The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > It's all depths and deconstruction > Comments

It's all depths and deconstruction : Comments

By Kevin Donnelly, published 3/8/2006

The impenetrable language describing the English syllabus is taking away the beauty and moral value of literature.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Kevin Donnelly says, "...workchoice ads, while it is OK to analyse them in the classroom, are not, I repeat not, literay [sic - how literacy standards are falling these days] texts."

I say they are literary [sic] texts. They have ethical subtlety, adopt an ironic style and use language to persuade us of a world view. Above all, they are works of fiction.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 3 August 2006 1:17:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This entire topic and debate of the teaching of English in schools is academic. (!) Within the next fifty years kids are going to have lessons heavily influenced by Indo-Chinese capitalism. Post-postmodernism will be all the rage then and the kids at school now, they won't stand a chance of getting to use any of their clever "read the blank spaces" or "listen to the unspoken" skills to interpret the unintelligible. Oh no. They'll be too busy working in cheap Australian offshore call centres for big powerful Asian telcoms

But of course that's not what this text means at all, is it?

Of course not. You have to interpret what I've written through your own reader subjective analysis. Only then will you be able to perceive the truth about what I've just written.

But for the less able readers, who haven't had the privilege of a post-modernist education, naturally what this is all about is a narrative text entitled, "What I did in the holidays: A feminist Marxist interpretation of 'Waiting for Godot in Disneyland'".

Go figure.

And oh yeah, BTW, only fools can't see that what I really meant.
Posted by Maximus, Thursday, 3 August 2006 1:22:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mercurius top post Kevin baby it an't the sixies anymore maybe you dropped to much acid.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 3 August 2006 1:42:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I fear that we tried: "but what does Shakespeare MEAN when he says "get thee to a nunnery"". The problem was that no one could agree on what he meant, that's why the system has shifted to ask the question about how the READER interprets the text.

People who are unable to see things from the perspective of others are known as sociopaths - I'm happy to have my kids interpret Das Kapital from a capitalist perspective if it makes them able to comprehend a world view different from their own.

History might be written by the winners, and literature (particularly a body of work we now view as "the classics") is too, in the sense that literature of other eras was largely for the consumption of those who were LITERATE.

There are more than a handful of kids asking in their English classes: "who cares what Shakespeare/Dickens/Austen/Plato thought?" Cultural ideals and attitudes towards a whole range of things have changed dramatically since Shakespeare's era (open to debate, in some cases), surely this is worth considering as part of an analysis of his text.

Kids DO put up their hands and observe that various texts (from 'Huckleberry Finn' to 'The Merchant of Venice') are "racist": why shouldn't teachers engage with curious kids about the changing values of society and its inhabitants?

Interpreting something from a Marxist or feminist viewpoint doesn't MAKE you either of these things, but it might make you reflect on your own values, even for just a minute. If it makes people happier, I'd be more than happy to ask students to interpret texts from a capitalist or existentialist or nihilist viewpoint if anyone really thinks that will make people happier.
Posted by seether, Thursday, 3 August 2006 4:56:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seether writes

>>I fear that we tried: "but what does Shakespeare MEAN when he says "get thee to a nunnery"". The problem was that no one could agree on what he meant<<

Perhaps it would help if we subjected Mercurius' bitter monologue to the same test, and see whether that furthers the discussion at all.

"We tried: 'but what does Mercurius MEAN when he asks us to evaluate the text from a postmodern eco-critical feminist perspective?'. The problem was that no one could agree on what he meant"

Nope. I thought not.

There is great value, in my view, in challenging preconceptions, interpretations assessments or judgements of any kind. It is, after all, what our brain is for.

What does concern me is that the value placed upon "seeing" a text through the eyes of a marxist, a feminist, an eco-terrorist or a muslim freedom-fighter, should not take precedence over viewing it through the eyes of its author, in its own timeframe and within a framework of the customs and mores of those times.

Only when those features are assimilated into some kind of basic understanding of the text can we properly ask students to change any one or more of those variables, and evaluate it from that changed perspective.

Stands to reason, dunnit?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 3 August 2006 5:30:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The proof of the pudding would be whether kids who receive this sort of approach to education are actually more capable critical thinkers, question the system meaningfully and constructively (rather than: "What are you rebelling against?" "What have you got?"), and have a deeper understanding of the world.

Is that true of kids coming out of high school or even university today? I'm not sure that it is, not that I think there was ever some golden age of critical thinking either. To be quite cynical about the whole thing, I think most people get little to no benefit from school after about year seven, give or take. I think for the overwhelming majority, it's all a bit dull and painful, quickly forgotten, and it's a matter of just getting through it all and reducing the pain by having a laugh with their mates.

I suspect the bright will see through any ideological war being waged (because that's largely what this is), and for the rest, short of making party pies, fairy bread and chocolate cake wrapped in a napkin part of the syllabus, you're not going to improve the educational experience or relevance.
Posted by shorbe, Thursday, 3 August 2006 6:01:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy