Slashdot Mirror
Literature Teeters on the Edge of a 'Gr8 Fall'
aicrules writes "Yahoo news is reporting that the great works of literature often read and discussed by the brighter of our up-and-comers could be the latest victim of reaching the lowest common denominator at the potential expense of everyone. The article describes the efforts of Dot Mobile to make such literary masterpieces as Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet more accessible. From the article, 'We are confident that our version of 'text' books will genuinely help thousands of students remember key plots and quotes, and raise up educational standards rather than decrease levels of literacy,'"
People have been condensing things like this for humor for years. Ophelia's last line: "Glub!" And remember the story about consensing the Lord's Prayer into a text message? (I think it had lines like "God, UR GR8")
So we take something that's been used for humor, and use it for Cliffs Notes instead. Big whoop. No one is going to think that the summaries are the original works. I mean, anyone who has taken a logic class has come up with "2B v ~2B"
Although it does remind me of the time in high school when we were reading Romeo and Juliet aloud in class. I read Mercutio's "Queen Mab" speech, got through the whole thing, then looked at the footnotes, and had the reaction, "I said what?!?!?" (From then on, I read the footnotes with the text, not afterward.)
the net impact of this will be nil. What person who was going to read some classic piece of literature is going to forego that experience after checking out the text message summary?
And who will go read the real thing after getting one of these?
In fact I also will go out on a limb and predict that this marketing ploy by the cell phone company will fail. Kids will not want these phones and that will greatly overwhelm the couple idiot parents who might think this would be a good idea.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
There's a type of home game where you can spell things out in "leet" speak, or you get cards with strange letter and number cominations and you have to decipher the meaning. Anyone remember what it's called? That's what I think of when I see someone writing "R U Their".
I can't understand the vast numbers of kids and people my age even that write with such sheer illiteracy that it makes me think twice about talking to them. Should I really expect someone who asks "How RU", to understand me when I talk about solar flares, or which car gets the best milage? Sure there are bright people that have given in to pretending they're typing on a cell phone, but why would someone try to initiate communication with other english reading person, with a line like "Hey Jou wat u doin?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Don't we get warnings about this every decade for the last several centuries? Wasn't writing in the vernacular going to ruin writing back ever since writing was invented?
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
In more modern spelling this becomes:
Was this considered a radical watering-down, back in the day?
I've also considered what Shakespeare's plays would look like as IRC logs; I suspect such an approach would work at least as well as the blog version of Pepys' Diaries
Okay, maybe I will say more.
I've only read a very small sampling of great literature. A bit of Charles Dickens, Charlotte and Emily Bronte, Leo Tolstoy, and a few others. I can't claim to be well-read in this regard.
However, the little that I have read has had substantial benefit to me. I have been exposed to life circumstances, themes, thoughts, philosophies in a depth that has expanded my ability to see outside my own limited experiences, empathize and sympathize with other people, see the possibility that I might be wrong or prejudiced. As well, my use of language has improved in terms of vocabulary, style and metaphor.
There is no way that anyone can convince me that simplifying and making this literature "more accessible" is in any way beneficial except in the most limited fact-retention sense. Knowing the facts of a plot comes nowhere close to experiencing the expression of those facts in a sublime piece of literature.
That said, I appreciate the sentiment. I think there is a lot of legitimate concern that students do not get exposed to these sorts of literary works. However, this approach is at best a bandaid over a minor symptom of a much deeper problem. How much better would it be to address the real problems of the quality of our education and child-raising? I'm not saying that I know the real solution... that is beyond me... but I can see when something is missing the mark, and possibly harmful.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
I don't see why it is so important to read Romeo and Juliet and other plays. They are meant to be watched. The actors are supposed to play a major role in how the characters are precieved. Take the students to see the play performed or bring in the movie. What really made me think Shakespear was awesome, was the Romeo and Juliet movie with Leonardo Dicaprio.
If you are going to just bring in scripts for you class to read, why not It's A Wonderful Life or Star Wars? That is only half the experience, and one not meant to be thrust upon the audience.
The point of Shakespeare and Dickens is not to memorize what happens. It's not history class. The Picture of Dorian Gray isn't a story about a portrait, it isn't a history lesson about what crazy stuff happened to some rich guy in the 19th century, it's a wonderful work of literature about a man and a time period.
Memorizing a few plot points and quotes from Faulkner does absolutely squat for learning anything whatsoever about these works of art. This isn't raising educational standards.
Turning Hamlet into a text message removes 100% of what makes it important. There's no point to it anymore at all.
We put far too much devotion into the "classics' and developing our "canon recognition", and not enough time into actual thinking up new and interesting ideas.
Because "the classics", if not actually defining our culture, give us a common foundation on which to build a shared cultural experience.
Did a dead semi-anonymous 16th century hack pop-poet/playwright really create the best-ever-and-always set of English writings? Of course not! He wrote the equivalent of "Seinfeld" for the televidiots of his day. But like it or not, that does give us a certain common ground on which to relate to one another socially. We like "lowbrow" humor. We prefer the good guy to win. We want blood and guts and gore and veins in our teeth. We enjoy Moe getting poked in the eyes by Larry. We want to see the queen kiss a Federline, everyone to tragically die at the end, and the servants to get away with a good practical joke on their bosses.
Now, based on the above, does it commit some grievous sin to "translate" the works of this ancient hack into a more modern form? To that, I would say no, with a qualification - One can modernize without butchering. Converting Hamlet to the style of texting fails to make the work more accessible, instead tailoring it to a very niche subculture of rebellion-without-a-clue (and likely a short-lived subculture at that, as it only even exists as the fleeting intersection of a technological limitation with an economic convenience).
What use is it to teach kids about masterpieces of English literature without teaching them how to properly read them? As far as I'm concerned, this is doubleplusungood. You want kids to get more into Shakespeare? Take them to see a play, which is how Shakespeare intended us to experience his works! Hell, even watching BBC's Pride and Prejudice is better than "Evry1GtsMaryd."
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
It reminds me a heck of a lot of the speech Captain Beatty gavein Fahrenheit 451, where he talks about how this line offended a group, so it got trimmed, that line bothered someone else who didn't understand it, so it got nixed, and so on, until it got to the point where nobody had the patience to read the whole work, and eventually, books were eliminated (in the film, newspapers were in comic form without any words). Contrary to what some have said in other threads, Shakespeare is not that hard to understand -- if you're willing to make an effort at first, it gets easy once you get over that "hump".
I don't think we'll lose the classics, but I think we're heading toward a tiered society (if we're not there already) composed of the literate and well educated and the underclass who stay in non-thinking jobs, a lot like Metropolis.
Whenever I read news like this, I want to write Ray Bradbury and say I knew he was right from when I first read F451, and it's a damn shame he wasn't wrong.
'We are confident that our version of 'text' books will genuinely help thousands of students remember key plots and quotes, and raise up educational standards rather than decrease levels of literacy,
Since when is thoughtless memorization of plots and quotes educational? Isn't the point of studying literature to learn how to think analytically, read between the lines, address social issues, and use language effectively?
I think teaching the "classics" is a bad approach to begin with. The classics are so out-of-touch with modern society and culture that the qualities that made them great at the time are almost completely lost on modern students unless they also invest huge amounts of time understanding the language and culture of the era. There's plenty of modern, current-day writing of outstanding quality, which could serve all the same instructional purposes while also actually being interesting and easily related to by students.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
I think teaching the "classics" is a bad approach to begin with. The classics are so out-of-touch with modern society and culture that the qualities that made them great at the time are almost completely lost on modern students unless they also invest huge amounts of time understanding the language and culture of the era.
They are not out of touch with modern society, because so much of human society never changes. People are no more nor less pious, brutal, kind, evil, wise, or merciful than they ever were. Many things stay the same, even such contemporary things as the War on Terror have uncanny analogues to past conflicts. The classics, by keeping the universe of discourse in the past, reveal what is timeless and universal about the human experience. You learn that some things never change.
I don't think we'll lose the classics, but I think we're heading toward a tiered society (if we're not there already) composed of the literate and well educated and the underclass who stay in non-thinking jobs, a lot like Metropolis.
There has never been a time or a place where this has not been the case. Literature, the arts and so on has always been a matter for a cultural "elite" (and I don't mean it in the republican/conservative sense) and the low-to-middle class people that aspire to it.
If an artform, or a particular piece of art, has genuine, lasting mass appeal, it is normally exorcized from the "canon" and not longer a part of that which you "should" aspire to know. The whole point of Great Literature (as opposed to great literature) is to separate Those Who Have Read It from the unwashed masses who cheerfully haven't.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
So what if people don't learn the old classics. Quite frankly they aren't of great relevance to modern life and for most kids being forced to read them encourages a dislike of literature and reading.
High Literature is a type of art that appeals to a certain small class of people. This is great and fine for them but there is little reason to inflict it on those who don't enjoy it.
Ultimately the reasons given for reading literature simply don't apply to forcing great literature on unappreciative audiences. The reason we read literature rather than just essays is that it should entertain as it teaches. If the audience doesn't appreciate it then it fails at this task.
Reading literature under duress just generates resentment and dislike it doesn't encourage a lifelong love of literature. We would be better off choosing books that had action and other aspects the students liked but combined this with sophisticated issues and interesting questions. There is no objective reason Ender's game isn't just as appropriate to teach in class as Shakespeare and the students will like it way more.
Making students remember quotes is just dumb and if literature is taught well the students will *want* to read the books and notes or little helpers won't be relevant. If the book needs outside help or encourages the use of cliff notes then something is wrong with the course or the book isn't appropriate for the audience.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too: