What's up with Wuthering Heights?

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Perhaps. In my mind, being a daughter is enough perspective to make it worthwhile. (Of course, that's probably not necessary either! ;) )

There is just so much to the book... the mother-daughter thread was only one of many that left lasting impressions. I wouldn't even say it was the main one.

 

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I agree, I admire Jane more deeply now than I did in the past, and I think St. John is by far the worse man and less desirable husband.

 

I just re-read JE and Wide Sargasso Sea. Ironically, Sargasso made me sympathize with Rochester a bit more, although I don't think that's the reaction Rhys was going for . . . but it made him far more human to me. I really liked that book this time around, when I read it in college I didn't appreciate it nearly as much.

 

That seems to be a common theme - our opinions of these books changing at different stages in our lives. With that in mind, are there books that you love now, but that you won't assign to your high schooler because they require more life experience/wisdom ( ;) ) to appreciate?

 

Mrs. Dalloway is on that list for me. Also Bleak House, I think. And Wild Sargasso Sea!

I frequently warn younger adults away from Master and Commander. It is a very different series from Hornblower. I think for M&C to resonate you have to have had some frustrations and disappointments in life.

 

Another would be The Dark Is Rising. That's not an age issue by a familiarity with Arthurian legend issue. I think you are missing out if you don't know at least some of what is being drawn on. And it's a series you can only read for the first time once iykwim.

 

I recently read Major Pettigrew'a Last Stand. WONDERFUL but told my son not to read it until he's older.

 

Another funny thing is how I perceive characters as I get older. I reread Sense and Sensibility a few weeks ago. I realized that Mrs Dashwood was about my age or slightly younger. Pu a different spin on her predicament as the widow.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Perhaps. In my mind, being a daughter is enough perspective to make it worthwhile. (Of course, that's probably not necessary either! ;) )

There is just so much to the book... the mother-daughter thread was only one of many that left lasting impressions. I wouldn't even say it was the main one.

I remember loving The Joy Luck club decades ago. I wonder if I'd read it much differently now.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

I remember loving The Joy Luck club decades ago. I wonder if I'd read it much differently now.

 

Quite possibly. There are actually some books I don't want to reread for fear of losing the magical memories of the book. ;)

[quark]

Hey, I know a young man who loves Bleak House! :D And is even willingly copying paragraphs from it. :D

 

Quite possibly. There are actually some books I don't want to reread for fear of losing the magical memories of the book. ;)

 

Nooooooooooo...don't say that! Then you might never (re) discover some gems. :laugh:
 

[Chrysalis Academy]

Hey, I know a young man who loves Bleak House! :D And is even willingly copying paragraphs from it. :D

 

 

 

 

 

Right, what a totally ridiculous comment! I take it all back  ;)  :D

[quark]

That seems to be a common theme - our opinions of these books changing at different stages in our lives.  With that in mind, are there books that you love now, but that you won't assign to your high schooler because they require more life experience/wisdom ( ;) ) to appreciate?

 

 

Still, isn't there value in reading the books in high school even if some things go over your head?

[Chrysalis Academy]

I frequently warn younger adults away from Master and Commander. It is a very different series from Hornblower. I think for M&C to resonate you have to have had some frustrations and disappointments in life.

 

Another would be The Dark Is Rising. That's not an age issue by a familiarity with Arthurian legend issue. I think you are missing out if you don't know at least some of what is being drawn on. And it's a series you can only read for the first time once iykwim.

 

I recently read Major Pettigrew'a Last Stand. WONDERFUL but told my son not to read it until he's older.

 

Another funny thing is how I perceive characters as I get older. I reread Sense and Sensibility a few weeks ago. I realized that Mrs Dashwood was about my age or slightly younger. Pu a different spin on her predicament as the widow.

 

 

I completely agree with all of this.  My dh, who is about to turn 50, is reading the M&C series and says he can't imagine appreciating it as much had he read it as a young man.

 

I'm intentionally holding off on The Dark is Rising till after we do Arthur!

 

I also can't wait to re-read Jane Austen, I haven't in quite awhile.   But I decided that the next thing I need to tackle is Middlemarch, it's another of the major tomes I've never read.  And, apropos of this conversation, didn't Virginia Woolf say it was the only Victorian novel actually written for adults, or something like that?  ;)

[Chrysalis Academy]

Still, isn't there value in reading the books in high school even if some things go over your head?

 

 

Sure, but I think the danger is that if you really don't get something, you  might decide you don't like it and then not give it a chance when you are older.  I did that with Mrs. Dalloway in college, luckily my book group chose it and I read it, under duress, and this time I loved it.  I also avoided Hemingway for 25 years after having hated THe Old Man and the Sea in 9th grade.  I don't want my kids to decide they hate a certain author or genre when the truth is, they just don't get it.

[quark]

[...]I decided that the next thing I need to tackle is Middlemarch, it's another of the major tomes I've never read. 

Middlemarch is one of the novels I consumed hungrily as a young teen after recently being given access to my school's senior library (I didn't have many books at home and the public library was inaccessible at the time and the senior library was only accessible to certain years of high schoolers). I read it in two days, staying up one night to finish it, and I remember having a major headache afterwards, but it was so worth it. One example of a book that I think was beneficial to me even if I didn't have the life experience then to fully appreciate it. It was a book that explained an angle to marriage that I was obviously not aware of.

[quark]

Sure, but I think the danger is that if you really don't get something, you  might decide you don't like it and then not give it a chance when you are older.  I did that with Mrs. Dalloway in college, luckily my book group chose it and I read it, under duress, and this time I loved it.  I also avoided Hemingway for 25 years after having hated THe Old Man and the Sea in 9th grade.  I don't want my kids to decide they hate a certain author or genre when the truth is, they just don't get it.

