Can a book be taught?

Question

I'm currently readin "Teacher Man" by Frank Mc Court and it got me thinking about teaching English Literature. Can a book or literature in general actually be taught in terms of what it means? I stated in a previous question that a book is personal and it means different things to each individual reader. In English classes we are taught what a poem means or what a play means or a book but we can't really know these things without the author actually stating it as fact. Thus we are learning only what someone else thinks a book or poem means or what an examiner wants to hear.

If I write an essay on Hamlet stating that it was nonsense and meaningless to me and I justify it, I will still probably fail because I have gone against norm. Does this not defeat the whole exercise of teaching literature? Indeed can and should it be taught at all?

In response to cheeky.pi... I'm long past University and have my Ph.D already. Regarding your point that the teacher is probably right... you have kinda missed the point. The teacher merely states what he/she is told to state. i.e. a passing on of what his predessors taught him. That is the problem. We simply accept this teaching without the opportunity to question and query it. It has become so ingrained in our psyche. I've have never heard an English teacher stand before a class and state that Shakespeare was a load of bo**ocks, or that Hopkins couldn't write poems if his life depended on it. Even the teachers don't seem to have their personal opinion and they end up teaching things that they may not even agree with. If they don't like Shakespeare they still have to teach it because it is on the cirriculum.

Answer 1

Taking Hamlet as an example, all that can be taught are the findings of others. Was Hamlet mad or wasn't he? There are hundreds of written explanations for and against that argument. A teacher can 'teach' all that is known about the play but, if done properly, the pupil will ultimately come up with their own well-informed theory.

Personally, I believe that Hamlet was procrastinating because he was being told what to do by others and couldn't be himself until he'd done the one thing he was told not to do; berate his mother. I think that the play was a bit of a take on Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Adam had to bite the apple in order to know who he was. He had to do the only thing he was told he couldn't do! If he hadn't, it could be argued, God couldn't exist!

Well....that's my theory!

Answer 2

You're right - I've always felt that English Lit is very subjective and that, as long as you can substantiate your answer with proof from the text itself, then how can it be wrong... However, there are conventions in the world of academia and that means that the teacher is probably right - though if you can argue with him/her and prove your point ably, then the examiner too should respect your thoughts.

You sound like the bright kind of person who would enjoy the free-thinking of Comparative Literary Studies at uni - It's good for people who enjoy reading and pondering meanings of literature but dislike being fettered by the dusty opinions of someone else.

I actually refused to go to a seminar in my second year on the grounds that I had so little opinion of the insipid book we were studying that week that I would be wasting everyone's time and the professor accepted that without a murmur - as I'd justified it!

However, to get to that point, you will need to bow to convention first. It's easier to think for yourself when you know how other people think about similar topics too.

Good luck with the exams...

Answer 3

I could not agree with you more! The whole point of the power and resonance of artisitic and creative forms is the impact they have on individuals, in terms of informing them of their own sense of the message/s behind the work.
Literature and Art are taught as concrete and inflexible subjects and that is the last thing they are! Both inform us of the human condition which is complex and ever changing. I believe they are taught to children at an age when the concrete and inflexible are concepts they fear but cling to for security, so you are absolutley right. To teach this subject in the way it is taught presently runs the risk of killing creative thinking. The only rescuing hope is if a child reads a book as part of their study and it reaches them in a personal way that they are able to process in time. This happened to me with "To Kill a Mockingbird", the stuff I was told believe about Blake/Hughes and Plath, both bored and baffled me!
Enjoy your book for your own reasons my friend!

Answer 4

Yes,a book can be taught as a lesson for educating.But the cream of a book can not be taught, it can only be felt and the feeling varies from person to person.