What think? Is the reading of fictional great books important?

[Patty Joanna]

I don't know why that header line was so hard to write. What I really hope for is a little discussion here.

Let's say one's reluctant reader does great with mythology, history, biography, scientific, philosophic and true adventure reading (and interestingly enough, poetry) but is really NOT into The Novel.

Can the reluctant reader be considered to have been educated if he does not read the Fictional Great Books?

Hypothetically speaking....

This is me--> :bigear:

[Chris in VA]

Yes, I think they are important. Others can respond more eloquently, I'm sure, but I just will say that I think there are so many wonderful themes of human-ness woven into the great novels that it would be a disservice to your child to not at least introduce some of them to him.

[Patty Joanna]

I know you might not have time to answer this in depth--no offense taken if not... But what are some of the themes introduced in fictional literature that cannot be introduced through biography, history, autobio, myth, etc.

(Not being argumentative...I have been mulling this, and decided that going in circles in my own head was not that entertaining after all...)

Kind regards,

[Leah]

I am in a mood to think about this one!


I'd have to say that while I love novels and hope others will as well, I believe that you can be well educated and not read many novels. I do think that for the sake of the genre I would not let them be totally ignored-you've got to at least attempt a couple. ;)

But...in thinking about your question and your examples of other readings, I think that the novel would not need to be central to an education, and sometimes I wonder if we emphasize it too much in these modern days.

If you read the great myths, histories, biographies, scientific readings, philosophy, and true adventure reading, AND poetry, I can't think of a universal idea (like justice, love...) or human condition that you would not be experiencing. And if by poetry you cover things like Homer and Dante for example...well, I think those are more important to being classically educated that many of the later novels.

How about dramas? Do those work? Because if these are also in the mix that adds so much richness as well-Shakespeare...

Just my Friday afternoon ponderings...

[Jane in NC]

...what are some of the themes introduced in fictional literature that cannot be introduced through biography, history, autobio, myth, etc.


Is it a matter of themes or cultural literacy? Does one empathize with facts as one may do with characters in a novel? (In the case of the latter, is this empathy valid or misplaced?)

Your questions lead me to think about books that I really like. Take, for example, The Mill on the Floss. Why do I like this book? There is the issue of a girl who cannot be formally educated despite her apparent talents. Is that what resonates with me? There is the theme of family honor and questions are raised on what is socially respectable. Ugh...I'd never pick up a sociology text on this, but the novel is one of my favorites.

One could read about bootleggers and the disparity of wealth in the '20's in a history book, but does it lead to the understanding that we have as we watch Gatsby through Nick Carraway's eyes?

A good reason to study the novel? Consider the opening paragraph of Dickens' Hard Times:

"Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I will bring up these children. Stick to facts, Sir!"

Don't think I'm picking on you, Patty Joana. I've just been looking for a reason to quote this paragraph. ;) You did say that you study poetry which is certainly removed from just the Facts.

And then there is the entertainment aspect. I love Wodehouse! I'll never forget reading Tom Jones in college--what a romp!

Jane (who also loves mysteries but watches little TV)

[Patty Joanna]

Yes, for some reason--probably because of the interactive nature of things--Shakespeare works well here. And good grief, what did Shakespeare NOT touch on? We got the ArkAngel set of Shakespeare awhile back so we do listen to these at will...and talk about them.

I think I got thinking about this in light of the conversation concerning the requirement (or not) for creative writing in the spectrum of a complete education. If creative writing is not necessary to *do*, is it necessary to *read*?

But I am all ears because I am also a lazy cuss, prone to take the easy path and I need thoughts other than my own here. Thanks for chiming in.

[Patty Joanna]

Wodehouse is a gem! (But I don't know that he makes the Greats lists...)

I agree with you about not wanting just the facts--God help us if all we read is Technical Manuals. But that is not what history or autobiography or ... adventure are. It seems like maybe reading history through Greats compared to reading history through textbooks is the issue here--the Great Conversation v. the Facts. And to use the example from Gatsby above, those things can be written into good bios, I think. Or by reading multiple bios about the same era--for example Grant's AND Lee's; Lincoln's (multiple books) and those of his generals or cabinet or business partner. Jefferson's AND Adams'.

I wonder if there is a gene that makes one have a preference for the stuff that is based in what has actually happened v. the world that could happen, but overall, the themes are the same--or not there at all.

Fiction for Fun is easy for me. But I am wondering about the Great Conversation--can it be held without Fiction in the mix--maybe not for everyone, but for one person. Can the one who lacks it hold his/her own in the Great Conversation?

[Carol in Cal.]

so that probably colors my reply.

I remember hearing an interview with author Barbara Kingsolver once. Someone asked her about putting politics into her novels. She said that all fiction is political in some way, because all fiction creates empathy for characters who are neither you nor anyone that you know. She thought that creating empathy is a political act.

