Rant This....

New here. Not so new to this.

Fanfare! The Aesthetica Creative Writing Award 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.

Katie-Ellen

Full Member
Sep 25, 2014
UK
'Bullying' of literature ...that poor, sensitive literature....its merits propagated as received wisdom. I speak as a freelance Eng Lit tutor working with 11 and 14 year old and adult students.

You help them 'get in there' by giving them tools and an array of lenses for looking through...not by telling them what to think, what to worship.

So many sacred cows. They need to grow their vocab but I find their insights amazing. Wouldn't it be a change for a teacher to say, 'why are we looking at Shakespeare? Well...' or to put it to the students, 'this play, yes it's famous, but could it be a pile of shite? Discuss.'


Introduction to Poetry
BY BILLY COLLINS
I ask them to take a poem
and hold it up to the light
like a color slide

or press an ear against its hive.

I say drop a mouse into a poem
and watch him probe his way out,

or walk inside the poem’s room
and feel the walls for a light switch.

I want them to waterski
across the surface of a poem
waving at the author’s name on the shore.

But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with rope
and torture a confession out of it.

They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.
 
Once, while training to be an EFL teacher, I was in a group and we were discussing a poem, for fun as much as anything. I asked the tutor if he knew what metre the poem was in. He didn't, which didn't matter, and the discussion continued. Later, after the class, a fellow student (we were all 'mature') pulled me aside and said, "You know, I studied poetry for four years at university and no one ever mentioned metre. What is it?"

Wouldn't it be a change for a teacher to say, 'why are we looking at Shakespeare? Well...' or to put it to the students, 'this play, yes it's famous, but could it be a pile of shite? Discuss.'
If only!

There's so much wrong with English teaching – the mighty schism between lit and lang. Don't get me started! Why the dichotomy? Why oh why oh why?

One of the reasons continental Europeans have such command of English is because it's taught communicatively, but also because they know their own grammar, which gives them a comparative point of view from which to understand English.

Can you imagine studying, say, portraiture, for four years straight, and nobody showing you a brush!

I'm coming at this from the other side, KT, but I've arrived at the same point as you and couldn't agree more.
 
I spent more than 10 years of my working life teaching EFL/ESOL.

During a Summer School in Canterbury a French student asked, 'How you spell secret?'
'What, like 007 James Bond,' I replied.
'No, no, no. Like Michael Schumacher. Racing secret.'
'Ah, you mean circuit.'

Later that week I took a group of these students on a trip to Broadstairs.
As they prepared to go off to explore the local area a pretty young Spanish girl said, 'Where shall we go to first?'
To which the French boy replied, 'I do not care. I will follow you to ze ends of the Earth.'
 
Once, while training to be an EFL teacher, I was in a group and we were discussing a poem, for fun as much as anything. I asked the tutor if he knew what metre the poem was in. He didn't, which didn't matter, and the discussion continued. Later, after the class, a fellow student (we were all 'mature') pulled me aside and said, "You know, I studied poetry for four years at university and no one ever mentioned metre. What is it?"


If only!

There's so much wrong with English teaching – the mighty schism between lit and lang. Don't get me started! Why the dichotomy? Why oh why oh why?

One of the reasons continental Europeans have such command of English is because it's taught communicatively, but also because they know their own grammar, which gives them a comparative point of view from which to understand English.

Can you imagine studying, say, portraiture, for four years straight, and nobody showing you a brush!

I'm coming at this from the other side, KT, but I've arrived at the same point as you and couldn't agree more.


@Rich. The dichotomy indeed. When the whole is a living beast: the Lang and Lit.
 
@Rich. The dichotomy indeed. When the whole is a living beast: the Lang and Lit.
The best teaching job I ever had (besides homeschooling my youngest) was as a private creative writing tutor where I could customize the sessions specifically to what each particular student responded to—their creativity, astuteness, and enthusiasm for my crazy ideas was wonderful—I loved those years and those kids (I had one boy from 13-18 years old for 2 hours twice a week)!
 
The issue is here that the study of English literature and language is completely different to the expression of it (and the enjoyment of said expression). When you study English lit the aim is to break a text down into its components in order to understand 'what it means' based upon what it's made up of: words.

Really what you are being taught is comprehension and the skills to be able to break down complex ideas, texts, computer models, financial models, political structures, business analysis etc into simple ideas.

The merits of a text; how it makes you feel and why it might make you feel that way are also not discussed because it would be impossible to mark 'how something makes you feel'. You can only be asked 'what does it mean' and provide evidence as to why you think that. It wouldn't be practically markable any other way.

They probably should encourage students to read outside of class as 'readers' though and enjoy reading, but the snobbery seems to extend itself out of the classroom.

Because there's no commerciality and understanding of the writing craft taught in English Lit, I have noted on pop-ups that the English Lit teachers often class their work as 'literary fiction' and try to write 'superior' novels, failing to realise that the texts they are trying to emulate are not superior, but simply products of another time, for another time.