 

True! I haven't re-read Gatsby or Heart of Darkness for those reasons. :D I'm just hopeful that there will be other stimuli that could help change kiddo's mind to re-read something, e.g. movie versions or audiobooks or some future magazine article that piques his interest. I don't usually stop him when he wants to or doesn't want to read something although I may suggest an alternative/ explain why I do or don't recommend it. Fingers crossed that he will give Austen a whirl some day although hers is not the kind of books that will appeal to most boys. I think he will enjoy the characterization and wit though. But I do not find much reason to recommend WH, that's for sure.

 

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Sure, but I think the danger is that if you really don't get something, you  might decide you don't like it and then not give it a chance when you are older.

 

On the other hand, what if it never crosses the radar again?

 

or...

 

 

What if the book is disliked later anyway, only for more mature and experienced reasons? Why not just dislike it in one's youth and get it over with? :toetap05: :tongue_smilie:

 

This has been a good discussion. Quite timely, to boot. I rethinking how I'm choosing books.

[Lori D.]

No need to feel you have to like, or even read, WH -- or any other classic on someone else's "must read" list. :) Not every classic is going to click for every person. ;)

 

 

Without having read the previous posts in the thread (always dangerous, lol ;) ), I'm jumping in...

 

I read WH back in my 20s and thought it was powerfully written for a tuberculin, reclusive, isolated-on-the-moors young women. Re-reading with DSs a few years ago, I was struck at how sophisticated and complex the work was -- and this from an author who wrote a handful of poems and this one novel in her short life!

 

Not at all trying (or wanting) to convince or debate anyone here -- just sharing my own thoughts below about what I saw in WH as to why it might be considered a classic, 'cause Chrysalis Academy asked! ;) (And, sorry, but this will take a few posts at different times, as I have time to pop in and share…)

 

 

Rejection of the Ultimate Consequences of Romanticism

 

Romanticism started at the end of the 18th century (esp. in a number poems from the 1790s) and peaked in the first half of the 19th century. You see it strongly at work in Frankenstein (around 1820). Romanticism, esp. in literature, is driven by two major themes:

 

1. an elevation of nature, as a reaction against scientific rationalism (the Enlightenment and Neo Classicism) -- coupled with the use of nature (in literature) to reflect a character's emotional state (i.e., what's happening outwardly in nature / the weather / the landscape reveals the character's inner passions).

 

2. AND, those emotions are of supreme importance and the authentic source of self -- above reason, logic/truth, moral values, spiritual considerations, etc. (similarly to #1 -- natural human emotions and mental state are more "natural" and authentic of self, compared to rational, logical thinking).

 

You see loads of Romanticism in WH

 

names:

- "Wuthering" (meaning "weathering" or "stormy") Heights -- it's a stormy (passionate) place

- Heathcliff = "Heath" = area of open, uncultivated land + "Cliff" = steep rock face -- a place of dangerous drop-off -- he almost seems to be wild, untamed nature in human form

- Cathy's last name "Earnshaw" means "eagle's nook" -- a bird of prey in an inaccessible place of nature

- Linton name means "stream + enclosure" -- gentle water (vs. a storm) and tamed land with boundaries

- Thrushgrange = "thrush" = song bird + "grange" = country house with barns -- i.e., cultivated/tamed land

 

weather/landscape:

- winter weather, stormy weather -- at times of high passion/emotion, and abusive out-of-control behavior

- dangerous landscape around WH (sometimes fatal to those wandering across the moors)

- encroaching / menacing forces of nature -- like human passions out of control, is threatening; a tree limb breaks through a window at WH; overgrowth of plants around WH

- uncultivated land -- the high land moors of WH don't sustain food crops, growth, regeneration

- cultivated land -- the valley is "tamed" land, where Thrushgrange and the town are, and where crops are grown to support the people -- the land in submission to the people

 

The novel opens with a storm that breaks a window at WH -- symbol of the stormy passions that have been inside of WH, and how their uncontrolled passions are causing destruction. The novel ends with spring and flowers and fruit -- the out-of-control characters who saw themselves (in an unhealthy way) as one with each other and one with nature, are dead and gone (like a wild storm that causes great damage finally blows itself out) -- which frees their descendants to heal, recover, and make rational choices. The new generation is learning to read (sign of rationality and self-control) and show real love and concern for own another (controlled passion). Also pending is a wedding (a healthy/positive union with the potential of offspring, growth, and selflessness)

 

I see WH as a commentary (whether intended or not by author Emily Bronte) on Romanticism -- that full-blown Romanticism -- totally going with your passions and idolizing nature -- leads to chaos, self-destruction, and destruction of those around who are not strong enough to withstand the vortex of emotion. She paints a very powerful picture of the raw animal instincts and emotions of Cathy and Heathcliff, and almost makes Heathcliff appear to be a human manifestation of the wild moors that Cathy loves more than people.

 

I've been mentally comparing Jane in Jane Eyre and Catherine in Wuthering Heights -- stories written by sisters, so I think the comparison is appropriate. ;) Interestingly, Jane Eyre received structure and discipline while growing up (granted, it was overly strict to the point of abusiveness!). BUT, it enables her to think through her situation and balance her passions to ultimately make the choice of who to be with and why, which allows her to both express her natural passion, but in a controlled and very fruitful and satisfying way.

 

In contrast, Catherine Earnshaw, rejects the only structure and discipline of her upbringing (the sour Biblical injunctions of the servant Joseph -- by the way, an ironic use of the name as the Biblical Joseph was a self-controlled servant whose wisdom kept live an entire nation). As a result, she has no way of walking through the flames of her passion and attraction to Heathcliff who is a part of her (to get to a safe other side), vs. Linton who offers civility and self-control, but likely without the passion -- much like what St. John offers to Jane Eyre. Without any form of rationality and self-discipline, Catherine Earnshaw marries Linton, which ends in destruction of 3 lives; she even ends up buried between the two men because she had no way of making a reasoned choice. Even if she had chosen Heathcliff (sort of like Jane Eyre choosing Rochester) a marriage with Heathcliff would also have destructed into mutual animal clawing, because there is no hope of regeneration, nothing outside of their acting on their natural passions. (Think of Cathy's dream of falling from heaven -- like Lucifer's fall from heaven. Think of Heathcliff cursing Cathy and himself at her death.)

 

BTW, for some GREAT insights into Jane Eyre from WTMer CajunClassical, check out this older thread: Jane Eyre and boys.

 

Also, lots of great symbols and motifs to explore in WH, many connected with the Romanticism: nature / weather; doors and windows; doubles; dogs; Biblical references (check out the Schmoop for fun reading).

 

 

WH was written in 1847, at the end of the Romanticism period, just 10 years after the very young Queen Victoria had taken the throne, and well before Victorian themes and mores had really taken hold of the culture and arts. You don't really start to see the influence of the Victorian movement until about 1860. From the 1860s through to the end of the century, there are very strong elements of the Victorian movement -- hard work and perseverance win out, virtue is rewarded, nature and human emotions do best under control and rationality  (although towards the end of the century that narrows into tightly repressed emotion and rigid social mores).

 

So I personally don't really see WH as a Victorian work, but rather, a commentary on the end of the Romanticism movement that had been going on for 50 years. Bronte would have been very aware of works of Romanticism; my take on it is that through incredibly strong writing and character development, Bronte shows the horrible consequences of obsession, brutality and selfishness -- the ultimate consequences of Romanticism if played all the way out.

 

Unfortunately, I think many people miss not only the horror of the consequences -- that living based on emotions destroys not only Cathy and Heathcliff, but those around them as well -- but also mistake Romanticism for "romance/romantic".

 

Romanticism is the 18th/19th century art, music and literature movement, based on the use of the word roman/romanesque to mean "in praise of nature", and stands in contrast to "classical" (man-made). So, Romanticism the movement (uppercase) is an emphasis on nature and the natural feelings/passions of people. In contrast, romance/romantic is the lowercase noun/adjective meaning "feeling of mystery and excitement, assoc. with love" / "loving, passionate, affectionate".

 

Sadly, I think film versions fall into that error of mistaking WH for a romance, rather than show Bronte's version of the Cathy/Heathcliffe relationship for the perverse obsession that it IS. Film versions avoid Bronte's brutal and eyes-wide-open commentary on the ultimate consequences of Romanticism and instead twist the tale into some sort of "noble suffering", and "love enduring through all eternity".

 

Interestingly, I kept thinking about Twilight when we were reading WH a few years back. Not that I have read it, just what I know from summaries and the "hype" ;), BUT... Twilight strikes me as a pale and mistaken copy (i.e., Hollywood view) of WH -- a "tragic, undying love". I see Twilight as a sick story of a girl with an abused emotional mindset "torn" between the emotionally unavailable dude who won't commit and the animal-instinct brutal/abusing dude, BUT, played as though that's real love, and that all three of those emotional states are "romantic".  :ack2:

 

 

… more on a different aspect when I have time… Warmest regards, Lori D.

[quark]

Wow, Lori. I really, really appreciate the time taken to share what you did. I did actually pick up on the names a bit when I first read it and found that aspect of the book fascinating despite not liking Cathy or Heathcliff or the general misery of it all, and now, I realize that I might have failed my own mantra of trying to stay at least a little open minded about a book.

[Lori D.]

...I did actually pick up on the names a bit when I first read it and found that aspect of the book fascinating despite not liking Cathy or Heathcliff or the general misery of it all...

 

Thanks for mentioning that Quark! :)

 

I forgot that I was going to open with I don't think Bronte MEANT for us to like Cathy and Heathcliff! :)

[Chrysalis Academy]

 

No need to feel you have to like, or even read, WH -- or any other classic on someone else's "must read" list. :) Not every classic is going to click for every person. ;)

 

 

Without having read the previous posts in the thread (always dangerous, lol ;) ), I'm jumping in...

 

I read WH back in my 20s and thought it was powerfully written for a tuberculin, reclusive, isolated-on-the-moors young women. Re-reading with DSs a few years ago, I was struck at how sophisticated and complex the work was -- and this from an author who wrote a handful of poems and this one novel in her short life!

 

Not at all trying (or wanting) to convince or debate anyone here -- just sharing my own thoughts below about what I saw in WH as to why it might be considered a classic, 'cause Chrysalis Academy asked! ;) (And, sorry, but this will take a few posts at different times, as I have time to pop in and share…)

 

 

Rejection of the Ultimate Consequences of Romanticism

 

Romanticism started at the end of the 18th century (esp. in a number poems from the 1790s) and peaked in the first half of the 19th century. You see it strongly at work in Frankenstein (around 1820). Romanticism, esp. in literature, is driven by two major themes:

 

1. an elevation of nature, as a reaction against scientific rationalism (the Enlightenment and Neo Classicism) -- coupled with the use of nature (in literature) to reflect a character's emotional state (i.e., what's happening outwardly in nature / the weather / the landscape reveals the character's inner passions).

 

2. AND, those emotions are of supreme importance and the authentic source of self -- above reason, logic/truth, moral values, spiritual considerations, etc. (similarly to #1 -- natural human emotions and mental state are more "natural" and authentic of self, compared to rational, logical thinking).

