Just reading or seriously studying literature?

[alisonslp]

I go through this debate in my mind every year but as my children go up in the grades, it seems more difficult to resolve. The two that concern me most right now are my 11yr olds. They are advanced 3-4 yrs in reading. Most of their readings from this past year consisted of works from 9-10th grade reading lists. They both love to read and they seem to comprehend not only the surface material but deeper characteristics of the stories, though at their age, I have to introduce the discussion and then they are able to bring forth the details. I guess my internal debate comes from remembering my public schooling, sitting in lit class and painstakingly tearing the stories apart for every little piece of meaning. (honors and AP level classes). I loved to read. It wasn't something I really minded and I found it relatively easy, but looking back I question whether it was necessary... Do I have a better understanding of lit today because of those courses? Do I read books differently now than if I didn't have that background?

 

So, for those who have already been there or are going through it now - how much do we need to "teach" in literature? Is this something that natural readers will just develop in their own time or is it something that truly has to be taught?

 

Do I need to begin setting lesson plans for specific story analysis (guided or independent) or will the simple discussions we have about the meaning, history, setting of the texts be enough to guide them in their own development? And how much of this is needed in terms of college preparation?

[Harriet Vane]

How old are your kids?

[TippyCanoe]

.

[Tress]

Doodler,

 

what an awesome post! This is going in my files!

 

Thank you.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't do literary analysis before high school, and I majored in literature. My eldest dd was a very advanced reader. When she was 12, her favorite book was The Iliad.

 

I

Conventional literary analysis is overemphasized among homeschoolers. Many kids will enjoy learning about a work's structure or symbolism or point of view; but most will not. What they want to talk about is what many other adults in other fields besides literary criticism want to talk about: what the characters do and think, how the plot twists or meanders, what beautiful phrases stand out, what characters take life in their minds, what cultural or social issues in the stories have meaning for them. Rather than narrowing discussion/papers to literary form, I would open it wide to whatever aspects of literature engage your kids. A Shakespeare play, a poem, a science fiction novel, an ancient epic, all have meaning to people far outside the realms of lit/crit, and these people engage and do things with a work that are varied and exciting.

 

I see literary analysis differently than you. Literary analysis is mainly about getting to the core of one thing: what does the author want you to believe?

 

T.H. White wants you to believe something very different about warfare than J.R.R. Tolkien. Why? What major historical events did they life through? What life experiences did they have? What decisions did they make? How do those things inform the story?

 

Getting to the meat of that and making an informed argument about it goes to the very heart of rhetoric.

 

It makes it easier to do all of this:

High school kids would be better served by more emphasis on rhetorical analysis of multiple genres of texts, including lots of non-fiction: how to interpret, understand, and evaluate newspapers, science articles, political advertising/speeches/debates, interviews, advertising (billions and billions of dollars are going yearly into research on how to manipulate minds through images and catch phrases), competing claims, history, etc.

[8filltheheart]

My advanced dd loves literature. We have had so much fun over the last few yrs. (our lit times are some of my all time favorite memories of homeschooling)

 

We spend hrs following the rabbit trails from allusions to other works. Last yr we read Anne of Green Gables and the allusions were so numerous that we had to pick and choose what we read. I have described our yr here in about the middle of the thread: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?p=3235252&highlight=gables#post3235252

 

Annotated editions make this approach very easy for moms like me that would miss the allusions. Literary Lessons from LOTRs is another fabulous source.

[goldberry]

Personally I was a voracious reading and DESPISED picking the story to death. However, this year 9th grade I am doing a little bit of that with DD just so she understands the process for future years. There are a few books we are planning to "dissect" and more that we just plan to discuss, in the manner the previous OP mentioned.

 

She is reading The Hobbit, one of my favorite books. The idea of "dissecting" it almost made me nauseous!

 

 

 

High school kids would be better served by more emphasis on rhetorical analysis of multiple genres of texts, including lots of non-fiction: how to interpret, understand, and evaluate newspapers, science articles, political advertising/speeches/debates, interviews, advertising (billions and billions of dollars are going yearly into research on how to manipulate minds through images and catch phrases), competing claims, history, etc.

 

 

Any recommended resources for this, other than just winging it? We did the Fallacy Detective last year, which was kind of an introduction. But I'd like to go much deeper with her in high school.

[regentrude]

Doodler,

I very much appreciate reading your point of view. Many of your thoughts resonate with my own attitude towards literature and teaching literature. It is good to hear them voiced by somebody with your background (as a physicist, I constantly question my approach to English).

Thanks.

[regentrude]

I see literary analysis differently than you. Literary analysis is mainly about getting to the core of one thing: what does the author want you to believe?

T.H. White wants you to believe something very different about warfare than J.R.R. Tolkien. Why? What major historical events did they life through? What life experiences did they have? What decisions did they make? How do those things inform the story?

Getting to the meat of that and making an informed argument about it goes to the very heart of rhetoric.

 

I agree that these are interesting things and greatly worth studying - but I was under the impression that these questions do not fall under formal literature analysis. Isn't that rather along the lines of an interpretation? I though actual lit analysis focused on the technical aspects, stylistic techniques etc, the "how" it is done?

Where is EsterMaria when I need her???

[Colleen in NS]

I agree that these are interesting things and greatly worth studying - but I was under the impression that these questions do not fall under formal literature analysis. Isn't that rather along the lines of an interpretation? I though actual lit analysis focused on the technical aspects, stylistic techniques etc, the "how" it is done?

Where is EsterMaria when I need her???

 

I'm thinking that doing lit. analysis (technical aspects, style, etc. - the things I see talked about in TWEM) will lead to what Mrs. Mungo is talking about (and the things she is talking about are wrestled with if the student does context pages as rec'd. in TWTM - I think also if TWEM logic and rhetoric stage questions are used, too).

 

coloradoperkins, my ds has gone through Critical Thinking I and II, and Traditional Logic I and part of II. My dd is now going through CT I with me, and it helps with what you are asking about. (but maybe Fallacy Detective is similar, I don't know) I remember reading here awhile ago that it's great to learn fallacies, and it's even more helpful to learn formal logic, because you can then start to recognize fallacies anyway, even if you don't know the names of them - they just won't make logical sense.

[Bang!Zoom!]

Bauer has written an overview of what is literary analysis and when to teach it here: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/what-is-literary-analysis-and-when-to-teach-it/

 

I think there might be some room to talk about the difference between literary analysis and literary criticism. Two very different things.

[Colleen in NS]

Bauer has written an overview of what is literary analysis and when to teach it here: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/what-is-literary-analysis-and-when-to-teach-it/

 

I think there might be some room to talk about the difference between literary analysis and literary criticism. Two very different things.

 

Hmm...yes, I think so, too. In thinking about TWEM/TWTM suggestions, I think putting a book into context and then reading through it all the way are the beginning, asking the TWEM logic stage questions would fall under analysis, and the rhetoric stage questions are the criticism part of it. In my mind, I do have to separate analysis from criticism, or else I can't explain the thinking process.

[Colleen in NS]

So, for those who have already been there or are going through it now - how much do we need to "teach" in literature? Is this something that natural readers will just develop in their own time or is it something that truly has to be taught?

 

Do I need to begin setting lesson plans for specific story analysis (guided or independent) or will the simple discussions we have about the meaning, history, setting of the texts be enough to guide them in their own development? And how much of this is needed in terms of college preparation?

 

SWB also has a great lit. analysis audio at PHP. Listening to that lecture put my mind at ease about a lot of things. I think some kids will naturally dive deeply into literature, but others need to be taught the process of thinking through lit. (and I don't mean that I think kids should read and study lit. only)

[alisonslp]

Wow! Thanks everyone! your input is wonderful. We do quite a bit of discussion with each book but I have been weary about delving too deep, in fear of killing their love of reading. I guess one of my dilemmas is that they are now beginning to read the works that high schoolers traditionally analyze and I torn between "teaching" these books as I would to a high schooler or continue to guide them as I have been and allow them to just enjoy these works of art without the stress and burden of fully tearing it apart. And if I choose the latter, will they eventually gain the analysis skills on their own through maturity. I fully realize they have 6 years before college bound so we have plenty of time and we can certainly revisit many of these books later in the high school years.

 

thank again! You all have given me some affirmation that what I am doing is fine for their age.

[TippyCanoe]

.

[Bang!Zoom!]

Doodler, I'm hoping you might have something to say about a question that's been bugging me for a bit.

 

When one is reading modern critic of historical literature, say..for a canon of works..or even an essay.. (I'm speaking fictional works, philosophical, etc. - not informational/data/proofed) - how much author background, or at what level of reference do you think is necessary to include to make the conclusions valid - especially when jumping cultures?

 

I was reading the summa work of Harold Bloom, The Anatomy of Influence, on the NYT site today, and I found it really distant - almost a unbearable leap of faith to look at it as a whole.

 

I don't know if this sort of thing interests you, but I really felt puzzled by it; walked away with more questions than answers really.

 

I've been goofing on and off with his stuff almost a year or so now on occasion; just haven't made up my mind where this guy falls on the scale of it all.

 

Any thoughts?

[besroma]

:lurk5:

[Maura in NY]

Everything Doodle said -- both from my personal opinion, and now from the perspective of a parent of a college sophomore. My ds goes to my alma mater. Back then, freshmen took "Freshman Composition and Literature". Now it's "Writing & Rhetoric" -- and a thousand times more useful to the student.

[TammyS]

T.H. White wants you to believe something very different about warfare than J.R.R. Tolkien. Why? What major historical events did they life through? What life experiences did they have? What decisions did they make? How do those things inform the story?

 

 

I just have to point out, because I can't help it, that Tolkien was highly critical of this style of literary analysis (for more on that, you can listen to the podcasts of "The Tolkien Professor" a prof at Washington College, or read some of Tolkien's writing on the subject). He thought it was a lazy way of doing literary analysis, as if by understanding the author you could somehow divine a magic key that would unlock the literature for you. Rather, he thought that stories should stand on their own, and that you should be able to get whatever you were going to get, from the text, not from knowledge (which is often wrong) about the author. He actually wrote articles about this lampooning the literary analysis of his books by people of his own day.

[TammyS]

I am also in the minority view that I don't think that literary analysis is much good to children who are too young, even when they are great readers (my son has been reading Homer and Virgil, in English, just for kicks since he was 8 or 9). We will do some literary analysis in 12th grade, but until then I am reserving our energy for rhetorical analysis, while also hopefully giving him more time to mature (intelligence and maturity do not track together, who knew?:lol:).

 

I also tend to disregard a lot of the literature selections recommended by various sources for kids at this age. I just don't think that the teens have the maturity or life experience to really understand what the author is really trying to display. I find this true of mostly the existential issues presented in a lot of modern selections (Glass Menagerie, Death of a Salesman, that sort of thing).

[Candid]

I agree that these are interesting things and greatly worth studying - but I was under the impression that these questions do not fall under formal literature analysis. Isn't that rather along the lines of an interpretation? I though actual lit analysis focused on the technical aspects, stylistic techniques etc, the "how" it is done?

Where is EsterMaria when I need her???

 

I'd like to refine what Mrs. Mungo said a bit.

 

I don't believe you need to study the writer in detail, but you would be wise to understand their world view before diving into their work as some things they write of rest on that world view. As an example, I was working with a group on a piece of ancient literature that used salt as a metaphor. They were adults, but couldn't quite get the metaphor. I pointed out to them that prior to refegeration salt was extremely valuable for its preservative properties, that during the American Civil War there were deliberate attacks and raids by each side on salt making areas (http://iwouldneverwearorange.blogspot.com/search?q=salt). Once they put their minds onto the difference in thinking between that time and ours they were aided in thinking about the metaphor.

 

Where I am bothered by your description is the separation you see between the analysis and the interpretation. They go hand in hand. This is like trying to separate the the theory part of science from the hands on experimentation; they should go hand in hand.

 

To use Mrs. Mungo's example, what in the White's work that is different from that in Tolkien's in regards to war? If you do know about the writer's opinions outside their work, then I certainly think it is okay to look for that opinion in the work as long as you don't let the outside work drive what you do inside the work. You must have solid proof in the work itself to justify any conclusions you make.

 

I always tell my lit students that whatever they read in a book is only there because the author put it there. None of it just happened. So anything in a work maybe a clue to its overall meaning. Literary analysis are the tools you use to look for those clues.

 

One of the problems I see with how this is done is often students are only taught the tools and never shown how important they are in finding what the point of a story is. It's like studying music theory without the music, and YES, it is dull and boring.

[Candid]

I just have to point out, because I can't help it, that Tolkien was highly critical of this style of literary analysis (for more on that, you can listen to the podcasts of "The Tolkien Professor" a prof at Washington College, or read some of Tolkien's writing on the subject). He thought it was a lazy way of doing literary analysis, as if by understanding the author you could somehow divine a magic key that would unlock the literature for you. Rather, he thought that stories should stand on their own, and that you should be able to get whatever you were going to get, from the text, not from knowledge (which is often wrong) about the author. He actually wrote articles about this lampooning the literary analysis of his books by people of his own day.

 

Tolkien was a medieval scholar and as such he had little to go on in terms of knowledge about those he studied (he was fortunate when a medieval work had a know author). He did not work with modern works where much about an author is known. I'm sure his essay is funny, but I'm not sure it is correct. Knowledge of an author should serve to help the readers to figure out his works. The trick is to not find things that don't exist in the work.

[TammyS]

Tolkien was a medieval scholar and as such he had little to go on in terms of knowledge about those he studied (he was fortunate when a medieval work had a know author). He did not work with modern works where much about an author is known. I'm sure his essay is funny, but I'm not sure it is correct. Knowledge of an author should serve to help the readers to figure out his works. The trick is to not find things that don't exist in the work.

 

He was not only a medieval scholar, he was also a linguist and classicist. His essays are not funny, but make some very good points about the problems of thinking that you can unlock a piece of literature by supposed knowledge of the author (supposed because while you can know surface information, such as where they lived and when, it is much harder to know how that affected them, particularly if they did not write about themselves...a lot of assumptions get made based on surface knowledge that an author felt or thought in certain ways and tends to get painted in rather unsubtle ways that neglect the complexity of human thought and feeling, leaving nuance on the side of the road).

[medawyn]

I love the thought-provoking comments in this post. When I taught English in the school system, it was a challenge to push away my OWN love of analysis and criticism and find ways to ensure that meaningful discussions about literature that resonated with my students were happening. I've always though analysis was neat. :-)

 

Just a few practical suggestions for your advanced dd's. As a late middle/early high schooler, I despised tramping through a book with a teacher being told "this is what the author intended, etc.". However, I read Madam Bovary sometime around 13-14, and my mother promptly handed over her Norton Classical edition after I finished. I loved the essays in the back, both the contemporary criticism and the subsequent modern analysis/criticism. I absolutely would NOT say I understood all (or even most) of this, but I was enthralled by how deeply others had thought about this book. Through the years, I have found success with Norton Critical or well-annotated editions for some of my advanced students.

 

To me the beauty of a classic at your DD's ages is the realization that the text goes deeper, and that the book can be reread at many levels and with different levels of life experience.

[Candid]

He was not only a medieval scholar, he was also a linguist and classicist. His essays are not funny, but make some very good points about the problems of thinking that you can unlock a piece of literature by supposed knowledge of the author (supposed because while you can know surface information, such as where they lived and when, it is much harder to know how that affected them, particularly if they did not write about themselves...a lot of assumptions get made based on surface knowledge that an author felt or thought in certain ways and tends to get painted in rather unsubtle ways that neglect the complexity of human thought and feeling, leaving nuance on the side of the road).

 

I agree that you should be able to use the work alone, but ignoring solid biographical evidence about an author is silly; working in conjunction with the work and known biography is a strong path to use to analysis a work.

 

Tolkien had many good points, but I've read his biography and I know he had weaknesses so I have doubts about this particular point. He did not work with modern works so his experience there is limited.

[TippyCanoe]

.

[8filltheheart]

Tolkien is very ideologically transparent, in terms of what the book presents/claims about war, industrial technology, etc. Not all books so clearly represent an authorial world view. In fact many deliberately create ambiguity, hold different points of view/world views in tension, or construct literary worlds in which a "truth" or a clear position cannot be known. If you teach that the ONLY way to go about literary analysis is to understand an author's life and influences in order to ferret out the specific values of a work or understand what the author wants you to understand or believe, you're going to run into major problems when you move into modern and post-modern works (if not before), or when you encounter unreliable narrators, internal contradictions, or instances in which "negative capability" is called for (the ability to hold contradictions in mind without seeking for their resolution, without determining, for instance, what the author intended).

 

Doing conventional literary analysis is absolutely fine. Using authors' biographies and historical context is fine. Certain works lend themselves perfectly well to this type of work and thinking. BUT -- it has its limits, it's not going to work well with every text, and it's not going to engage every kid. There are many kids who would be better served by a more open approach to exploring other aspects of a given text, explorations which might not be traditionally or narrowly "literary" -- that is, might not deal with the author, with literary structure, character analysis, or language.

 

"Writing about literature," researching or analyzing different aspects of a text and its production, does not have to equal formal literary analysis: dissection of the text and its metaphors, structures, stylistic qualities, character motivation, etc. It CAN, but it doesn't have to. Your child will not be short-changed if you discuss texts informally together and allow your child to research or write about an aspect of the book that is compelling to the child, rather than a more conventional literary analysis prompt. You can enhance and develop critical understanding of a text and refine writing abilities in many ways, not limited to formal literary characteristics or elements.

 

That's all I'm saying. If the standard formal approaches work well for you and your child, terrific. But there's more than one way to approach a text if that kind of analysis threatens to ruin your child's love of reading, even at the high school level. Analytical thinking about a text doesn't have to be limited to its formal literary qualities or its author's background and belief system if that does not engage your child.

 

Also, it's interesting to note that what can seem at first glance like a topic unconnected to understanding the text deeply can actually do that quite well, without going at it in a conventional manner. My dd and I once went through a hundred years of illustrations for Alice in Wonderland (her idea), printing images from the internet or copying them from library books and assembling a scrapbook. We spent hours comparing and contrasting not only the drawing styles, but what incidents in the text were chosen for illustrations, speculating as to why, talking about how the different drawings showed different reader perspectives. You can't have discussions like this without going back to the text and re-reading pretty closely or without getting into historical and cultural topics as well. The project was just as demanding, just as sophisticated, and equally analytical in terms of thinking about the text, as a conventional analysis.

 

My dd and I are also enjoying a massive infusion of BBC filmed adaptations of classics -- after she's read them. We take turns speculating about how the opening scene will work: how the director will change or adapt what's in the first chapter of the book, what will be cut, what will be emphasized, etc. Afterwards, we talk about what historical elements of the text were retained and which were de-emphasized for a modern day audience. Again, this is not a classically "literary analysis" approach. But it requires a high level of thinking about the text and about the places in which visual and print media differ most widely.

 

There are myriads of wonderful ways to explore literary texts if you've got what the OP called a "natural reader," the kind of kid whose love of reading would be damaged by an emphasis on close formal analysis or author studies. I'm not trying to say that no one should do regular literary studies! I'm saying that if you suspect or know they are counterproductive for your particular child, if they do not engage, or create resistance, there are many other paths to thinking in deep, complex, and sophisticated terms about a book.

 

KarenAnne, I find your description of what you have done w/your dd re:illustrators interesting. You have shared the Alice in Wonderland illustration study in the past (which I had forgotten until you reposted it here.) My 8th grader and I are incorporating into her lit this yr a study of the various artists and their different techniques for illustrating Wind in the Willows.

 

However, we are also researching the cultural/familial influences on Kenneth Grahame and how he incorporated them into the work. My experience with my students is that learning "how" to be a reader who understands specific references which are literary and/or cultural which writers' specifically write into their stories actually increases appreciation for what qualifies as good writing. It is the "how to" of reading discriminatingly for what word selection means vs. just individual word meanings.

 

I found the link one*mom posted recently about an English grads response to Mortimer Adler's book an incredibly compelling insight as to how "reading" is more than "reading." http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?p=4173141#post4173141 Reading is a skill that many need to be nurtured to develop. I don't think that has to come anywhere close to nitpicking. (there is no way I am going to analyze the meter of every Shakespearean play. However, to simply understand the skill that took, that develops appreciation for his genius.) I know I am not nit-picking w/my kids when we analyze literature. However, we are understanding that authors do select words and phrases that hold more depth than their surface reading. It is definitely not something my sons would ever have picked up on w/o actually being taught.;):tongue_smilie::lol: (math and science seemed to ooze via intuition. What constitutes great writing.....not so much.)

Edited August 6, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[8filltheheart]

Well, I think there is room for both. First of alll, your children are only 11. The only "analysis" I might do is plot, characterization, setting and theme. Have you listened to Susan Wise Baer's literary analysis talk. I thought she was right on track. Let them enjoy the literature before you pick it to death. I taught Windows to the World in my co-op this year. It is a good introduction to literary analysis. Yet, I would only have my child really analyze one book like that each quarter. No more than 4 books a year with in depth, pick it apart kind of analysis in high school. They read 8-10 more. Some I have them write an essay on. Some we just discuss what we thought was interesting. Sometimes I give them a test. Sometimes they compare two works. But to do detailed literary analysis for EVERY SINGLE book would absolutely kill the love of reading. Did my son get as much out of Death of a Salesman when he just read it for fun. Probably no, but who cares... Moderation is the key.

