What is (or should be) the purpose of studying literature?

[Caspian]

Inspired by a rather ... heated discussion in one of my classes, here's the question:

Is the point of studying literature to make people familiar with great books or is it to give them the skills to read anything well?

Another way of thinking about the question is: Is the point WHAT you read, or HOW you read?

Or another way of thinking about it: If I graduate with an English degree but have never read Shakespeare is that a failing English program? What if I have read tons of famous stuff but I don't know how to apply that to a new book? Which is worse?

[Satya]

Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body. - Solomon, Ecclesiastes

Edit: Nice rack.

[neo-dragon]

I'm inclined to say that it's more about how you read. I'm not a fan of literary types being all snobbish about which books are worth reading and which are just popular trash. Appreciating and understanding any type of literature seems to be more important than just having an impressive list of classics under one's belt.

[Petra456]

I would also go with it's how you read. I never even thought it would have been for what you read.

[starlooker]

Both/and instead of either/or?

I honestly wouldn't think those two goals would be mutually exclusive. In a good class, I would assume they would both be happening.

Really, I think learning how to read without a demonstration of the material being discussed would be, well, difficult. All the explanation in the world about how to read won't help if your only texts are Dick & Jane and The DaVinci Code.

[locke]

I think the word literature sort of encompasses, well, all of literature, and that many interpret literature much more narrowly as only encompassing 'literary' works. There are different reading strategies in play for different kinds of reading. where one runs into issues is that much of an education in english literature doesn't train or even acknowledge reading strategies outside of the ones used for modernism, post-modernism or shakespeare for example. an english degree can make you a very good reader of the kind of books your english department taught, but you might be a very poor reader of non-fiction, epic fantasy, science fiction, parody, romance novels, thrillers, and mysteries.

So you may come out really knowing how to understand deeply a limited range of material--but this training also makes you inclined to read works outside of that range with the strategies used within that range, and people often become frustrated because a science fiction piece doesn't read well to a modernist or post-modernist reading (unless you're william gibson, Philip k Dick). Is this a problem with the work or with the reader? Or they might be frustrated that a mystery doesn't have the depth of a Crying of Lot 39--but their definition of depth is limited to the reading strategies they've been taught. Non Brits literature types, for example might see Discworld books as just a series of bad puns set on a rather silly world for humorous effect. those who study the works though might find that there is quite a lot of depth, sophistication, and weight in Pratchett's satire, characters and story themes, that is artfully masked by the 'sugar coating' of genre.

So I would say that studying literature gives you the skills to read with literary strategies really well. it doesn't mean it gives you the skills to read anything well (though it may leave many thinking they KNOW how to read anything well and they will then assume anything they don't read well is always bad writing because its impossible they're not reading it well). So I would say it's more to familiarize you with great books.

and this runs into all the problems of canonical works and small populations. You run into all sorts of feedback loops, selective recruitment, and self-reinforcing fallacies and tautologies--leading to excruciatingly thought out thesis that set out to prove a conclusion you've already reached (proving something after-the-fact), rather than reach a conclusion after rigorous examination. Is work X great because its demonstrably great, or is it great because everyone says it is great? Well then, why do they say it is great? Is it great because people like it or is it great because people had to make an effort to like it (and thus don't want to feel like their effort was in vain?)

[zeroguy]

Is the point of studying literature to make people familiar with great books or is it to give them the skills to read anything well?

It's not all about pretentiousness and winning conversational arguments? Golly, I've completely misread you guys!

[Rei]

Part of the role of studying famous literature is to understand other literature. Even if it's only to get a reference to something in your favourite TV show, you need some understanding of what is considered canonical lit in order to more fully understand any other forms of literature.

So yeah, I'm with the people who say that any half-decent English programme should teach how you read by reading some of the major works with which any educated individual may be expected to be passingly familiar.

[jotabe]

My approach to literature is a lot more... problem-solving, if you will. For me, the purpouse of studying literature (beyond excelling the homonim cathegory of the Trivial Pursuit) is learning how other people conveys a certain message. Messages that can be simple or complex, they can just attempt to transmit information or generate a certain emotion on the reader, or both.
By learning how other writers have solved one certain problem (for example "i need to write a fighting scene, how do i make it exciting?") you have great grounds on how to do it yourself.

[Rei]

I've recently been in a few discussions more focused at the question in the thread's title: why study literature? (Mainly asked by history students who mock me for insisting on focusing on literature instead of on cold history.)

Literature is important because it teaches us what it means to be human. History tells us what humans have done and how we got to where we are now, but literature explores WHY we have done what we have done. By all means we should find pleasure in stories (if you aren't enjoying what you are reading, you should consider why you are reading it), but that should not be the primary purpose of the majority of lit. The primary purpose for most lit should be an exploration of human emotions and ideas and passions and reasons.

If the primary purpose of all stories is merely entertainment, then history and science students have all the right in the world to mock literature students, because it is all merely fluff. But if the primary purpose of stories is to teach us how to be human, then literature is indeed one of the more important branches of study.

[locke]

history isn't objective

history is literature.

History pretends it isn't literature

History is taken more seriously because of the pretending.

[jotabe]

Literature is important because it teaches us what it means to be human.

I think biology and psychology take care of that. And to a lesser degree, philosophy.

[Rei]

Biology tells us how human beings work physically. I would argue that it does not by any means tell us what it means to BE human. Psychology certainly does approach it, but it's too clinical to really capture the human essence well.

Both of these are definitely very important in our total understanding of what and who humans are in a physical sense and in examining the mind with certitude. But neither of them is able to really show you what the various passions and drives look like and how they play into the world around someone. Psychology may describe them and biology may tell you their limitations, but neither of them really shows it to you.

As for philosophy, it looks at the questions of what it means to be and why be. These are definitely close and is good to develop a firm grasp of ideas that apply to what it means to be human, but it is not so efficient at showing it.

I can describe the biology of a genius kid; I can tell you about his psychological state that would cause him to commit xenocide in a game; I can tell you about his worldview that shaped him along this path; or I can tell you a story of how he was manipulated and show you his decisions and let you imagine yourself or anyone else in his position and you can see and feel his heart and his mind as he makes each hard choice and suffers the consequences. Good literature can take what we learn from biology, psychology, and philosophy and apply it, showing everyone from the layman to the professional something of the human being more clearly than any of those three are able to do.

[jotabe]

You who speak languages are such liars.

[Rei]

Ah, but we speak true lies!

[mazer]

Inspired by a rather ... heated discussion in one of my classes, here's the question:

Is the point of studying literature to make people familiar with great books or is it to give them the skills to read anything well?

Another way of thinking about the question is: Is the point WHAT you read, or HOW you read?

Or another way of thinking about it: If I graduate with an English degree but have never read Shakespeare is that a failing English program? What if I have read tons of famous stuff but I don't know how to apply that to a new book? Which is worse?

I think the reason some one should study literature is not to gain knowledge on how to read and digest literature, or to familiarize yourself with a book just because it is a classic or what ever. I think the reason some one should study literature is to A) Gain a deeper understanding than what is on the surface of the book and B) Enjoy the story and hopefully, if it is a good book, be moved by the characters and take some life lesson from the book.