Personlly, it does not matter much to me whether creating empathy is a political act or not. However, the quote did start me thinking about what other genres may or may not create empathy. I have read a lot of biographies, but none of them get into the characters' heads like a good novel does. I have read autobiographies, and they are all in just one head, usually. Plus I often consider them significantly self-serving in their self-presentations, so I have my guard up with them for that reason. I think that the novel, more than any other genre, creates empathy for someone quite different than onesself, and that although aspects of that experience and thought-problem are available from other types of reading, the novel fundamentally does this more effectively and more efficiently, and in a usually more thought-provoking way than other genres do.

Is it critical to a good education? I would guardedly say that it is critical to a well-rounded one, and valuable to anyone.

[kokotg]

I think the comments they offer about human experience are only one reason to read novels. Cultural literacy is another. But I would argue that, at least as importantly, we read fiction for the same reason we study higher math (even though we may well never use it in real life) or Latin (even aside from its ability to help with our SAT scores)--it's good for your brain and teaches you how to think. I wrote something forever ago in my "personal statement" with my grad school application about how my engineering minded father had trouble understanding my English degree and grad school ambitions and that perhaps I could explain it to him in terms he could relate to by saying something along the lines of, "we take books apart to see how they work." Dissecting fiction to see how it makes it argument is much different from non-fiction, and both are valuable. I suppose one could argue that you don't need to read novels in the same way that one can argue that you don't need to learn algebra, but in both cases I think it's a weak argument.

[Patty Joanna]

That's a good point. There is no one omniscient in the world of non-fiction; assumptions must be made according the the actions (by their fruit you will know them).

How important is it to get inside the head of another, when the "head" one is trying to educate is already full of stuff that needs to be dealt with, assuming one is cultivating virtue and wisdom in one's own life? That might be as clear as mud: here--let me try this again. When I read a history or a bio (not a text), are there places where my mind touches that of the subject, where there is connection and understanding of the subject, even if I don't have explicit statement of omnisciently stated motivations and thoughts?

I mean, if I see, oh, say, John Adams having to stand up for something he believes in a situation where he is not well liked, can I not connect with this without having omniscient understand as to his state of mind while he is doing this work, and resolve to cultivate the ability to do this kind of thing, whether or not we share the same "state of mind" at the time.

I don't know if I am saying this well. I can't think of many people more different from me that John Adams (way smarter, way more courageous, way more disciplined, way more generous than I) and yet reading his bios gave me great insight into someone differernt from me and encouraged me toward the wisdom and virtues he had, even while being so different.

SWB's book TWEM gave me some good insights into reading autobios in particular and that has made them more helpful in reading "between the lines". Because as you noted, who can know oneself, truly?

[Moira in MA]

May I surmise that your reluctant reader is male?

Many boys do not like to read fiction. You never can tell what you are going to get. In the non-fiction section of a library, if you pick the book next on the shelf from the one you've just read and enjoyed, you can pretty much be sure that you'll at least be interested in the topic. This strategy doesn't work in the fiction section where topic varies wildly. I was once told by a librarian whom I held in high regard that early experience of such disappointments often put boys off fiction for life. Having 2 dd's I have no personal experience of this but thought it worth passing on.

My opinion about a life without fiction -- dull -- but my dh seldom reads fiction and doesn't find his life dull or lacking in essentials.

HTH

[Patty Joanna]

Your surmise is correct!

My RR (NOT Reader Rabbit) is one who will read kid-lit that is way below his ability all day long, but not fiction as anywhere remotely near his age-appropriate and ability level. But he loves to be read to ("she croaked from a parched and weary throat") from multiple versions of histories, bios. He will read poetry all day long.

My dh is very much like your dh. And he has one of the most active lives of the mind that I have ever seen--and is surrounded by like people, and always has been. He participates in the Great Conversation and lives its intentions as well.

I think this is part of where I am conflicted. I live in this Classical Homeschool World where reading is so important, sometimes almost venerated as an object of worship!, that to have reluctance puts me into cognitive dissonance, and so I want to figure out what is the needful and right thing to do.

[Myrtle]

mythology, history, biography, scientific, philosophic and true adventure reading (and interestingly enough, poetry) but is really NOT into The Novel.
This is me--> :bigear:


Not even Isaac Asimov or Stephen King?

[Carol in Cal.]

That's a good point. There is no one omniscient in the world of non-fiction; assumptions must be made according the the actions (by their fruit you will know them).

How important is it to get inside the head of another, when the "head" one is trying to educate is already full of stuff that needs to be dealt with, assuming one is cultivating virtue and wisdom in one's own life? That might be as clear as mud: here--let me try this again. When I read a history or a bio (not a text), are there places where my mind touches that of the subject, where there is connection and understanding of the subject, even if I don't have explicit statement of omnisciently stated motivations and thoughts?