 

I agree that moderation is important. The approach I have been taking w/my advanced dd is to take a novel of her choice (we create this study together) and select influencing works and alluded to works to read. The original work is the work that we really dig into and the additional works we sort of take the rabbit trail approach. Some we just read. Some leave dd begging to find out more info and do a mini version of what we are doing w/the main work.

 

Last yr when we did this w/Anne of Green Gables I would never have anticipated the amt of poetry we ended up reading b/c of our rabbit trails.

 

Anyway, by doing it with a single work for the yr, she has learned tremendous insight into how to read for deeper meanings that she would have otherwise have missed. She loves it and sees it more as detective mining. It is the type of challenge that many advanced students crave.

 

Her brothers, otoh, weren't/aren't as enthusiastic about literature in general, but I still want them to understand that there is reading a book and then there is reading a book. Even my physics/math loving ds was on the edge of his seat last yr when we were reading Shakespeare and he was understanding the Catholic allusions that were there for all to see, but yet, not, at the same time.

Edited August 6, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[alisonslp]

I know I am not nit-picking w/my kids when we analyze literature. However, we are understanding that authors do select words and phrases that hold more depth than their surface reading. It is definitely not something my sons would ever have picked up on w/o actually being taught.;):tongue_smilie::lol: (math and science seemed to ooze via intuition. What constitutes great writing.....not so much.)

 

And I guess this gets to the heart of my original question - does it really need to be taught? Do natural readers eventually get this on their own? And if not, is it even really that important for them to learn it? Yes, I know the high schoolers in PS learn it but they learn lots that I don't qualify as being worthy of the time spent... Will they do OK in their college courses without the in depth analysis background?

[8filltheheart]

And I guess this gets to the heart of my original question - does it really need to be taught? Do natural readers eventually get this on their own? And if not, is it even really that important for them to learn it? Yes, I know the high schoolers in PS learn it but they learn lots that I don't qualify as being worthy of the time spent... Will they do OK in their college courses without the in depth analysis background?

 

I don't see it as just an issue for their college courses. My math/science kids didn't (or probably won't) take any/many lit courses at college anyway.

 

My motivation is also for their own personal understanding and enjoyment. Reading a book like LOTRs as just a story is one level of understanding. Reading and understanding the influence of Norse mythology, Tolkien's love of language and what Elvish meant to him personally, his deep faith.......that takes the enjoyment to a higher level. (at least it has for our family. I think my kids enjoy reading more for it. not less.)

 

Will they learn on their own? I don't think anyone can answer that b/c for some probably yes and some probably no.

[Mrs Mungo]

There Is too much commentary to reply to each one. But, I majored in literature and minored in archeology, so I definitely know what you are talking about Doodler. I agree and disagree with a lot of what you have said. Can I figure out what the author to Beowulf thought about war, based on his life? No. Can I figure it out from the context of the story? Absolutely, one needs to be able to do both, and one needs to be able to think, "why are people still reading this?" One of the plot points that stood out to me (as a military wife) was when the king goes to fight the dragon. The people are ticked. Why does he go? A sense of duty? Boredom? One last hurrah? To protect others? Hard to say. But, you can see the conundrum when you couch it in modern terms. We had a soldier who volunteered for deployment when it was not his "turn." His wife was pregnant. He was killed. Even if he had the most noble intentions, I can see how his wife might be mad and feel that his actions were selfish.

 

So, there are lots of different ways to analyze. Of course the work should always be able to stand on its own, but modern authors have written and spoken about their opinions and work, which does help inform the reader.

 

I am not sure why one cannot apply it to non-fiction, except for a lack of practice. Election year is the perfect time to apply that type of critical thinking.

 

I think analyzing themes, structure, etc are tools, rather than an end product. If that makes sense.

 

And we don't analyze every work we read, not by a long shot. I have no intention of ruining some of dd's favorite works. ;). BUT, one of our favorite things to analyze? Songs.

 

And so it was that later

as the miller told his tale

that her face, at first just ghostly,

turned a whiter shade of pale

 

I just have to ask-if they are referring to this guy as the miller, what kind of story is it? How is he acting? Who do you imagine? It is the type of lesson that is short and sweet, but illustrates the Great Conversation theory. ;)

[Colleen in NS]

There Is too much commentary to reply to each one. But, I majored in literature and minored in archeology, so I definitely know what you are talking about Doodler. I agree and disagree with a lot of what you have said. Can I figure out what the author to Beowulf thought about war, based on his life? No. Can I figure it out from the context of the story? Absolutely, one needs to be able to do both, and one needs to be able to think, "why are people still reading this?" One of the plot points that stood out to me (as a military wife) was when the king goes to fight the dragon. The people are ticked. Why does he go? A sense of duty? Boredom? One last hurrah? To protect others? Hard to say. But, you can see the conundrum when you couch it in modern terms. We had a soldier who volunteered for deployment when it was not his "turn." His wife was pregnant. He was killed. Even if he had the most noble intentions, I can see how his wife might be mad and feel that his actions were selfish.

