tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post655346820438641041..comments2023-10-24T17:21:16.565+02:00Comments on Sounds in the Hickory Wind: Does Literature Exist? Part 2The Hickory Windhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02099970252405596982noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post-19133305822769098552011-08-12T18:52:22.826+02:002011-08-12T18:52:22.826+02:00As a description of what teachers of literature sh...As a description of what teachers of literature should be doing (and often do do- a good friend of mine is Professor of Spanish Literature at the University here, and that is precisely how he understands his role, but he has to argue regularly with colleagues who see it differently, and I have to deal with the work of many so-called literary theorists who are only interested in articulating their own prejudices*) I think you are quite right.<br /><br />The Odyssey, the Mahabharata and Beowulf are collections of founding legends, but they are also undoubtedly literature, in that they are beautifully crafted, both metrically and narratively; but is the same true of the Tale of Sinhue, or Gilgamesh, or the Old Testament, which are studied more for their social impact than for their artistic quality?<br /><br />You mention Mark Twain. His importance to the history of literature is that he was one of the first authentically American voices (that's the way it's told, anyway) but the later Tom Sawyer books, a Connecticut Yankee and a few others, are just tales told to make money, and are not literary novels by any standard.<br /><br />Dickens is considered by many (though not by either of us, as we established recently) to be the greatest English novelist, yet he wrote for money at so many thousand words per month and structured many of his works according to the space the editor required him to fill. The results may be good but he was not primarily concerned with doing art through the written word.<br /><br />*In part 4 I sort of address this.The Hickory Windhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02099970252405596982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post-8254186545472018832011-08-12T12:02:54.555+02:002011-08-12T12:02:54.555+02:00This post (as opposed to Part 3, which I read firs...This post (as opposed to Part 3, which I read first) does make a lot of sense, though I may not agree with all of it.<br /><br />Speaking as devil's advocate for the teachers of literature etc, I'd say that their objective is to open the eyes of others (1) to literature as an art form in which it is necessary to point out excellence (its presence and absence) (2) to literature's role in today's society.<br /><br />Setting aside the historical roots of literatures (e.g. Epic of Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Sire Gawain & the Green Knight) I think it is right that literature courses should be pruned. Should Mark Twain or George Eliot be taught? It depends if they have to say anything to us today. When I was at school I read Sir Walter Scott's <i>Quentin Durward</i> as a set book; much of Tennyson too, and Milton's <i>Samson Agonistes</i> (at A-level). I think these may have gone off the horizon today, except for more advanced and specialised students.<br /><br />There has to be a relevance filter, don't you think?Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297306807695767580noreply@blogger.com