 

You see loads of Romanticism in WH

 

names:

- "Wuthering" (meaning "weathering" or "stormy") Heights -- it's a stormy (passionate) place

- Heathcliff = "Heath" = area of open, uncultivated land + "Cliff" = steep rock face -- a place of dangerous drop-off -- he almost seems to be wild, untamed nature in human form

- Cathy's last name "Earnshaw" means "eagle's nook" -- a bird of prey in an inaccessible place of nature

- Linton name means "stream + enclosure" -- gentle water (vs. a storm) and tamed land with boundaries

- Thrushgrange = "thrush" = song bird + "grange" = country house with barns -- i.e., cultivated/tamed land

 

weather/landscape:

- winter weather, stormy weather -- at times of high passion/emotion, and abusive out-of-control behavior

- dangerous landscape around WH (sometimes fatal to those wandering across the moors)

- encroaching / menacing forces of nature -- like human passions out of control, is threatening; a tree limb breaks through a window at WH; overgrowth of plants around WH

- uncultivated land -- the high land moors of WH don't sustain food crops, growth, regeneration

- cultivated land -- the valley is "tamed" land, where Thrushgrange and the town are, and where crops are grown to support the people -- the land in submission to the people

 

The novel opens with a storm that breaks a window at WH -- symbol of the stormy passions that have been inside of WH, and how their uncontrolled passions are causing destruction. The novel ends with spring and flowers and fruit -- the out-of-control characters who saw themselves (in an unhealthy way) as one with each other and one with nature, are dead and gone (like a wild storm that causes great damage finally blows itself out) -- which frees their descendants to heal, recover, and make rational choices. The new generation is learning to read (sign of rationality and self-control) and show real love and concern for own another (controlled passion). Also pending is a wedding (a healthy/positive union with the potential of offspring, growth, and selflessness)

 

I see WH as a commentary (whether intended or not by author Emily Bronte) on Romanticism -- that full-blown Romanticism -- totally going with your passions and idolizing nature -- leads to chaos, self-destruction, and destruction of those around who are not strong enough to withstand the vortex of emotion. She paints a very powerful picture of the raw animal instincts and emotions of Cathy and Heathcliff, and almost makes Heathcliff appear to be a human manifestation of the wild moors that Cathy loves more than people.

 

I've been mentally comparing Jane in Jane Eyre and Catherine in Wuthering Heights -- stories written by sisters, so I think the comparison is appropriate. ;) Interestingly, Jane Eyre received structure and discipline while growing up (granted, it was overly strict to the point of abusiveness!). BUT, it enables her to think through her situation and balance her passions to ultimately make the choice of who to be with and why, which allows her to both express her natural passion, but in a controlled and very fruitful and satisfying way.

 

In contrast, Catherine Earnshaw, rejects the only structure and discipline of her upbringing (the sour Biblical injunctions of the servant Joseph -- by the way, an ironic use of the name as the Biblical Joseph was a self-controlled servant whose wisdom kept live an entire nation). As a result, she has no way of walking through the flames of her passion and attraction to Heathcliff who is a part of her (to get to a safe other side), vs. Linton who offers civility and self-control, but likely without the passion -- much like what St. John offers to Jane Eyre. Without any form of rationality and self-discipline, Catherine Earnshaw marries Linton, which ends in destruction of 3 lives; she even ends up buried between the two men because she had no way of making a reasoned choice. Even if she had chosen Heathcliff (sort of like Jane Eyre choosing Rochester) a marriage with Heathcliff would also have destructed into mutual animal clawing, because there is no hope of regeneration, nothing outside of their acting on their natural passions. (Think of Cathy's dream of falling from heaven -- like Lucifer's fall from heaven. Think of Heathcliff cursing Cathy and himself at her death.)

 

BTW, for some GREAT insights into Jane Eyre from WTMer CajunClassical, check out this older thread: Jane Eyre and boys.

 

Also, lots of great symbols and motifs to explore in WH, many connected with the Romanticism: nature / weather; doors and windows; doubles; dogs; Biblical references (check out the Schmoop for fun reading).

 

 

WH was written in 1847, at the end of the Romanticism period, just 10 years after the very young Queen Victoria had taken the throne, and well before Victorian themes and mores had really taken hold of the culture and arts. You don't really start to see the influence of the Victorian movement until about 1860. From the 1860s through to the end of the century, there are very strong elements of the Victorian movement -- hard work and perseverance win out, virtue is rewarded, nature and human emotions do best under control and rationality  (although towards the end of the century that narrows into tightly repressed emotion and rigid social mores).

 

So I personally don't really see WH as a Victorian work, but rather, a commentary on the end of the Romanticism movement that had been going on for 50 years. Bronte would have been very aware of works of Romanticism; my take on it is that through incredibly strong writing and character development, Bronte shows the horrible consequences of obsession, brutality and selfishness -- the ultimate consequences of Romanticism if played all the way out.

 

Unfortunately, I think many people miss not only the horror of the consequences -- that living based on emotions destroys not only Cathy and Heathcliff, but those around them as well -- but also mistake Romanticism for "romance/romantic".

 

Romanticism is the 18th/19th century art, music and literature movement, based on the use of the word roman/romanesque to mean "in praise of nature", and stands in contrast to "classical" (man-made). So, Romanticism the movement (uppercase) is an emphasis on nature and the natural feelings/passions of people. In contrast, romance/romantic is the lowercase noun/adjective meaning "feeling of mystery and excitement, assoc. with love" / "loving, passionate, affectionate".

 

Sadly, I think film versions fall into that error of mistaking WH for a romance, rather than show Bronte's version of the Cathy/Heathcliffe relationship for the perverse obsession that it IS. Film versions avoid Bronte's brutal and eyes-wide-open commentary on the ultimate consequences of Romanticism and instead twist the tale into some sort of "noble suffering", and "love enduring through all eternity".