 

So, there are lots of different ways to analyze. Of course the work should always be able to stand on its own, but modern authors have written and spoken about their opinions and work, which does help inform the reader.

 

I am not sure why one cannot apply it to non-fiction, except for a lack of practice. Election year is the perfect time to apply that type of critical thinking.

 

I think analyzing themes, structure, etc are tools, rather than an end product. If that makes sense.

 

And we don't analyze every work we read, not by a long shot. I have no intention of ruining some of dd's favorite works. ;). BUT, one of our favorite things to analyze? Songs.

 

 

 

I just have to ask-if they are referring to this guy as the miller, what kind of story is it? How is he acting? Who do you imagine? It is the type of lesson that is short and sweet, but illustrates the Great Conversation theory. ;)

 

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. I agree with everything and esp. the part I bolded. I think it's very helpful to learn and practice the tools, and they certainly don't need to be done on every single book. But, to me, having the tools is priceless.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Colleen in NS

[TippyCanoe]

.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I go through this debate in my mind every year but as my children go up in the grades, it seems more difficult to resolve. The two that concern me most right now are my 11yr olds. They are advanced 3-4 yrs in reading. Most of their readings from this past year consisted of works from 9-10th grade reading lists. They both love to read and they seem to comprehend not only the surface material but deeper characteristics of the stories, though at their age, I have to introduce the discussion and then they are able to bring forth the details. I guess my internal debate comes from remembering my public schooling, sitting in lit class and painstakingly tearing the stories apart for every little piece of meaning. (honors and AP level classes). I loved to read. It wasn't something I really minded and I found it relatively easy, but looking back I question whether it was necessary... Do I have a better understanding of lit today because of those courses? Do I read books differently now than if I didn't have that background?

 

So, for those who have already been there or are going through it now - how much do we need to "teach" in literature? Is this something that natural readers will just develop in their own time or is it something that truly has to be taught?

 

Do I need to begin setting lesson plans for specific story analysis (guided or independent) or will the simple discussions we have about the meaning, history, setting of the texts be enough to guide them in their own development? And how much of this is needed in terms of college preparation?

 

I intend for us to be reading a lot again this year. But how we treat each book depends on what use I'm hoping to get out of it.

 

I'm teaching and Intro to Lit class in coop. We will be concentrating on techniques of literary analysis with an emphasis on what makes a story tick. These stories will be annotated, talked about and written about. This are the works where we'll be trying to search out metaphor and simile, discussing pacing and plot and generally them apart.

 

They will be assigned literary works that are appropriate to their history studies. For example, Red Badge of Courage and All Quiet on the Western Front. The point of these works isn't characterization and conflict, but to reveal something about the time in which they were written or written about. I will have them complete an AP English Major Works Data Sheet for these just so they can refresh their memories in a couple years come AP English test time.

 

I will assign some other works of literary merit. These will be books that we don't dissect, but I will still ask them to do a data sheet so they are able to recall the gist of the story.

 

They will also do a lot of reading just for fun.

[1Togo]

For those of you who are exploring literature via non-traditional methods like comparing illustrations or looking for and examining influences on the author, what do you expect in the way of output? Is this work discussiononly or is there something on paper? I am asking this because I've seen interesting project ideas on this forum and other forums, but I would like to understand how to take this beyond the idea stage.

Edited August 9, 2012 by 1Togo

[Sebastian (a lady)]

He was not only a medieval scholar, he was also a linguist and classicist. His essays are not funny, but make some very good points about the problems of thinking that you can unlock a piece of literature by supposed knowledge of the author (supposed because while you can know surface information, such as where they lived and when, it is much harder to know how that affected them, particularly if they did not write about themselves...a lot of assumptions get made based on surface knowledge that an author felt or thought in certain ways and tends to get painted in rather unsubtle ways that neglect the complexity of human thought and feeling, leaving nuance on the side of the road).

 

I agree that it is easy to think that everything in a story is the result of the author working through some life experience or trauma. That does ignore the ability of the author to transcend their environment.

 

On the other hand, it is also possible to be ignorant of the times in which an author lived, to the detriment of catching some of the nuances of their work. For example, the experience of warfare (firsthand or as a homefront observer of current events) does have an influence on how an author views life, risk, the future, God, etc. That isn't to say that because an author was in the war, they will write one way and not another. But it is possible to see echos of experience in what they choose to model as heroic or vainglorious.

 

World War 1 is a favorite historical topic at out house. It's been interesting to see how echos of that war show up in not only works about the war (like All Quiet on the Western Front or Some Desperate Glory) but in books that aren't set during the war (like Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club or The Return of the King). [Or to shift from the WWI influence, why do so many of Dorothy Sayers' murderers choose to kill themselves when they are found out? An understanding of both the culture of that generation and the legal penalties for murder at the time are needed. A mystery set in post OJ Simpson America would not have the same reactions by the unveiled villain.]

 

Tolkein might not have know the individual identities and biographies of authors, but he was well aware of the culture in which they were swimming. He would have been able to identify when they were influenced one direction by their religion and historical events and when their writings were pushing back against their culture.

[8filltheheart]

For those of you who are exploring literature via non-traditional methods like comparing illustrations or looking for and examining influences on the author, what do you expect in the way of output? Is this work discussiononly or is there something on paper? I am asking this because I've seen interesting project ideas on this forum and other forums, but I would like to understand how to take this beyond the idea stage.