I mean, if I see, oh, say, John Adams having to stand up for something he believes in a situation where he is not well liked, can I not connect with this without having omniscient understand as to his state of mind while he is doing this work, and resolve to cultivate the ability to do this kind of thing, whether or not we share the same "state of mind" at the time.

I don't know if I am saying this well. I can't think of many people more different from me that John Adams (way smarter, way more courageous, way more disciplined, way more generous than I) and yet reading his bios gave me great insight into someone differernt from me and encouraged me toward the wisdom and virtues he had, even while being so different.

SWB's book TWEM gave me some good insights into reading autobios in particular and that has made them more helpful in reading "between the lines". Because as you noted, who can know oneself, truly?

It happens that I have read 3 books lately that all purported to get into his head. The authors all saw different things in there--different motives, different priorities. They all looked at the same material and saw something different. One thought that he was motivated by conscience and Godliness to fight slavery in a subtle way early in his career, and more explicitly later. Another thought that he just really enjoyed a good political battle. Another thought that he was just doing his job, more or less.

Of the three, the most convincing to me is the one that quotes from his own writings. It is also the one that describes the risks he was taking most thoroughly. So the strongest case was made for this author's POV, not just from 'getting inside Adams' head' but from ancillary information.

None of these are novels, though. In a novel, I would see what he was thinking, and what maybe 10 other people were thinking. I would see them work through things in their own consciences, and coming to different conclusions. I would see them all taking more or less the same events, and responding to them differently. I would be able to consider things from several points of view, and formulate judgement from several perspectives. One good piece of historical fiction from this time would give me more of that than the other three bios together.

OTOH, now that I think about it, I remember reading a lot of source material once, that led me to really contemplate and figure out what I would do in a tough situation. I went to Berkeley during the late 70's, long after the riots and such. I read a book of source material called "The Berkeley Student Revolt." It was about the Free Speech Movement in 1964. As I read the material, I was judging it as I went along. I knew where the students ended up--way on the wrong side of the law. I sympathized with them at first, though--at first I think that they were right. I was sure that they were wrong at the end. But where did that line get crossed? It was very difficult to say. And, would you cross the line a little bit to support your leader, who had risked himself for all of you? Certainly, maybe a little, but not all the way to the end.

This book made me realize that it is critical to keep asking whether something like that is right or wrong as it unfolds, or else you could end up, in small, imperceptible steps, in a place taking an action that you would never ordinarily do or defend. Later, I had reason to be very glad that I had thought this through before confronted with such a problem; that this book had alerted me to a possibility that I would probably not have considered otherwise. This is very much like the fictional empathy that I've cited earlier. Maybe I am changing my own mind here. But I still think that excellent fiction could be the most efficient way to get to that point.

I also thought of C. S. Lewis. His fiction is one of the things that makes me value fiction so much--it enables me to picture how something could be true, in a way that nothing else has. I think, for instance, of his ideas about the integration of all knowledge and wisdom--Platonic and Biblical, for instance, and how much better this is conveyed to me in Chronicles of Narnia than in any other place that I have seen it. But then, I think of his non-fiction as well; which has much the same effect on me--that of making me able to picture difficult ideas in a way that is true.

So, I'm coming up with my own counterexamples here! Thanks for the interesting thought experiment.

[Patty Joanna]

Well, if you are talking yourself out of things, so will I, and because of an author you mentioned. CS Lewis. It occurs to me that in his fiction, thinking Screwtape and Great Divorce here, he takes thoughts and ideas and "puts skin on them" so I can "see" them. Making the abstract concrete gives me another pathway to receive the idea that might elude me otherwise. These are more in the category of allegory than novel, although both are fictions.

[Robin in Tx]

So good to "see" you!

Here is a link to an article about this:

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/fiction-false.html

I don't know if you will agree with what Cothran is saying, but it made a big impression on me. Especially the part about Jesus and the Pharisees.

Hope this adds to the conversation in some small way! Have I told you how good it is to see you :)?

Robin

[LilyK]

literate person, even without the help of novels. Personally, can't live without them, but my husband has never read one in his life. Honest! He can't stand them, but he loves books on art, biographies, nonfiction, and religious studies. The novels that I have read number in the high hundreds, but I can't say that I am necessarily a more literate person than he is, or even more well-rounded.

It might make you feel better to remember that, until modern times, reading novels had been frowned upon in the world of education.

[HollyinNNV]

I don't know why that header line was so hard to write. What I really hope for is a little discussion here.

Let's say one's reluctant reader does great with mythology, history, biography, scientific, philosophic and true adventure reading (and interestingly enough, poetry) but is really NOT into The Novel.

Can the reluctant reader be considered to have been educated if he does not read the Fictional Great Books?

Hypothetically speaking....

This is me--> :bigear:

This is an interesting question. Can you be educated fully within the field of science without studying the cell? Can you be educated fully within the field of music history without studying the baroque period? Can you be educated fully within the field of writing without writing the essay?