Although I do have to admit, I read The Great Gatsby this year (as a reader) and I did really like it, not because it was an allegory of the roaring twenties, but because I connected with young Gatsby's complete lovestruck naivety. I would have got marks for the former point, but I became a reader and a writer for the latter.
 
Later that week I took a group of these students on a trip to Broadstairs.
As they prepared to go off to explore the local area a pretty young Spanish girl said, 'Where shall we go to first?'
To which the French boy replied, 'I do not care. I will follow you to ze ends of the Earth.'
It's all to do with the need to say the right thing...
 
My husband is a Head of English at an international school here in Spain. His first experience of classroom teaching was as a (trained and qualified) teacher of English as an additional language. He went on to gain his Post Graduate Certificate in Education to become a qualified teacher of English at secondary level. He's often said how useful the EAL teaching background is when teaching first language English.

His approach has been to weave grammar, punctuation, vocabulary and writing into many of the literature lessons, alongside comprehension and textual analysis. So a section of The Diary of Anne Frank was also used to teach TIPTOP paragraphing, for example. A section looking at fairytales (as a prelude to studying A Midsummer Night's Dream) was also used to teach the passive voice. A section of A Midsummer Night's Dream was used to teach simple/complex sentences. And so on. The texts themselves are used to generate written tasks (diary entries, letters, newspaper articles, stories, poems etc.) from the students.

Also, discussions on the merits of a piece of work ("Is this a pile of shite? Discuss...") are encouraged and students are absolutely allowed to think something is rubbish, but they have to justify their opinion with examples.

He mixes in a few lessons of grammar-bashing, because most of our students, although they are studying for first language English GCSEs, they are also learning the language from the point of view of a non-native speaker (and are aiming for Cambridge English qualifications). Our native speakers also participate in those lessons, but the improved understanding of how to deploy the nuts and bolts of the language definitely helps them too.

The point is the study of English doesn't have to be separated into Literature and Language because, as has been pointed out upthread, the two are intertwined. Our school is an international school, but we still largely follow the English National Curriculum.

The hope is that, with deepening understanding of the language and the amazing texts that have been created using it, our students will also gain an appreciation, and in many cases, a love of English.

This article is a wonderful (and moving) example of how English — written, read and understood — can be transformative to students.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/31/kate-clanchy-some-kids-i-taught-and-what-they-taught-me

Texts that are sacred cows? Maybe... But when my husband chooses texts for the students to study, he does it with one eye on how much they will enjoy it, as well as whether it's something that will be a beneficial text when it comes to exam time.

His scheme of work for The Hunger Games has been hugely popular on the TES website, for example.

The only homework our English students get is reading (their choice of text) and a short time spent practising the language on a language learning app (Duolingo and similar).

They come to my library to choose their books and I make recommendations purely on the basis of what I think they will enjoy. If that's a graphic novel or a Star Wars annual, that's fine by me and totally acceptable to their English teachers.

Agree with @Katie-Ellen Hazeldine — English Literature doesn't belong in a special box and nor do any of the texts. Language is a living, evolving thing and the worst thing anyone can do to it, is to put it under artificial constraints.

Like the artists mentioned upthread, you teach English students the techniques...but you give them a paintbrush on the first day.
 
Fascinating discussion! Over here is me simply wishing I'd stop hearing people say, "I seen it."

*SIGH*

The usage of grammar in spoken English is very poor over here as well. I know a girl who always adds an 's' onto the end of the plural you - 'yous lot'.

In an odd way this doesn't irritate me, I find it useful because I often use bad grammar in dialogue as means of sounding authentic. People do say 'I seen it' so in the right context, I'd rather use that than be grammatically correct.
 
The usage of grammar in spoken English is very poor over here as well. I know a girl who always adds an 's' onto the end of the plural you - 'yous lot'.

In an odd way this doesn't irritate me, I find it useful because I often use bad grammar in dialogue as means of sounding authentic. People do say 'I seen it' so in the right context, I'd rather use that than be grammatically correct.

NEVER! I will never surrender and use that expression!! LOL!! :)
 
The usage of grammar in spoken English is very poor over here as well. I know a girl who always adds an 's' onto the end of the plural you - 'yous lot'.

In an odd way this doesn't irritate me, I find it useful because I often use bad grammar in dialogue as means of sounding authentic. People do say 'I seen it' so in the right context, I'd rather use that than be grammatically correct.

I must admit, my own particular bugbear is people replacing "'ve" with "of" as in, "I would of done it, if I'd known...."

That said, there are certain grammar quirks (for want of a better word!) which are incorrect English, but reflect a regional dialect and I don't tend to mind those.

So "yous" is often used in Scotland and Ireland, for example. In the Bristol area, the regional way of speaking often swaps the first and third person of the verb. The use of "ain't" has become ubiquitous.

