Why should there be mandatory literature classes?

Alright so this isn't all the cool news I was talking about in the last post - but that's coming, no worries! :D I'm trying to get all of that planned out right now.

What this WILL be is a rant. Kinda. If you're going to post rage without reason... please don't.

First of all, I like to read. I think that reading is awesome, and I love books. Don't get me wrong there, language and language classes are important. However, there is a point where they get ridiculous for being mandatory - that point is when a person is meant to analyze "important literature" for literary devices and themes and similar. There are some good reasons - such as giving people material for learning to write essays, or to force people to read more and be exposed to other kinds of literature. But there are some flaws with this.

I would like to put forward this statement: Literature is an art form, similar to music or visual art. If someone disagrees with me, I would love to hear their reasoning.

Now, in light of this - literature being an art form - are there any reasons why learning and analyzing literature is a mandatory part of classes while learning and analyzing music or visual art is not?

I personally cannot see any. All three enrich a person's life. Reading is important, but so is listening to music and so is seeing art. All three broaden a person's mind, and all three increase the person's capability to communicate. Some people like to analyze music, some people like to analyze books, some people like to analyze visual art. There is nothing wrong with any of these, but why is one mandatory in education and the other two not?

There's my question for the day. To date, every time I've asked this I haven't gotten a single answer which (A) isn't also reasoning for having mandatory visual art and music analysis classes and/or (B) is a reason that actually applies.

Any thoughts?

Comments

Log in to Comment

PascalPalomino 2013-07-07 13:24:31

Sorry, my main langage is not english but I would like to comment on this. I think Literature and music should be mandatory. Knowing how to write is probably the most important skills you can have because it's everywhere, and although you can learn to read and write without studying and reading the classics you will miss a rich culture. If you study something study the best, not only grammar just to be functionnal, this would be boring.
Music is something else but some contry as made it mandatory and Hongary is one of the leader in that field probably because of the influence of Bartok and ly. They are more and more research that conclude that learning music stimulate many area of the brain at the same time. Because of this the person have more facility learning other stuff like language, mathematic and more.
Well those are my main input on this subject.

SkyeWint 2013-07-07 13:24:31

Hello!

I would agree with you. Main issue is that both aren't mandatory, but only literature... Also that many of the 'great classics' take the grammar that people "need" to use and throw it out the window.

frootza 2013-07-07 18:42:29

Hey Skye,

Very observant of you! The educational system attempts to enrich the minds of our youth. Literature which is included in middle school/high school curriculum is often decided at a state level, but on occasion will be decided by school faculty members.

There is a hierarchy in place. We should be fortunate enough to be able to create music, art, and literature. In times of war and chaos, or when one's surroundings prevent them from expressing themselves, which element holds the most weight?

Look at the educational system and most importantly the sociological structure of low income areas in the United States. In these areas, a simple window repair may prove impossible due to a budget cut. Taxes are much lower, and as a result, schools suffer. If a school can't afford to give it's students a simple Mathematics text book, how can it afford to give a single child a trumpet?

Now look at your own life. You have a computer which you can use frequently, a few semi-expensive software packages, and you are fully capable of comprehending what you read; likewise capable of writing efficiently.

In short, it isn't mandatory because we have a socioeconomic divide. We have a natural instinct to survive as human beings. It is vital for a culture, for our spirit. Despite this, the arts remain secondary to what we need to survive as a society.

What do we do to combat these strange circumstances? We continue to write music and literature. We make art and ENCOURAGE others to do the same. Collaborate, and be supportive of your fellow artists despite your ego. Otherwise, slowly but surely, the arts will fade.

SkyeWint 2013-07-07 18:42:29

Alright, so - I completely understand what you're saying (I think), and I'll address your questions/points in turn.

"In times of war and chaos, or when one's surroundings prevent them from expressing themselves, which element holds the most weight?"
Obviously survival does - and this makes sense. However, in my question it assumes that the teaching of artistic expression is possible, that such circumstances are not the case.

"If a school can't afford to give it's students a simple Mathematics text book, how can it afford to give a single child a trumpet?"
This isn't the issue - music can be analyzed and learned about without an instrument, and so can visual art in the same way. All that needs to be done is have a picture of a note, along with a sound that can be attached to said note. Similarly, for visual art all that needs to be provided is the picture. Similarly for literature, all that needs to be provided is the actual literature in order to study it.

"it isn't mandatory because we have a socioeconomic divide"
When did I mention that? Language classes are mandatory in most schools, and they include the study of literature. Meanwhile, there are also often music classes which ONLY teach instruments. My question is - why is literature given special treatment over music or visual art?

frootza 2013-07-07 22:45:26

Hey again Skye,

You mentioned "mandatory courses" on various occasions in your OP.

Those circumstance you referred to have never consistently been, and more than likely will never be the case in the real world. We are always under pressure of being at war either at home or in other countries. Poverty has been around since man invented money.

It really isn't about what you mentioned. The answer to question you are posing isn't so simple. You need to understand that the socioeconomic divide is the root of many of our worlds problems, and for a better understanding of this, you'll have to do some of your own research.

I've taken many music classes in my lifetime, in High School and College. Not once was I in a classroom where I was unable to play an instrument in some way. Whether that be voice, piano, etc. To appreciate music, you need to play it. Likewise, to appreciate literature, you should write it. To appreciate art, you should make art. If people want to analyze music without instruments, they will listen to the radio and talk about it. This happens naturally in our culture which is why there are regional "music scenes" for people to become involved with.

I answered your question already. In times of war, what is more important? Having a stable successful economy that can compete with other countries intellectually in order to progress as a nation? Or being able to make relevant commentary about the music playing on the radio? It is about prioritizing. Music, while we thrive on it emotionally, is statistically less significant than studying language and mathematics. (Not my personal opinion, but it is just how the world works)

Anyway, great news post and discussion topic!