My humble opinion is that all students should read novels in order to have a complete education. I don't know what your definition of "Great Books" is...but I do believe all students should read novels.

This may never turn into a love/hobby/pastime. But, that does not mean that the student shouldn't have exposure to novels.

But, I guess your question is whether the novel brings something to an education that no other type/genre of literature does.

I think the short answer is that there are far too many great novels to ignore this genre. But, that's not a very good answer. I bet someone could come up with a better answer!

Or is the question if a student's tastes should mold what he/she studies?

I'm not sure I can answer that question either! But I can kind of tell you the answer I've come up with is made easier by the type of students my kids are. My dd really doesn't have a great deal of enthusiasm about any subject. She really doesn't express that she favors anything more than anything else. I've asked her at the end of the school year what did you like best? Her answer, "Nothing mom-its all kind of the same-lots of work-none of it's that great." So, the bummer is that she is not really excited about anything. It's just all blah. The good thing is that she doesn't particularly hate anything either! So I don't have the pressure about avoiding anything.

Well-she'd love to avoid math but knows that "ain't gonna happen in this lifetime." So there's no complaining from her.

Anyways-I am able to provide a potpourri of educational opportunities for her because I have no reason not to!

And I suppose that part of the difficulty of education is teaching our children how not to be their own worst enemy, how not to get in their own educational way. I think that this is only accomplished by setting challenges in front of them that they would not normally pick for themselves.

The times I have seen the most growth in my children were often the most painful:

My dd (not a science gal by any means) winning a trip to Washington DC after taking 2nd place in an engineering contest as a 7th grader and then working for 11 more months to take 1st place!

My ds wrestling through adding and subtracting with much tears and gnashing of teeth to find that, "Mom, I like multiplying! Maybe I won't like it when it gets harder but I like it now."

I (many times) look at the weaknesses in my kids and make it my mission to conquer those areas.

I guess that I am a believer in K-12 being the great chance to expose kids to everything. They have the rest of their lives to specialize. Now that's not to say that they shouldn't have things they do very well. But, I don't want to shut any doors educationally.

Hope this stream of consciousness rambling makes some sense!
Holly

[Robin in Tx]

It might make you feel better to remember that, until modern times, reading novels had been frowned upon in the world of education.

I always thought that novels were at first disdained because mass printing had opened the way for trivilization. Until then, and even since then, though, there was still a rich oral tradition of epics and myths and fables, which many of the great books are based on. I'm not sure Patty was talking about certain types of novels as much as she was talking about fictional great books... and I view the great books much differently than I view mass marketed novels.

Look at poetry... poetry is usually fiction, and I think that the world of education has always valued poetry. So they're not down on great fiction so much as they are down on trivial novels. (or so I think... I could be wrong!)

[frogpond1]

reading TinTin. I remember your guy having that phase. The 6 year old was quite caught up with it and I wanted to sneak a picture. Someday he'll be grown up like yours. My oldest has more of the other problem. He'd prefer fiction to nonfiction. Our battles this year are decreasing at an amazing rate with ds #1. Maybe time will win this one for you??

[Laurie4b]

Short answer: Yes. Reading novels is important.

I believe that it's part of a well-rounded education and high school is a time to keep all the academic options open, and not prune any one branch off too soon because a student isn't interested. Universitities tend to keep this going for at least the freshman year, requiring a course in math, science, a foreign language, literature,etc. despite whatever one's major is.

Do novels bring something that non-fiction does not? It's been my experience that they do. I double-majored in pyschology and English, and went on to get a master's degree in social work and work as a clinical social worker in a mental health setting. The psychology courses were certainly useful as I headed into my intended career; however, I would say that good novels taught more, and perceived human nature more thoroughly than any psych. course. If you want to understand human beings, I think fiction is a very helpful avenue of learning. Here's a question: what one book fueled the anti-slavery movement and gave "soul" to the Civil War? It wasn't the autobiographies of former slaves, it was "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Why was that? As a fiction writer, she could weave facts into her narrative, so she had the same advantage as the autobiographies. However, she could also make use of political argument in the mouths of characters that she had created either empathy for or antipathy for. She could make use of symbol, so that Uncle Tom's death reminded all of her reader's of Christ's death as they were reading of Uncle Tom's. In short, the fiction writer has many means at his or her disposal to convey truths that cannot be as neatly conveyed in real life. Furthermore, the fact that the images of fiction are processed in a different part of the brain from the pure facts of nonfiction is itself very powerful, and one of the things that makes fiction different from nonfiction. It is sometimes the difference between saber and conocer if you know Spanish: the one thing, you know cognitively; the other you know experientially and more completely:in your heart, soul, and mind. I know the facts about my husband; that is an entirely different thing from knowing him as a person. I think fiction is like the latter kind of knowing.

Practically speaking, I would work with novels that were closest to your son's preferences first. I just taught a group of teenaged boys American Lit for 2 years. Uncle Tom's Cabin was a unanimous hit. They also all liked Huck Finn. After that, there was the kind of divergence you'd expect from different personalities.