 

Interestingly, I kept thinking about Twilight when we were reading WH a few years back. Not that I have read it, just what I know from summaries and the "hype" ;), BUT... Twilight strikes me as a pale and mistaken copy (i.e., Hollywood view) of WH -- a "tragic, undying love". I see Twilight as a sick story of a girl with an abused emotional mindset "torn" between the emotionally unavailable dude who won't commit and the animal-instinct brutal/abusing dude, BUT, played as though that's real love, and that all three of those emotional states are "romantic".  :ack2:

 

 

… more on a different aspect when I have time… Warmest regards, Lori D.

 

 

Now that's what I'm talking about!!   :hurray:

[VaKim]

Too funny that you mention Collins as I just put a library hold this week for "The Moonstone". It is recommended on one of the DYOCC lists and I haven't ever read it.

The Moonstone is free for Kindle at Amazon, if you have a kindle. I am reading it right now on mine. 

[shawthorne44]

I thought it was pretty ghastly too.  Even in High School, I thought they were both twits.  At any point in time, one wanted the other who didn't want them.  After that switched a few times you think they'd have gotten a clue.  

[PeterPan]

nt

[Heathermomster]

I love Villette...

[PeterPan]

nt 

 

[Woodland Mist Academy]

I have to ask, even at the risk of regretting it immensely and hanging my head in shame for the rest of the thread: Am I the only one who doesn't care for literary analysis overly much?

 

Maybe I should ask in a different thread... I'm asking here so hopefully it can just be lost in the conversation if I truly am the only one... :blushing:

 

ETA: As soon as I posted, I swear I heard gasping and tsk tsking from around the globe... ;)

 

 

 

[quark]

The Moonstone is free for Kindle at Amazon, if you have a kindle. I am reading it right now on mine. 

 

Do you like it? I read it as an adult, just a year or two ago in fact. I loved it, especially the parts narrated by Gabriel.

 

[quark]

I have to ask, even at the risk of regretting it immensely and hanging my head in shame for the rest of the thread: Am I the only one who doesn't care for literary analysis overly much?

 

Maybe I should ask in a different thread... I'm asking here so hopefully it can just be lost in the conversation if I truly am the only one... :blushing:

 

ETA: As soon as I posted, I swear I heard gasping and tsk tsking from around the globe... ;)

 

(sharp, pained intake of breath) I'm quoting you and not letting you be lost in the conversation so there! :lol:  :001_tt2:  (always wanted to use that smiley).

 

Seriously though, while I do care for lit analysis (I guess I should since I supposedly majored in it...not that I remember much of what I was supposed to have learned in college lol) but I also don't want to think of it as a must for every book. Sometimes, I just want to enjoy a book for what it is and how it speaks to me and what I think the author intended to convey. Then to put it away and let it whisper to me some many days later and that usually only happens with some books. Some books bellow at me in a good way too. A Passage to India for example, haunted me for days on end. I was aghast at the way Aziz was treated. I was in a rage and just gobsmacked by the injustice of his trial. I tortured myself further by reading Forster's Maurice and was depressed for a few days.

 

Sometimes I just want to "feel" the book. Not google or analyze every tiny thing about it.

 

ETA: just to be clear...and not to give too much away if one hasn't read Maurice and plans to at some point, I was depressed not because of the ending but because of the emotional upheaval and imagining how some others in Maurice's shoes feel on a daily basis in real life and how in some countries, it is illegal to feel as Maurice does in the book.

 

[sunnyday]

I have to ask, even at the risk of regretting it immensely and hanging my head in shame for the rest of the thread: Am I the only one who doesn't care for literary analysis overly much?

 

Maybe I should ask in a different thread... I'm asking here so hopefully it can just be lost in the conversation if I truly am the only one... :blushing:

 

ETA: As soon as I posted, I swear I heard gasping and tsk tsking from around the globe... ;)

 

(This thread reminded me of the podcast I'm in the middle of, Teaching Literature without Killing It. This degree of analysis...kills the book for me. :o )

[Woodland Mist Academy]

(sharp, painful intake of breath) I'm quoting you and not letting you be lost in the conversation so there! :lol:  :001_tt2:  (always wanted to use that smiley).

 

Seriously though, while I do care for lit analysis (I guess I should since I supposedly majored in it..

 

 

:svengo:

 

Once I recover my senses, I'll read the rest of your post. :tongue_smilie:

[Woodland Mist Academy]

(This thread reminded me of the podcast I'm in the middle of, Teaching Literature without Killing It. This degree of analysis...kills the book for me. :o )

 

It's OK. I won't tell anyone. Shhh.... :cheers2:

[Woodland Mist Academy]

(sharp, painful intake of breath) I'm quoting you and not letting you be lost in the conversation so there! :lol:  :001_tt2:  (always wanted to use that smiley).

 

Seriously though, while I do care for lit analysis (I guess I should since I supposedly majored in it...not that I remember much of what I was supposed to have learned in college lol) but I also don't want to think of it as a must for every book. Sometimes, I just want to enjoy a book for what it is and how it speaks to me and what I think the author intended to convey. Then to put it away and let it whisper to me some many days later and that usually only happens with some books. Some books bellow at me in a good way too. A Passage to India for example, haunted me for days on end. I was aghast at the way Aziz was treated. I was in a rage and just gobsmacked by the injustice of his trial. I tortured myself further by reading Forster's Maurice and was depressed for a few days.

 

Sometimes I just want to "feel" the book. Not google or analyze every tiny thing about it.

 

 

So how do you decide when to analyze and when to feel? I really struggle with this because they are often mutually exclusive to me. I appreciate any insights you can offer!

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Referencing the other thread, I'm an INFP. I seek meaning in everything. I could spend all day finding meaning in songs and judging books based on how they make me feel. 

 

I started watching the Great Courses: Analysis and Critique this morning and I'm loving it! Even ds13 said he liked it, but he's just like me. :001_rolleyes:

 

I certainly don't think everyone should feel the same though. Analysis can turn a good book into work and ruin it.

