraged by this stupid, insulting and utterly irrelevant………”

I believe we owe it to our children to say it like it is and no longer ‘tolerate’ the many ideological idiocies in education with ‘political correctness’. Perhaps we need to even be marching in the streets to ensure that our demand for ‘old-fashioned’ but effective education is heard loud and clear.

Great essay, Sophie. How embarassing for our so-called ‘educational experts’ that someone whose birth language was not even English should be the one to inject realism and intelligence into the debate.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

When I read Jane Austen as a child, I thought this was an amusing statement, but did not take it seriously, and I would bet neither did DavidJS. When we studied Julius Caesar we were encouraged to think about "politics" because this play is about the art of politics. "Creative writing" was not in the curriculum, this was for our own time. In our exams, we were obliged to think critically, not only about the poetry and rhythms, but also about the actual content, the message, the point of the work. We were deconstructionists long before the French gave us the word because we were being educated to read beyond the text. What we see today in our schools is not much more than fancy new theory voicing old and venerable practices.

I applaud Sophie Masson's endeavours in visiting schools and encouraging kids to write and read creatively, and in "making literature attractive". But there is only so much time in a day to teach kids everything they need to know, so that they can go forth and do it for themselves. I am not defending the current curriculum, as there might well be too much emphasis on "deconstructing" texts, but attacking the good intentions of our educators with such ferocity smacks of a political agenda. I don't hear anyone suggesting that we should pay our teachers more, which might go some way to improving the alleged lack of quality in their profession.

Like David JS, my major concern about English teaching is that grammar disappeared from the curriculum somewhere back in the seventies, which has made it much harder to teach foreign languages, not to mention the impoverishment of our written expression. I am surprised that conservative commentators do not make more of this, but then perhaps most of them are too young to know what I am talking about. Grammatically that last sentence was not too hot, but who would know or care these days?

I just completed the HSC last year, and I have to say - I agree with every damn word you say. I loved English before then, I still love to read and to write, but that syllabus took every good thing out of reading and writing and replaced it with hideous farces where we were repeatedly asked to do the ridiculous, and for no true valuable purpose. We were asked to do the same things again and again in slightly altered formats, with slightly different examples, and it was demanded that we have a "fresh, original" approach each time. English became a trial, hideous beyond belief, where nonsensical values and requirements were thrust upon us, which we were told we had to embrace in order to succeed. It was, in short, a nightmare. The only times when I ever enjoyed it was when I shucked the ridiculousness we were expected to embrace and read the novel for itself, took on my own theories and used original thought to dissect them. I had to follow their ridiculous doctrine for exams, but cursed if I'd let their narrowminded idiot approach be the only thing I took away from my senior years of English.

And as for your comments on Extension II English - been there, done that. The further problem there is that it's all the same teachers who teach the boring advanced and standard syllabus who mark them, and while some are undoubtedly talented, others have no clue. I achieved quite a high mark in the class, not as high as I'd hoped, and on my telling this to a family friend who was also a teacher, his automatic assumption was that my writing had gone over the heads of the people marking. These people give our senior students what is for many their last taste of literature in education. I find that terrifying

Sophie & others,

My comment was '698 words too long', so I uploaded it instead.
Please read it here: http://anotherhour.net/english.html .

Sophie, you are wonderful and my friends want you to come and teach us.

-Amelia

Meeli,

I read your document and am both impressed and saddened.

The sadness comes from the fact that we (the older Australian generations) have---by neglect, ignorance and false, untested ideologies---betrayed the younger generations.

I am actually planning to do something about it and certainly want to get the attention of as many young people of your calibre as possible.

Check out http://www.decency.org.au and also http://www.oz-aware.com. The style and grammar are perhaps not nearly as excellent as yours, but hopefully you'll get the fundamental message. You and any other likeminded young people should feel free to be in touch via the decency website.

Oh come on Grace! I was analysing the historical context of Austen's work as a primary school child :-)

But seriously folks, I do think literature cannot possibly be fun if it is dissected in the way it appears to be now. I say "appears" because I am childless and haven't been to school since 1982 so I'm not totally informed regarding this debate. I will, however, relate my own experience with French literature.

I started recently getting into the works of Maupassant and Balzac through my love of French history. Don't ask how I came to enjoy French history. It maybe because it wasn't taught at my school (a sad reflection on my education). However, by learning myself through reading history books I moved towards the literature of the period I am most fascinated in (France from 1789 to 1914) and now find I really enjoy it - some Maupassant stories and books are really hard to put down. If on the other hand, I was given instruction in reading this material I'd probably hate it. But I'm not talking about 2005. I'm talking about the late 70s and early 80s.

My personal experience tells me that a) a love of literature may be acquired more successfully if students are given more autonomy regarding the experience of reading and the interpretation of that experience and b) perhaps the teaching of literature in days gone by wasn't that good either.