[vmsurbat]

That's a good point. There is no one omniscient in the world of non-fiction; assumptions must be made according the the actions (by their fruit you will know them).


Although a fiction book can be written from the "omniscient" perspective, the reader is not truly getting an omniscient perspective--only that made up by the author.

I greatly enjoy fiction but I do not think it is *necessary* to read fiction to be well-educated in the best sense of the word--able to think, reason, feel, make connections. I think one can gain empathy, insight, compassion, and more from all sorts of "non-fiction" readings. It does not seem to me that your son has limited himself to dry encyclopedic readings, but enjoys a full, rich literary banquet.

The only limitation of not reading fiction can be a lack of current cultural knowledge. As one poster noted, Uncle Tom's Cabin was highly influential in its day--some one not reading it at the time was "out of the loop." We read it today because it helped shaped history (so it can fall into the history camp rather than the literature camp in a certain sense...). Are there modern novels with the same kind of impact? I think there can be (in theory)--witness the rise of novels taking place against the backdrop of the Middle East (The Kite Runner) or Africa (No 1. Ladies' Detective Agency). But to be honest, I think the movie media has taken over the influencing of popular opinion/culture (It is my understanding that the book The Kite Runner has now been made into a movie--and it will be that movie that influences people more...)

Note: A very interesting (non-fiction!) book on what goes on in the mind of an author is Mind of the Maker by Dorothy Sayers in which she compares the creating of a world-system as an author with God, The Original Author. I enjoyed getting an inside glimpse into what goes into creating a world of fiction. Perhaps your son might too.

[Patty Joanna]

My dh and I talked about this topic last night after he returned from a long road trip. He had pretty much this same insight--that the reading of fiction is possibly the best entry for gaining insight into the mind of a people within an historical setting. For example, Huck Finn is banned today for being racist, but in his time, Twain was doing a lot to point out how stupid racism is. He was probably slandered for his libertine attitude about the races. In the story, however, we see a lot of what Twain faced down in his time.

We talked about it even a little further--let me see if I can get this into a decent thought here: There are novels that we might think get us insight into the time, but because we see things from a different perspective altogther, we won't get as much as we could until we enter a little bit into that world ourselves. The specific example I am thinking of here is Dostoyevsky, who was Russian (obviously) Orthodox. He thought in an Orthodox way of thinking, not a Western Christian way of thinking. Eastern Christianity is different in the way it approaches things because it was not influenced as much as the West by Scholasticism and its fruits. SO...we THINK we have entered into the world of Dostoyevsky, but not as much as we could, if we understood his worldview better. This came up in our conversation because apparently there is a newer translation of (I think it is) War and Peace; this newer translation is done by an Orthodox Christian, and it puts a different light onto what Dostoyevsky is saying.

So when one thinks one is learning more about the way people thought, even then, one must remember that we can't do that completely.

Thanks for your contribution!

[cajun.classical]

As a literature teacher, my first response is, You have to read the novels. They are important! But just today, I listened to a lecture by Andrew Kern (from Circe) and he challenged me on that. He basically argued that novels should be left lying around for our students to read on their own time and as their interest dictates, but that we shouldn't make it part of our formal instruction time. So, as much as I love the great novels, I have to agree. Shakespeare and classical literature are non-negotiable; but they aren't novels!

[HollyinNNV]

As a literature teacher, my first response is, You have to read the novels. They are important! But just today, I listened to a lecture by Andrew Kern (from Circe) and he challenged me on that. He basically argued that novels should be left lying around for our students to read on their own time and as their interest dictates, but that we shouldn't make it part of our formal instruction time. So, as much as I love the great novels, I have to agree. Shakespeare and classical literature are non-negotiable; but they aren't novels!

What exactly did Kern say? I am curious what his arguments were!

What is your definition of classical literature?
TIA
Holly

[cajun.classical]

What exactly did Kern say? I am curious what his arguments were!

What is your definition of classical literature?
TIA
Holly

Well, classical literature would be anything Greek or Roman. Kern wasn't excluding fiction: he would of course consider all the great epics an essential part of education (Iliad, Odyssey, Divine Comedy, and Paradise Lost). He didn't present a great deal of arguments, only that novels (I'm speaking here of the modern novel that appeared in the 1700s and its more contemporary predecessors) are not an essential part of a classical education. He's basically making the same argument as Tracy Lee Simmons in Climbing Parnassus and Andrew Campbell in The Latin-Centered Curriculum, that the modern novel is something to be read for enjoyment and not officially studied. The classical school Tracy Lee Simmons attended didn't even teach *Shakespeare*; they considered him too modern!

So, if we are talking about what is an essential part of a CLassical Education, then that would not include the modern novel. The essential parts of a Classical education as defined for 2000+ years are the study of classical languages, classical literature, and classical history (i.e. Greek and Roman).