 

Interesting. I tend to naturally seek meaning in everything as well. That's sort of the reason I often don't like to read the literary analysis others have made of books; it detracts from my own. So maybe it's not the analysis itself...maybe it's the unwanted influence others have on my relationship with the book.

 

I like discussing books with others, but for some reason hearing someone analyze a book does me in.

 

Yeah, I have issues. ;)

[quark]

So how do you decide when to analyze and when to feel? I really struggle with this because they are often mutually exclusive to me. I appreciate any insights you can offer!

 

Gosh Woodland Mist, thank you for asking. :tongue_smilie: Okay, I'm really not an expert and at the risk of sounding overly simplistic, I analyze only when I want to or when my kiddo wants to. Perhaps because he is not yet a high schooler in age and does not yet have the life experience (but is a pretty mature kid and reads between lines better than I do sometimes) I just try not to over think it. It's like art to me. I feel that art should not be taught merely in minute technical detail without feeling. I can never create art unless I also feel it. He really wanted to discuss Hamlet so we did. But he didn't want to talk much about To Kill a Mockingbird (which I adore) so we didn't. Any discussion is usually ongoing. It feels odd to say that an analysis is "done" kwim? I feel like there is so much to talk about, especially with really well-written books. There's always an angle to consider and argue about if the author really meant it that way or not. So we continue the discussion whenever the idea pops up again or whenever he wants to compare a book with another book he just read and so on. It isn't so much an analysis as a conversation. For this reason I don't plan out lit in excruciating detail.

 

I know that this is probably not very helpful, sorry. It's one of those things that I'm really not going to sweat about. I want him to always love reading and always find comfort in good books and I've found that with him, interest might be messed with if I get too much in the way. And if that means picking apart only the ones he wants to pick apart, it's fine by me. I do exercise some control over the process by buying only classics and a small number of other well-written titles. :D

 

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Gosh Woodland Mist, thank you for asking. :tongue_smilie: Okay, I'm really not an expert and at the risk of sounding overly simplistic, I analyze only when I want to or when my kiddo wants to. Perhaps because he is not yet a high schooler in age and does not yet have the life experience (but is a pretty mature kid and reads between lines better than I do sometimes) I just try not to over think it. It's like art to me. I feel that art should not be taught merely in minute technical detail without feeling. I can never create art unless I also feel it. He really wanted to discuss Hamlet so we did. But he didn't want to talk much about To Kill a Mockingbird (which I adore) so we didn't. Any discussion is usually ongoing. It feels odd to say that an analysis is "done" kwim? I feel like there is so much to talk about, especially with really well-written books. There's always an angle to consider and argue about if the author really meant it that way or not. So we continue the discussion whenever the idea pops up again or whenever he wants to compare a book with another book he just read and so on. It isn't so much an analysis as a conversation. For this reason I don't plan out lit in excruciating detail.

 

I know that this is probably not very helpful, sorry. It's one of those things that I'm really not going to sweat about. I want him to always love reading and always find comfort in good books and I've found that with him, interest might be messed with if I get too much in the way. And if that means picking apart only the ones he wants to pick apart, it's fine by me. I do exercise some control over the process by buying only classics and a small number of other well-written titles. :D

 

 

Thanks so much! I particularly like the bolded. I realized I had pretty much bolded the whole post, so I unbolded it. :lol:  I particularly like the whole post! :tongue_smilie:

 

What you wrote makes so much sense and goes along with my feelings as well!

 

Thanks!

 

[quark]

Thanks so much! I particularly like the bolded. I realized I had pretty much bolded the whole post, so I unbolded it. :lol:  I particularly like the whole post! :tongue_smilie:

 

What you wrote makes so much sense and goes along with my feelings as well!

 

Thanks!

 

 

Thank YOU. :001_smile:  Writing it out reaffirmed what I want to achieve from our lit studies. A love of books and their awesome authors. And if we are lucky, seeing more confidence and courage to take stylistic risks from my fledgling writer. :001_smile:

 

 

ETA: but why am I suddenly wishing that this thread isn't on the high school board?  :leaving: 

If I come across as being very confident, it's only because I see my kid thriving with this approach at the present moment. I hope I will have the wisdom to know if I need to change the approach at some point in the future.

 

[Lori D.]

Gosh ladies, I just wanted to share some exciting personal insights I picked up on and enjoyed running with. I meant it as encouragement, since a number of people were expressing having a hard time getting past the unlikeable characters, to see there might be other things worth poking around for in WH. SOOO did not mean to make anyone feel bad. :(

 

And no, we never did that much depth in our homeschool literature, which was much more along the lines of what Quark expressed -- probably not even as in-depth.

 

It's just that I happened to see some interesting things in WH, and enjoyed digging around, and then connecting WH with other great comments in that thread on Jane Eyre. It wasn't even formal analysis or research or thesis-worthy; just things I thought were interesting and might be interesting springboards for others. (Virtually none of that was done with DSs when we did WH; it's just my own thinking back on the book, and a recent re-triggering as DH has been going over Turn of the Screw in one of his classes, and we were talking.)

 

A lot of my reading is fluff/for fun. And when I do read more serious works, I seek out personal meaning and let the work resonate with me, in the ways Quark and Plum Crazy expressed. I don't often dig in like I did with WH… Guess it was easier to do so, since I had no attachment to the main characters. ;)

 

Wishing you all wonderful reading journeys, wherever it leads… Warmest regards, Lori D.

[lewelma]

Oh, Rose, you have to assign it! It was my all time favorite book as a teen and is still my all time favorite book as an adult. I just listened to it twice in a row last year. It is so *thick*. Every word is delicious. The characters are rich and believable. It is one of those few books for me that I really don't want to discuss, I just want to enjoy it. Why it spoke to me then and now, I don't know and I don't want to know. What if your dd is like me? And she never reads what will become her all time favorite book?!?!?! Oh, sad sad times.