The thing is, grammar, like all other aspects of English, doesn't stay still.

Once upon a time, English speakers used the pronouns "thee" and "thou" to denote the 2nd person singular. But overtime, they dropped out of common usage and now we use the 2nd person plural/polite form "you" instead (which can be awkward, because we have to say things like "all of you" or "you all" to clarify that we are using the plural form).
In the US, they've retained the past perfect form of "get" as "gotten", whereas British speakers use "got".

There are lots of other similar examples, and not just in English. We can't preserve languages in glass cases, no matter how much we'd like to sometimes. :)
 
And how most of the Romance languages (among others) try to, with their Royal Academies prescribing correct use left right and centre. Piffle, says I. English dictionaries reflect. There are no ivory towers.

And... let me throw my contrary gauntlet down here right now – There's no such thing as incorrect English!

There, I've said it. And as I run for the hills with you all baying at my heels ( ;) ), I'll try to justify myself by saying that there is only standard and non-standard English. If one person makes a non-standard utterance, it might be fair to call it a mistake, bad English, or other derogatory term. But if a whole group uses some non-standard construction, it's not wrong; it's just different. My roots are in Brighton, in the south-east of England, and if I was sitting yesterday, I was sat.

When we test English, we have to test something, so we test standard English. And who gets to decide what that is? The urban elite? The ruling class? The literary intelligentsia?

But that's another conversation, perhaps... :)

It makes sense to have a version of the language that we think of as correct. It's that version we use in job interviews, presentations, and such. It's helpful to have a version that acts as a leveller. But not everyone subscribes to it. And I'm glad that they don't. :)


(Awesome winds me up something chronic, impoverished awesome, reduced from the spiritual loftiness of combined fear and wonder to a word meaning very good that we apply to things that are not.)
 
And how most of the Romance languages (among others) try to, with their Royal Academies prescribing correct use left right and centre. Piffle, says I. English dictionaries reflect. There are no ivory towers.

And... let me throw my contrary gauntlet down here right now – There's no such thing as incorrect English!

There, I've said it. And as I run for the hills with you all baying at my heels ( ;) ), I'll try to justify myself by saying that there is only standard and non-standard English. If one person makes a non-standard utterance, it might be fair to call it a mistake, bad English, or other derogatory term. But if a whole group uses some non-standard construction, it's not wrong; it's just different. My roots are in Brighton, in the south-east of England, and if I was sitting yesterday, I was sat.

When we test English, we have to test something, so we test standard English. And who gets to decide what that is? The urban elite? The ruling class? The literary intelligentsia?

But that's another conversation, perhaps... :)

It makes sense to have a version of the language that we think of as correct. It's that version we use in job interviews, presentations, and such. It's helpful to have a version that acts as a leveller. But not everyone subscribes to it. And I'm glad that they don't. :)


(Awesome winds me up something chronic, impoverished awesome, reduced from the spiritual loftiness of combined fear and wonder to a word meaning very good that we apply to things that are not.)

Awesome post @Rich. ;)
 
Viva The Vernacular! It is not about lowering standards. My idea of 'poor English' is speech or writing that is unclear in delivery or meaning. Correct Punctuation is a tool for maximising clarity; while in respect of the cornerstone word of vernacular proto-Germanic English (as SHE heads for the hills, with possibly no-one baying at her heels)...

Note the um, 'picturesque' spelling of 'incompetence' and 'centence.' Deliberate mistaykes?

 
Last edited:
And who gets to decide what that is?
I don't know if it happens in your world, but the rendition of 'a hotel' that became 'an hotel' because in the late 1800s some snarky snobs (yes, British upper class, educated and wily in their youthfulness) dropped the 'h' and then insisted they were correct -- and more than 130 years later, we still try to teach that words starting with 'h' should be 'an h.....'
Every time I hear it, I tell people it was a bunch of gits who wanted to demonstrate their higher class, knowing that lower class always aims up and would copy it, and the uppers could then laugh their a's off at the stupidity of it. they're still laughing.

Unless the 'h' is silent ...

Yes, it's a bug-bear. I don't have many, but that's one. And the of replacing the 've. And off of. And ...
 
As in:

A poo was found outside an army cookhouse door.
T'was definitely hooooman.

Can't remember how they fixed on the suspect. Anyway. Cue a court martial. The accused pleaded he had been overcome with distress and could not help it. Diarrhoea. Probably the cook's fault in the first place.

But the cook, witness for the prosecution said, "I had an h'opportunity to examine the h'evidence, and it was h'obviously done with an h'effort. "

Thank you all for your thoughtful observations. I have enjoyed them very much, and hope the rant was not too annoying. Shall we let Billy Collins have the 'last word' - (that thing which does not exist unless it is the last word, physically and 'literally') and refer the premise of the rant back to his poem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New here. Not so new to this.

Fanfare! The Aesthetica Creative Writing Award 2019

Back
Top