Just a note for those non-Queenslanders out there - as Queensland has school-based assessment, the examples of tasks old mate Kev gives here are not state tasks, but tasks constructed by individual teachers. As an English teacher in Queensland, I don't expect my kids to take a feminist/Marxist/capitalist/whatever reading of a text. I do, however, ask them to think about what sort of society the text came from and how that is reflected in the text.

In the old, non-critical system, I studied Shakespeare and came out understanding that the man knew a lot of words, could use rhyming couplets and had a knack for creating twisted tales. My students are now able to derive meaning from Shakespeare by learning about the social trends and political undercurrents that influenced his writing. Will they take on the role of a feminist and deconstruct Lady Macbeth? It is doubtful. But they will understand that Jews were despised (hence the character of Shylock in The Merchant Of Venice), and that Queen Bess left no heir so the issue of rightful inheritance of the Throne was important at the time of Macbeth. I find that my kiddies are much more interested in Shakespeare than I was at his age.

The new (and, dare I say, more relevant) system allows kids to think about the events and ideas that influenced writers at the time of writing. Gulliver's Travels was written in an age of exploration, 1984 in a time of anti-totalitarianism. Yes, they are viewed as a product of their time. They are not reduced to the level of 'cultural artefacts' - instead, they are elevated to the level of 'symbols of their time'.

I just love watching the Right get terrified every time that students are taught to read between the lines.

It's perfectly possible to understand and study the political context of a work, and still admire it for being a great story.

My favourite example is Macbeth. I learnt at school about how it was in some ways a blatant piece of propaganda in favour of the House of Stuart - James I of England and VI of Scotland had only recently come to power.

James I/VI was supposed to be a descendant of Banquo, who was murdered by Macbeth - the play was designed to bolster James I/VI's conviction that kings ruled by Divine Right. Macbeth was punished for his rebellion against the natural, God-given order.

Now, this does not stop me enjoying Macbeth as a great work of art. Shakespeare was such a genius that he could turn even a blatant suck-job into something that stands out four hundred years later.

Every piece of art or literature has a political context. Artists and writers have conscious and unconscious biases, and if we are to understand the world we must look deeper, 'between the lines'.

Why is the Right so afraid of school students analysing literature? Might they start asking too many questions?

David Jackmanson

Lets Take Over
http:/www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-Left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

Pericles, when viewed "through the eyes of its author", to which you suggest we should give precedence, my "bitter monologue" is neither bitter, nor a monologue. It is a light-hearted attempt to have a bit of a chuckle at Kevin D's expense by making a crude caricature of some of his arguments, while also satirising a few common prejudices that many hold, but are too polite to say out loud.

Thus spake the Author, contemporaneously with my creation, and through "the customs and mores" of my day. As you suggest, this view should take precedence over yours, or any other reader, including even Kevin D who may have found it amusing, offensive or some combination thereof. In a similar vein, Mel Gibson, the author of some recent widely-publicised comments, isn't anti-Semitic. He, the author, has told you so himself and has gone to seek counselling. That is the end of the matter. Isn't it?

But why then is there a "comments" feature for every article here in Online Opinion? Should we not just read each article in deferential silence to the authority of the Author, whose views takes precedence over all? Surely these comments that hang off each article have nothing worthwhile to contribute...since they cannot, even in principle (according to you), take precedence over the Author's "eyes".

The trouble is that, once the words are written and out there, they have moved beyond the author's control. The fact is that both you and Sniggid will continue to view me as "bitter" and my post as a "bitter monologue" even though I, the author, have told you otherwise. Not even I, the author, can dissuade you. And not even Mel Gibson can dissuade me that he's anti-Semitic. So much for your claim that the "eyes of the author" take precedence.

When we read literature, or opinion pieces, or posts about opinion pieces, or "texts"; they also read us. I don't know from where the bitterness arose that both you and Sniggid ascribe so blithely to me. You will have to look elsewhere for its source.

David: Firstly, I think it's not just the right who are afraid of people asking too many questions. I think that's simply a feature of anyone who wants to maintain power. It's in their interests to keep people dumbed-down, docile and dependent. A quick look at anything written by expats or residents of the Iron Curtain will show that. Pasternak, for instance, had to refuse the Nobel Prize for Literature because Dr Zhivago did not meet the approval of the powers that were. Personally, I think Dr Zhivago was pretty boring and quite overrated, but that's not the point.

Secondly, maybe not every piece of art or literature has a deeper political context. Maybe an artist paints a picture because he thinks the subject matter is beautiful. Likewise for a composer. Maybe a writer just wants to tell a ripping yarn. I know we could then ask, "but what is beauty? How is that constructed?" However, I think once we start down that path, we can't scratch our noses without trying to work out the deeper political significance. Maybe sometimes there isn't any.

Nietzsche said something along the lines of the irony of the English socialists was they're so desperate to do away with God so they could replace it with something to the same effect. I can't help but think there's often a similar problem with those concerned with cultural studies.

Murcurius, if your comment was written in humour, I have to wonder what a comment that expressed bitterness was like. I quite like the contribution of shorbe, far more balanced.

If English teachers want to have their students concentrate on hidden meanings, the power an author wants to exert over the masses or whatever, then that is up to them. However, that is not what I want from English teachers for my children and grandchildren. I want them, as first priority, to teach them how to read and write, to spell, to speak well, to be able to construct and write essays and reports, etc. Schooling after all is a service to the community and, I believe, most parents and grandparents would agree with me. Once that has been achieved there might be an opportunity for some English teachers to indulge themselves in the post-modern stuff that one can imagine you feel is so important.

When students can leave school competent enough to be able to express themselves clearly and correctly, in writing and in how they speak, then English teachers might be able to indulge themselves in questioning the intent of authors. First things first.

Mercurius

What alot of hilarity-challenged posters we have here. When I read your very clever and funny posts, I had the best laugh in a long time. Do you do stand-up? Wonderful piece. You should write more like this, am impressed. Also gets the point across very well - particularly our much maligned teachers who are held responsible for everything from bullying through to homosexuality.

As for Kevin Donnelly, he has become to education what David Flint is to the ABC - forever bitter, forever engaged in an extreme right agenda. Fortunately Kev doesn't have any real influence or no-one would learn how to ask a question or critically analyse a subject.

Love Shakespeare, but what of the beauty and moral value of a Japanese haiku? We also need to be aware of contemporary authors both Australian and international. This world is large and complex why does Kev want to limit our horizons?