 

Ruth in NZ

[VaKim]

Do you like it? I read it as an adult, just a year or two ago in fact. I loved it, especially the parts narrated by Gabriel.

 

It was a bit slow getting started, but yes, I am liking it now. I am only about a fourth of the way into it, though. I think I saw it recommended on this board or I'd have never heard of it. :-)

[flyingiguana]

I reread Crime and Punishment recently.

 

I read it first in high school. Thought it was the best book EVER.

 

Just reread it last year, and I'm, like, huh?

 

I think the plot just didn't hang together for me this time, and I found that so distracting that I could hardly follow the character development.

 

I also read Middlemarch this past year. I found that one fairly interesting. Unfortunately, it had a plot hole you could drive a truck through. (Unless I slept through the explanation)

 

Another big one I did this year was Les Miserables. I was going to watch the movie (Les Mis) afterward, but now I find I can't bring myself to do it, because my bits of knowledge about the movie suggest it's mostly about a romantic love story. But the romance in the book was so totally NOT a romance to me that I don't think I'll be able to take the movie going on and on about it.

[flyingiguana]

I do notice that The Moonstone has a number of one star reviews on Amazon -- from my quick perusal, it seems to be a lot of people who were expecting a quick detective book.

 

It's not quick, and the parts that make it so good aren't just the detective parts. (And some of the detective parts are even a little silly -- but I've come to expect that from detective novels)

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Gosh ladies, I just wanted to share some exciting personal insights I picked up on and enjoyed running with. I meant it as encouragement, since a number of people were expressing having a hard time getting past the unlikeable characters, to see there might be other things worth poking around for in WH. SOOO did not mean to make anyone feel bad. :(

 

 

Speaking only for myself...you didn't make me feel bad!  I was just being silly. ;)  It was actually a quite freeing realization for me. (Although I did lose sleep thinking about how I interact with classics and how it differs from what the literary analysis I usually see looks like. That's not your fault, though! We can blame that on Rose. She tends to start sleep losing threads... ;) )

[shawthorne44]

I have to ask, even at the risk of regretting it immensely and hanging my head in shame for the rest of the thread: Am I the only one who doesn't care for literary analysis overly much?

 

Maybe I should ask in a different thread... I'm asking here so hopefully it can just be lost in the conversation if I truly am the only one... :blushing:

 

ETA: As soon as I posted, I swear I heard gasping and tsk tsking from around the globe... ;)

 

:iagree:

I particularly hate the whole deconstructing idea.  

I think that you aren't going to find any hidden truths in literature that weren't already within you, otherwise you wouldn't find them.  

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Oh, Rose, you have to assign it! It was my all time favorite book as a teen and is still my all time favorite book as an adult. I just listened to it twice in a row last year. It is so *thick*. Every word is delicious. The characters are rich and believable. It is one of those few books for me that I really don't want to discuss, I just want to enjoy it. Why it spoke to me then and now, I don't know and I don't want to know. What if your dd is like me? And she never reads what will become her all time favorite book?!?!?! Oh, sad sad times.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

But, couldn't that be said about any book? Indeed, about life in general? I agree, it is sad, but I'm convinced we will all miss things that would have enriched our lives tremendously. I struggle with it all.the.time.

 

I think I've decided that when it comes to classics, with a few exceptions, I'm going to give Lily room to choose. When I think back to how I felt as a teen and to how I feel now, the deepest connections I made were with books of own choosing. I'm sure there are others who can list countless examples of assigned books becoming their favorites, that's just not been my experience. I want to make sure I don't create a situation where assigned books become dreaded books, or I take up so much time with my choices for her that she has little time to discover the works that will speak to her.

 

I've noticed the hard way over the past year or so that there was a decrease in enjoyment and retention with some of the assigned books in our home. Big, big problem. Now I try to do one of two things:

 

1. Give her guidelines regarding what type of book to read for a particular assignment, then let her choose the actual book completely on her own.

2. Give her a selection to choose from.

 

I've learned a lot about her doing it this way. She's also been much happier with her books.

 

For some reason, choosing which classics she needs to read feels akin to controlling her inner life and picking her friends.

 

Not saying this is true for everyone, not saying choosing books for your dc is wrong, I'm just offering a different perspective. :)

[Chrysalis Academy]

Speaking only for myself...you didn't make me feel bad!  I was just being silly. ;)  It was actually a quite freeing realization for me. (Although I did lose sleep thinking about how I interact with classics and how it differs from what the literary analysis I usually see looks like. That's not your fault, though! We can blame that on Rose. She tends to start sleep losing threads... ;) )

 

No fair blaming stuff on me while I'm asleep and can't defend myself.  Darn west coast!  :toetap05:  :smilielol5:

 

Lori D, I loved your analysis, and the thread about JE you linked to - reading that a couple of weeks ago was actually what gave me the idea of posting here while I was slogging through WH.  And OhE, thanks for posting your friend's comments!  That kind of anlaysis - done by somebody besides me - is kind of what I was looking for, because I do find that insights into a books time, context, history etc. help me appreciate it more.

 

But I can't say I enjoy doing literary analysis all that much, not at a level deeper than SWB describes in her lectures, in WTM, etc.  So, I guess I like kid-level LA, but not English Department LA?  :blushing: I'm kind of on Foster's How To Read Lit Like a Professor program - is there a symbol there? Sure.  Or not.  If you see a symbol or an allusive connection to another work, well, then, it exists.  But it's ok if you don't see it.  I also like to reflect on the letter from Flannery O'Connor somebody posted here awhile ago, her response to the lit professor who asked her an "analytical" question about A Good Man is Hard to Find.  She was gobsmacked by the depths he was tryiing to plumb to, and my simplistic paraphrase of her response is, "Just read the story - it's all equally real, that is, unreal.  Get over yourself!"