 

My kids have to write 1 paper/wk and I select topics from across subject matter. So, they write literary ana type papers approx every 3 weeks.

 

Only once in all my yrs of homeschooling have my kids done a "project" as output (it was a couple of yrs ago when I had 2 high schoolers doing an in-depth study of Inception. My kids (just asked!! :D ) flat out say that the project was fun but they did not learn much from the project itself (the study, absolutely YES (their words), but the project, no) Both say that writing papers were(graduated)/are more educational for them.

[BlsdMama]

I don't do literary analysis before high school, and I majored in literature. My eldest dd was a very advanced reader. When she was 12, her favorite book was The Iliad.

 

 

 

I see literary analysis differently than you. Literary analysis is mainly about getting to the core of one thing: what does the author want you to believe?

 

T.H. White wants you to believe something very different about warfare than J.R.R. Tolkien. Why? What major historical events did they life through? What life experiences did they have? What decisions did they make? How do those things inform the story?

 

Getting to the meat of that and making an informed argument about it goes to the very heart of rhetoric.

 

 

I agree with this.

 

I think knowing the bare bones of Lit Analysis is useful in (wait for it) writing. Children tend to get frustrated with their own creative writing at about age 11-12 because they don't understand character development or theme or conflict. Understanding this makes those kids that LIKE to creatively write less frustrated.

 

Also, and I'll add this in case no one else did, just because my children were CAPABLE of reading books on a 9th/10th grade list didn't make them ready to do so. There is a world of difference there. Often they are better served by re-reading good literature and pulling out some of the less obvious nuances through a second and third reading than "moving on and moving up" just to do so.... It frustrates me to see 11-13 year old kids reading great books that are, frankly, too old for them. They would appreciate much of it LATER, in high school, more than they do now. AND, I like them to be in the habit of picking up a book they've read and enjoyed and re-reading it. It breeds a certain familiarity with a title or an author. It's important to me.

 

Now, once you get into high school, I am a firm believer in Lit Analysis. However, it is something that NEEDS to be a discussion. It can't just be analyzing else they can't compare their thoughts/beliefs against another's ideas. I think it prepares them to make a thoughtful argument and support it... A necessary college skill, really it's a necessary life skill.

[Colleen in NS]

Absolutely, one needs to be able to do both, and one needs to be able to think, "why are people still reading this?"

 

Having the tools is indeed a wonderful thing. The original question was whether these had to be formally acquired through a curriculum...For "natural" readers and interpreters who do not want to focus on formal explication of literary elements...

 

One of the OP's original questions was about how much we need to "teach" in literature. I agree with those who said that it's necessary to teach the tools, and I agree with their reasoning. I also agree with the poster who seemed to say that having these tools and participating in discussions is a necessary life skill. Colleges vary in what their classes consist of, and different parents and students will be looking for different types of preparation. Parents also vary in parenting approaches - some of us think having these tools is a need; others leave it up to the student to decide.

 

Personally, I want my kids to have these tools - I know beyond a shadow of doubt now what I missed out on in my own education, and I also know that I don't have the ability or creativity to lead my kids to discover these tools (or explore in other ways) on my own. Thus, I am one (of I suspect many in my generation and younger) who does rely upon some kind of system/program/plan/whatever you want to call it to help me make sure my kids get what I think they need.

[regentrude]

I think knowing the bare bones of Lit Analysis is useful in (wait for it) writing. Children tend to get frustrated with their own creative writing at about age 11-12 because they don't understand character development or theme or conflict. Understanding this makes those kids that LIKE to creatively write less frustrated.

 

 

I have found that my children acquire a lot of insight into the bolded just from reading large quantities of literature. Witnessing their discussions about character development, for example, I see that they are able to grasp these ideas without any formal instruction. Just the other day while hiking, DD was telling me about the symbolism and deconstruction of tropes in the book she just read-without us ever having done formal literature analysis. Once you start thinking and talking about books, many things are rather obvious (running and ducking... for this is pure heresy, right?)

 

 

Also, and I'll add this in case no one else did, just because my children were CAPABLE of reading books on a 9th/10th grade list didn't make them ready to do so. There is a world of difference there. Often they are better served by re-reading good literature and pulling out some of the less obvious nuances through a second and third reading than "moving on and moving up" just to do so.... It frustrates me to see 11-13 year old kids reading great books that are, frankly, too old for them. They would appreciate much of it LATER, in high school, more than they do now. AND, I like them to be in the habit of picking up a book they've read and enjoyed and re-reading it. It breeds a certain familiarity with a title or an author.

 

Isn't the bolded a contradiction? Children who read books "early" will eventually revisit them, reread them a second or third time, discover themes and motifs they have missed upon the first reading. And develop familiarity.

Who decides "too old"? My 13 y/o devoured the Iliad, she reread it many times since, it is her favorite book. Of course she discovers new nuances, sees characters in a different light.

It might be good to keep in mind that designated children's and young adult literature are rather modern genres; not too long ago, young people were expected to read the great literature for adults.

Edited August 10, 2012 by regentrude

[elegantlion]

Great thread!

Edited August 11, 2012 by elegantlion
nm

[Colleen in NS]

Now, once you get into high school, I am a firm believer in Lit Analysis. However, it is something that NEEDS to be a discussion. It can't just be analyzing else they can't compare their thoughts/beliefs against another's ideas.