His recommendation was to make novels available; he said, leave them lying around the house. But that he wouldn't *require* that his students read them. Which isn't to say that the novels are not good or that they don't have anything insightful to say or are not worth studying. Simply that they are not *essential*, i.e. not required to be consider classically educated.

And on a practical level, no one even agrees on what the canon of great novels is! This is a much debated topic. So even the very best school will only cover a relatively small selection of novels, and that will be a different selection than some other school will teach. My point is that education requires choices! There is no way to escape making choices. We cannot teach everything. So we teach the very best and then the students must continue the process on their own over their lifetimes. I seriously doubt that any student who has seriously studied the great epics will have any trouble with a modern novel.

[HollyinNNV]

Well, classical literature would be anything Greek or Roman. Kern wasn't excluding fiction: he would of course consider all the great epics an essential part of education (Iliad, Odyssey, Divine Comedy, and Paradise Lost).
Thanks for the definition. Its always helpful to be speaking the same lingo.[/QUOTE]


He didn't present a great deal of arguments,
[QUOTE]I find that troubling.::001_smile:

only that novels (I'm speaking here of the modern novel that appeared in the 1700s and its more contemporary predecessors) are not an essential part of a classical education.
Well....and I'm totally wondering here.....is this by virtue of the fact that they didn't really exist (especially in present form) at this time period. Can we ponder the question, "Would Socrates have read Heart of Darknessand suggested his students do the same?

He's basically making the same argument as Tracy Lee Simmons in Climbing Parnassus and Andrew Campbell in The Latin-Centered Curriculum, that the modern novel is something to be read for enjoyment and not officially studied. The classical school Tracy Lee Simmons attended didn't even teach *Shakespeare*; they considered him too modern!

So, if we are talking about what is an essential part of a CLassical Education, then that would not include the modern novel. The essential parts of a Classical education as defined for 2000+ years are the study of classical languages, classical literature, and classical history (i.e. Greek and Roman).



I guess I find this odd, to ignore so much literature (formally)! The positive aspect of this is that it creates a scope that is actually feasible compared to the voluminous reading lists that I've seen.:D

Is there a name for this type of strict classical educator compared to....say......SWB?

His recommendation was to make novels available; he said, leave them lying around the house. But that he wouldn't *require* that his students read them. Which isn't to say that the novels are not good or that they don't have anything insightful to say or are not worth studying. Simply that they are not *essential*, i.e. not required to be consider classically educated.

And on a practical level, no one even agrees on what the canon of great novels is! My point is that education requires choices! There is no way to escape making choices. We cannot teach everything.
I totally agree with you!

So we teach the very best and then the students must continue the process on their own over their lifetimes. I seriously doubt that any student who has seriously studied the great epics will have any trouble with a modern novel.

In this, I agree as well.

So, if I were to conclude all this in a nutshell:

Strict classical educators confine their literary education to Pre-Shakespeare times (or possibly including Shakespeare).

Less strict classical educators take the strengths of classical education procedures and apply the procedures to the entire history of literature.

I would guess Kerns and Simmons address the following question. The great figures of Rome and Greece were certainly known for their intellectual questioning. They weren't static and yet it seems to stick to their own time period as an educator is static. I cannot imagine Socrates teaching in this manner if he lived in 2008. It doesn't ring true. So does this strict classical method follow the methods but not the spirit of the classicists?

Thanks for the interesting discussion!
Holly

[pixelroper]

Can the reluctant reader be considered to have been educated if he does not read the Fictional Great Books?


I would have to say yes (especially if you mean generally).

Though I"m not exactly sure why, other than knowing several well educated people who are reluctant to read fiction. ??

[Anna]

Patty Joanna, please drop me an email.... soon. I lost your addy.

Anna--- onepearl AT sbcglobal DOT NET

[Patty Joanna]

Dear Myrtle,

*Especially* not Stephen King! (smile)

Part of the question has to do with ME, as I am not very interested, by and large, in The Novel. Not anything I ever sat down and analyzed--I just realized that when I want to do some "good" reading, it is always to our bio or history sections I go. Fun Fact: After I started thinking about this, I realized that without even meaning to do this, I have read a bio of almost every US president--and most of the First Ladies.

And when I do read a novel, I usually end up in the mystery genre, often with a re-read of some well worn books I have already read a few times. I just like the writers' language and character in these, I guess, but they don't make my head hurt.

Shallow me.

Kind regards,

[Patty Joanna]

Hey, YOU. I have been thinking about you a lot lately, missing the long conversations. I hope you are doing well. It was nice to see your response here. I've been lurking on your conversations about co-op choices. I don't have any advice. I am starting to feel like I don't have any advice for anyone about anything except maybe to brush one's teeth for at least 2 minutes a day. I feel on pretty solid ground there!