 

So yeah, I think I have a pretty simplistic approach to LA, which is why I enjoy these discussions!  :biggrinjester:

 

But I find my discussions with Shannon to be fun and enriching.  We talk about the Harry Potter series endlessly - surprise surprise.  And we recently read The Giver, The Lottery, and The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, and had an amazing discussion about freedom vs. security and what it makes sense to sacrifice, and the good of the one vs. the good of the many - which tied in nicely to history, coincidentally, because we just read about 9/11 and its aftermath.  And we talked about how Jonas and Eve had a similar choice about knowledge vs. living in "paradise" - complete with a symbolic apple  ;)   But I guess overall, I like this kind of analysis - what do you think the story is really about? What kind of model of the world is the author creating? How is it similar or different to your world? Do you agree or disagree with the main message?  - a lot more than I like digging for symbols and stuff.  

[Woodland Mist Academy]

  I also like to reflect on the letter from Flannery O'Connor somebody posted here awhile ago, her response to the lit professor who asked her an "analytical" question about A Good Man is Hard to Find.  She was gobsmacked by the depths he was tryiing to plumb to, and my simplistic paraphrase of her response is, "Just read the story - it's all equally real, that is, unreal.  Get over yourself!"

 

 

 

If I remember correctly, Richard Adams says something similar about Watership Down. Didn't Tolkien also say much the same about Lord of the Rings? (Or maybe I was just hoping he did... :lol: )

[Muttichen]

I always choose some and let them choose some.

 

For American lit (10th), for example, I have a reading list dd chooses books from.  A few, like Scarlet Letter, are non-negotiable, but she has a lot of freedom to choose what she likes.  In 12th grade, my kids plan the whole course.  For example, Ds19 really likes Hemingway, Cormac McCarthy, etc., so his course was "Modern American Literature."

 

In AP Lit (11th grade, which I teach to a group), we do two plays and four novels that I have chosen with the open question in mind.  (The last essay on the exam is an open question that they answer using any book they studied.  I want to be sure they are well prepared for whatever question they get.)  In addition, they read one play and three novels that they choose.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

I always choose some and let them choose some.

 

For American lit (10th), for example, I have a reading list dd chooses books from.  A few, like Scarlet Letter, are non-negotiable, but she has a lot of freedom to choose what she likes.  In 12th grade, my kids plan the whole course.  For example, Ds19 really likes Hemingway, Cormac McCarthy, etc., so his course was "Modern American Literature."

 

In AP Lit (11th grade, which I teach to a group), we do two plays and four novels that I have chosen with the open question in mind.  (The last essay on the exam is an open question that they answer using any book they studied.  I want to be sure they are well prepared for whatever question they get.)  In addition, they read one play and three novels that they choose.

 

I would love to hear how you compiled your list of choices! Are there resources that were helpful to you? I have a few (including TWTM), but I am open to additional resources. :)

[Chrysalis Academy]

My most successful technique so far is to try and group things thematically, and to let the books and stories respond to each other, almost.  I look at it as a way of demonstrating for my kids the Great Conversation, and inviting them into it.

[Chrysalis Academy]

If I remember correctly, Richard Adams says something similar about Watership Down. Didn't Tolkien also say much the same about Lord of the Rings? (Or maybe I was just hoping he did... :lol: )

 

Yeah, he has this whole thing about how the author doesn't matter, and don't look for allegory or worry about the historical context, or look for connections to other/previous lit, just enjoy the story!

 

It kind of put a damper on the Tolkien study I had been planning . . .  :huh:  :laugh:  :lol:

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Yeah, he has this whole thing about how the author doesn't matter, and don't look for allegory or worry about the historical context, or look for connections to other/previous lit, just enjoy the story!

 

It kind of put a damper on the Tolkien study I had been planning . . .  :huh:  :laugh:  :lol:

 

I always giggle when I hear of people doing Tolkien studies... :laugh:

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Literary analysis reminds me of tarot reading. What we find often says more about ourselves than the story or card. That, too, has its place.

 

 

[shawthorne44]

And if the author wants to say something in their books, they will tell you about it.  Probably in a preface or notes at the end of the book.  Or a preface to a later book.  

Finding what the author wanted to say should be like an Easter Egg hunt setup for 3 year olds.  

[Chrysalis Academy]

Right! Like somebody else said - you find what you bring to the story.  What you see always depends on what else you have read, maybe especially what you've read recently, what's going on in your world, etc.  I think this is such a big selling point of having kids read widely, and sometimes assigning things (not always) - the more you have participated in the conversation, the more it makes sense to you and the more you have to offer.

 

Honestly, the way I choose my reading these days - when I'm not specifically pre-reading for the girls' lessons - is to try to read or re-read the books that have bubbled up to the surface for whatever reason, that are referred to around me, or that I know I missed the first time around - like WH - and I read them partly because I want to know what people are talking about, I want to understand the allusions, I want to enrich the contents of my own mental library so that I can have a deeper appreciation of the conversation.  So many things that get mentioned here, and I realize, how is it I never read that? so I do - in fact, Woodland, you are to blame for me recently reading Bleak House, it was your comments about that book in passing as part of another conversation that made me realize, wait a minute, that's another book I haven't read! Get on it!

 

I guess I'm saying that I know my kids will barely scratch the surface of what's out there while they are under my roof, so the best thing I can give them is an invitation to the conversation, and the tools they will need to be a part of it.  Where they go with it is up to them, and they have the rest of their lives to take part! But I think I need to provide them with some basic skills - vocabulary, deep reading/annotation - and some basic knowledge - historical context, literary terms & techniques - and then a bunch of background content - myths & legends, bible stories, shakespeare - so that they have the tools to read for enjoyment and understanding for the rest of their lives.