 

I have found that my children acquire a lot of insight into the bolded just from reading large quantities of literature. Witnessing their discussions about character development, for example, I see that they are able to grasp these ideas without any formal instruction. Just the other day while hiking, DD was telling me about the symbolism and deconstruction of tropes in the book she just read-without us ever having done formal literature analysis. Once you start thinking and talking about books, many things are rather obvious (running and ducking... for this is pure heresy, right?)

 

I don't think it's heresy. I thought BlsdMama was pretty much saying the same as you - just making sure that the tools get taught SO THAT the discussions (about character or whatever) can be done. Some kids absorb these ideas naturally, but not all do. Some do need explicit teaching of the skills - but sure, I think that once you do start thinking and talking about books (with some of us needing more explicit guidance with the tools), many things do become obvious.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I have found that my children acquire a lot of insight into the bolded just from reading large quantities of literature. Witnessing their discussions about character development, for example, I see that they are able to grasp these ideas without any formal instruction. Just the other day while hiking, DD was telling me about the symbolism and deconstruction of tropes in the book she just read-without us ever having done formal literature analysis. Once you start thinking and talking about books, many things are rather obvious (running and ducking... for this is pure heresy, right?)

 

 

I don't think this is heresy. I think that a reader will often naturally make connections between books and stories, especially if they tend to read omnivorously. (For example, when I reread The Most Dangerous Game, I noticed that there were several instances where The Hunger Games seemed to have drawn from the same well. But I didn't notice that when I read The Hunger Games, even though I was already familiar with the short story.)

 

A reader isn't going to come upon the terms for literary techniques on their own (things like metaphor, simile, synechdochy). And to some extent, being taught that they exist and have a name, they tend to jump out at you. In the same way that after you buy a car, you tend to notice that model all over, even though you'd not noticed it much before.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Oh my, I have a tag? When did that happen? :blushing:

 

I thought I was the resident thread killer.

[8filltheheart]

Oh my, I have a tag? When did that happen? :blushing:

 

I thought I was the resident thread killer.

 

To swerve completely OT :D

 

Well, I for one thoroughly enjoy reading your posts. Even though I don't have anyone even slightly interested in the military academies, I always read your posts on the subject b/c they are so informative and I get a better perspective on the university application process in general. So thanks for posting them even if not very many people are academy bound. :001_smile:

 

But as for the tag thingie, yeah, it is disconcerting. I am always :confused: and :blink: and :blush: I am a very private person and I actually find it unnerving.

[8filltheheart]

I don't think this is heresy. I think that a reader will often naturally make connections between books and stories, especially if they tend to read omnivorously. (For example, when I reread The Most Dangerous Game, I noticed that there were several instances where The Hunger Games seemed to have drawn from the same well. But I didn't notice that when I read The Hunger Games, even though I was already familiar with the short story.)

 

A reader isn't going to come upon the terms for literary techniques on their own (things like metaphor, simile, synechdochy). And to some extent, being taught that they exist and have a name, they tend to jump out at you. In the same way that after you buy a car, you tend to notice that model all over, even though you'd not noticed it much before.

 

:iagree: And even though I have taught literary ana to my high schoolers for yrs, I still learn something every yr. For example, I am not a fan of poetry, but my 13 yod fell in love w/poetry last yr. She and I learned side by side last yr. There are some things that having it explained/taught makes a huge impact on what you take away from it. While works can be enjoyed w/o understanding nuanced meanings, our family enjoys the enhanced understanding we have via our studies. (and I actually like poetry far more for our efforts than I did before)

[Candid]

I agree that it is easy to think that everything in a story is the result of the author working through some life experience or trauma. That does ignore the ability of the author to transcend their environment.

 

On the other hand, it is also possible to be ignorant of the times in which an author lived, to the detriment of catching some of the nuances of their work. For example, the experience of warfare (firsthand or as a homefront observer of current events) does have an influence on how an author views life, risk, the future, God, etc. That isn't to say that because an author was in the war, they will write one way and not another. But it is possible to see echos of experience in what they choose to model as heroic or vainglorious.

 

World War 1 is a favorite historical topic at out house. It's been interesting to see how echos of that war show up in not only works about the war (like All Quiet on the Western Front or Some Desperate Glory) but in books that aren't set during the war (like Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club or The Return of the King). [Or to shift from the WWI influence, why do so many of Dorothy Sayers' murderers choose to kill themselves when they are found out? An understanding of both the culture of that generation and the legal penalties for murder at the time are needed. A mystery set in post OJ Simpson America would not have the same reactions by the unveiled villain.]

 

Tolkein might not have know the individual identities and biographies of authors, but he was well aware of the culture in which they were swimming. He would have been able to identify when they were influenced one direction by their religion and historical events and when their writings were pushing back against their culture.

 

Yes, this is some of what I was getting at in my posts.

 

In preparing my Year 2 Tapestry I came across a great quote that discusses why Tolkien was so disinterested in biographies of his authors. It is from C.S. Lewis's The Discarded Image, a book about the medieval world view.

 

"Their aim was not self-expression or 'creation' but rather to hand on the 'historical' matter worthily; not worthily of their own genius or of the poetic art but of the matter itself." This is from a section in which Lewis teaches that medieval writers were "humble," they did not inject themselves in their work at all, quite the opposite. Their general attitude was that their job was simply to tell their story skillfully. He says this is in contrast with writers today who see their works as part of their personal self-expression.