I'll take a look at this article; we are heading into Holy Week here, so it will be a busy time and I'll have to bow out of this thread, but I'll pull it up after Pascha (next Sunday).

Talk to you soon, friend.

[Patty Joanna]

Hi, Lily,

I think this is probably the case. He runs circles around me in the mythology department and for his age, he is remarkable in his reading of non-novel. I myself am part of the question here--I don't like reading novels.

Your dh sounds a lot like mine.

Thanks for your post.

[Patty Joanna]

I liked the idea of "taking it apart". That's something we have been doing sort of on the fly, with the fiction he does read.

And I think there is a lot to be said about cultural literacy, although to a certain degree, this can be met with Cliff's Notes. (Sorry, I know that is a fairly revolting idea, but it was given me by a college professor who said that there isn't enough time in the world to read all the books, and yet one can gain a lot by understanding what they are about.)

Thanks for your contribution.

[Patty Joanna]

My guy is still IN that phase! (grin)

It's not really a battle--and it's not really all about him...I myself am not an avid novel reader.

DH and I talked about it a lot, and one thing he told me about is that he was not an avid reader at age level until high school. But my dh is a very well educated man, one who can hold his own in a conversation about just about anything. So I decided not to worry.

Hey, I miss you! How has school gone this year? I hope it has been full of blessings for you, and that your dream is closer to reality as a result of all the steps you made.

Kind regards,

[Patty Joanna]

Dear Holly,

Your "rambling" did make a great deal of sense. I have no intention of lopping out the entire genre. The thing is, if one takes a look at *any* "Great Books" list, one has to prune. But that doesn't mean one cuts off the entire branch of "novel" off the Fiction Tree. (I'm running out of steam already with this metaphor....) It's just a matter of playing to strengths...my son has 5 more years in our home, and I am 50 years old. I'm running out of time with him, and out of time altogether for me! There isn't enough time to read *allll* the great stuff, so I'm trying to make it as great as possible to read what we can.

And part of the question truly was not about a particular person or persons--it was just wondering about what role the novel plays in making one an educated person. Sort of like the discussion that has been had in other threads about writing and whether creative writing is required for one to be considered educated in writing.

My son has some things he really likes--logic, grammar, math, reading a lot of stuff--but he doesn't like to do much of the *work* around any of them. I can relate. I like to have the dishes done...I just don't like doing them. That sort of thing. I like having a clean house. I just don't like cleaning the house. Human nature I guess.

And I am with you on "shutting the doors". That's part of the goal, that I haven't intentionally or permanently shut any doors for my son's future. HOwever, I am also realizing as he gets older that there *are* doors that are shut by his nature--the child obviously will never be a fullback, for example--as well as open by his nature--the child will have missed his vocation if he doesn't pursue some form of teaching or guiding. He's a pain to go to museums with because he listens to the docents, and then after they move on, he grabs the next patron and gives them the lecture he just heard from the docent. It's in his nature.

Thank you for your contribution.

[Patty Joanna]

This is a very good point. It fits with what my dh and I were talking about, as well, that perhaps the most important contribution of the novel is the understanding of the time in which it was written. Thank you for taking the time to spell this out.

I agree with not lopping off the entire branch; however, if I am going to have to choose which great works to assign, there are more than can be completed, and so I think it helps to work with the nature of the child than against it. And frankly, he can fix it himself in college! That'll teach him. (I'm not talking about sending him into the world ignorant--just letting him have the fight with someone else and making sure that the inevitable gaps are not abysses.)

Thanks, Laurie.

[Patty Joanna]

I know a number of people like this...and the ones who do read fiction are reading the CLASSICS (Iliad, etc.)

I like your Groucho Marx signoff--he always makes me laugh.

[Patty Joanna]

Thanks for all who contributed here...I remember hearing this as well. I have a friend who is exceptionally well educated and easily turns out to be the most erudite in any conversation about anything and he was educated almost exclusively in Cicero and theology through high school. He has a firm foundation on which to place the rest of his learning, and it's not like he stopped reading at grade 12. I think that is really the point. But I dont' think he spends a lot of time on novels to this very day.

Also, I guess one has to go back at some point and talk about what it means to be educated at all.

Thanks all of you.

[Patty Joanna]

Thank all of you for participating in this discussion. I have read each post, and spent a lot of time thinking about what you have written, and discussing it with my dh. It has been great for us.

Some net-net from my end of the deal:
1. To answer the question, one has to define what it means to be well educated. In our definition, we include virtue, and part of virtue is wisdom. The definition has an impact on how one answer the question.

2. The main contribution I think novels will play in our house is "putting clothes" on a particular historical time period. It is impossible to put away our own modern sensibilities and worldviews when reading non-imaginative literature. But when a good writer creates characters we care about, and puts in a time out of our own, we are willing to make the effort to understand and that is something worth doing.

