This has always been my view...

http://twitpic.com/9wav52

I agree, I mean I know that sometimes things can be taken for more than their face value, but I always thought that a teacher telling me what the author meant, despite having no grounds for that reason other than a general agreement and acceptance between other teachers and establishments, was the height of arrogance.

Picard, I agree somewhat, but when it comes to teaching Lit and reading the classics, its not like teachers can text message Kafka, Shakespeare, Camus, Kant, Faulkner, etc. and ask them what they really meant.

So in The [B]Metamorphosis did Kafka really mean that Gregor Samsa woke up as a large bug one morning? [/B]

I definitely see the need for some of this interpretation. But it does get taken to extremes too. We spent weeks picking apart Ethan Frome in high school. More than one class period on just that stupid pickle dish! It bordered on absurd.

Picard, I agree somewhat, but when it comes to teaching Lit and reading the classics, its not like teachers can text message Kafka, Shakespeare, Camus, Kant, Faulkner, etc. and ask them what they really meant.

So in The [B]Metamorphosis did Kafka really mean that Gregor Samsa woke up as a large bug one morning? [/B]

Now that would have been interesting.

No, like I said, there are times where there is much more than the surface meaning, where something is chosen due to its symbolism, I completely agree there. My point though was that, its exactly as you say, how do we know what Shakespeare meant, we don't know. We can guess based on what information we have culled from his history and how that may have influenced his stories and the result may be well informed and a best guess, but thats all it is, a guess. I wish we could contact them, if only to find out how off-base we were in assuming things.

I guess part of my issue with this subject is that I hate being told what something means. I have no problem with being told that something is the generally accepted interpretation, but to me a better way to teach Lit would be to read it, discuss it, find out what it means to you, to others, see how that compares to the accepted interpretation.

Now that would have been interesting.

No, like I said, there are times where there is much more than the surface meaning, where something is chosen due to its symbolism, I completely agree there. My point though was that, its exactly as you say, how do we know what Shakespeare meant, we don't know. We can guess based on what information we have culled from his history and how that may have influenced his stories and the result may be well informed and a best guess, but thats all it is, a guess. I wish we could contact them, if only to find out how off-base we were in assuming things.

I guess part of my issue with this subject is that I hate being told what something means. I have no problem with being told that something is the generally accepted interpretation, but to me a better way to teach Lit would be to read it, discuss it, find out what it means to you, to others, see how that compares to the accepted interpretation.

Picard,

Agree 100%. I think you hit the nail on the head...interpretation. Lets discuss how we interpret what the author wrote and what we think he/she might have meant, but to try and pass it off as "this is what the author meant" is a bit too much.

Personally though, I don't think its arrogance on the teachers' part as it is just improper use of the english language...something that you would think english teachers would have a grasp on. lol

Picard,

Agree 100%. I think you hit the nail on the head...interpretation. Lets discuss how we interpret what the author wrote and what we think he/she might have meant, but to try and pass it off as "this is what the author meant" is a bit too much.

Personally though, I don't think its arrogance on the teachers' part as it is just improper use of the english language...something that you would think english teachers would have a grasp on. lol

You would think that they'd be better versed in their field, ah well, thats what we're here for, to correct them.

Although, I do think it is a bit of arrogance, much like a doctor who doesn't like to be questioned about his diagnosis, some teachers resent(personal experience)being questioned about the "meaning". I think in part that stems from the system, by that I mean I think "one true meaning" is taught to teachers and then they pass it down and thats the way it goes.

Though, it really doesn't matter, I mean if you want to read The Chronicles of Narnia and enjoy it for its fantasy content alone, thats fine. You want to read it and enjoy it for its fantasy content and Christian allegory, go for it. What you take from a book is up to you and neither of the above methods is better or worse in my opinion. Its just a shame when people push their ideas and views, just let people discover for themselves.

This has always been my view...

http://twitpic.com/9wav52

I agree as well. Heaven forbid you saw something other than what was spoon fed you.

If you have to analyze and over-analyze a book, at least it should be something readable. To me, the chief villain in Ethan Frome was Edith Wharton, for writing that piece of crap, followed by all of the teachers who inflict it on kids.

Now for something you have to work at _and_ enjoy, I'd have rather read William Burroughs Naked Lunch in high school (instead of finally getting around to it in my 30s).

[video=youtube;tQnAhSzb4gY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQnAhSzb4gY[/video]