3. There isn't enough time to read even a selected "canon" of The Greats. One has to choose. There will be gaps--mercifully. Because for heaven's sake, if one had learned all there was to be learned, read it all, seen it all, done it all, discussed it to death, by grade 12, what a bleak life would be ahead. To me, this speaks to choosing foundational works...let the colleges deal with it after that--or one's own interest in self education. But a good strong foundation will consist more heavily, in my opinion, of a range of writings--and the one that can be pruned more--not completely lopped off--without making the tree completely whacked is the Novel.

4. There's more about how to think about Greats that we talked about, but I am out of time...

....because I have to stop posting for awhile. I was so happy to have a good discussion here, and wanted to participate in it and have been glad to do so. Now we are heading into Holy Week (Orthodox) and there won't be time to follow up anymore for a week or so...so back into my little rabbit hole I go again.

Thank you all again. I might check in, but I won't be able to respond for awhile.

Kind regards,



4.

4.

[cajun.classical]

Holly,

You bring up some good points. I have no idea how to format multiple quotes, so I'll cut and paste and hope this makes sense!


Quote:
I find that troubling.::001_smile:
Well, his comments about the modern novel were really more of an aside in a larger discussion of teaching the great books. And he probably developed his idea more than I recall. I have a very nasty habit of remembering the conclusions of arguments and NOT the supporting evidence. I'll have to listen again to it.

Quote:
Well....and I'm totally wondering here.....is this by virtue of the fact that they didn't really exist (especially in present form) at this time period. Can we ponder the question, "Would Socrates have read Heart of Darknessand suggested his students do the same?
I see what you are saying here. But then again Jonathan Edwards was classically educated (in the traditional sense of the word) and he didn't formally study the more modern works, which were certainly available at the time of his education. And C.S Lewis was classically educated. Read Surprised by Joy. His education was very very limited to our modern minds. He comes right out and says that we need to be studying fewer subjects and doing them better. He says that trying to do too much in education creates mediocrity and destroys standards for life.


Quote:
I guess I find this odd, to ignore so much literature (formally)! The positive aspect of this is that it creates a scope that is actually feasible compared to the voluminous reading lists that I've seen.:D

Is there a name for this type of strict classical educator compared to....say......SWB?
Yes, it strikes me as odd too---especially given my professional interest in the matter! lol And yes, I agree with you that it certainly slims down the list of books to cover greatly. And I think that's the idea. It is very easy to let all the good things crowd out the best things. And I would certainly agree that there is a lot of good to be found in novels. But we end up watering down the education in our attempt to cover every "good" thing. So, the argument goes, do only the BEST things. Do those well. And then all the good things can be covered informally, as our interest directs us, and using the tools of learning we've developed in studying the best.

Yes, there is a name: classical educators. The problem is that with this recent resurgence of CLassical Education, has come a change in the use of the term. What SWB and Doug Wilson and the Bluedorns are proposing when they talk about classical education is really neo-classical education, and SWB actually uses this term. So, because the term has changed it's meaning, some use the term Traditional Classical (or Latin-Centered) to distinguish themselves from the neo-classicists.



Quote:
In this, I agree as well.

So, if I were to conclude all this in a nutshell:

Strict classical educators confine their literary education to Pre-Shakespeare times (or possibly including Shakespeare).

Less strict classical educators take the strengths of classical education procedures and apply the procedures to the entire history of literature.

I would guess Kerns and Simmons address the following question. The great figures of Rome and Greece were certainly known for their intellectual questioning. They weren't static and yet it seems to stick to their own time period as an educator is static. I cannot imagine Socrates teaching in this manner if he lived in 2008. It doesn't ring true. So does this strict classical method follow the methods but not the spirit of the classicists?
You raise a good question here. Is this education antiquated and static and unfit for the modern world? I suppose if we are only studying Ancient works because they are Ancient or because we want to live in the past, then yes I would agree with you. But the argument is that we study the Ancients because 1) they are the best. When non-Ancients write/produce material that qualifies as the Best, we embrace it (cf. Dante, Milton), and 2) because studying the Ancients helps us to understand better the modern world. So rather then being trapped in the world of old, dead ideas, we use the history and literature of the Ancients to discuss and understand better our own times. Cheryl Lowe of Memoria Press has some interesting articles on this: how studying the Romans is a great way to understand better our own times. This is so true. If we desire to be dynamic and to understand the modern age, and we attempt to do this by studying in depth modern history and modern literature, we won't achieve what we set out to do. 1) We are way too close to our own history to be able to see it objectively 2) we don't know how the story (of the modern age) ends, so we can't make conclusions about the age (i.e. cultural and political trends leading to xyz) 3) we can't really understand the age in a vacuum. We have to really understand the past to understand the present.

At the very minimum, what all this tells me is that even if I decide to teach a few of my very favorite novels, I no longer feel the pressure to try to include EVERYTHING in my children's education. They have a lifetime to keep learning and reading. That really takes the pressure off. Less anxiety is a good thing.

I'm enjoying the conversation.