[CLUE-Talk] Tolkien and allegory

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:46:40 -0700
Dennis J Perkins <djperkins at americanisp.net> wrote:

> I doubt anyone avoids analysis completely, and maybe my choice of words
> was unfortunate.  My experience with this in school was that it is very
> subjective and we weren't allowed to deviate much from the teachers'
> perspective.  Having a strong engineer/hard science bias probably
> worsened that, where analysis should be objective.

Ah -- well, I certainly agree there. I don't think instructors should
impose their view on students, or discourage students from finding their
own meaning -- so long as they can back it up textually. 

> > I wish schools would start teaching literary devices at an early age to
> > children, using popular shows and movies rather than musty books that 
> > most kids will find terminally dull. You could do an entire lit class on
> > "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" or "Star Wars" or any number of other works
> > that would be far more accessible to younger kids. 
> > 
> 
> I think this argument could be made for a lot of school subjects.  I'm
> not sure how well that would work for some subjects.  At what age do
> most children start being able to think critically and analytically? 
> This isn't a criticism, just a question because I don't know.

I'm not an expert on education or child development, so I can't answer
that. It's my observation, though, that very little is done to teach
children critical thinking skills until high school as preparation for
college (I realize that's a gross generalization, and probably varies
from school system to school system, but it's what I have observed in
Missour and Colorado.) and I'm sure that children can be taught to think
critically long before the school system actually begins to do so. 

Frankly, I belive that critical thinking skills are much more important
than any specific field of study and we should be doing more to foster
those skills. But that's a whole 'nother discussion...  

> > However, really good works of literature have more to them than just a
> > good plot -- there's a reason why some works of literature and some
> > movies and so forth have stood the test of time, whereas others have
> > lost relevance with age. This is why Shakespeare's plays are still
> > considered great works of art, while many of his contemporaries have 
> > been forgotten. 
> 
> We read six of his plays in school.  I didn't mind them, but personally,
> I don't find them that compelling.  I haven't read works of his
> contemporaries.  How did he stand out from them?

Did you read a mixture of the works, or mainly comedies or tragedies,
or...? The only play we read in high school was "Romeo and Juliet" -- a
play that was ruined for me by the trollish hack of a teacher that I had
for that class. I am not a huge fan of Shakespeare, but I've gained quite
a bit of respect for his work since high school after reading other
plays on my own and seeing "Midsummer Night's Dream." I gained even more
respect after being in a production of "Midsummer Night's Dream" that
had been adapted slightly. 

I think you might find Shakespeare's works more compelling now than when
in school -- depending on what type of literature you find compelling,
of course -- particularly works like King Richard III or Hamlet. Of
course, it's often tempting to subject students to these plays because
they are favorites of the instructor *and* they also give the ability
for the instructor to discuss history and politics. 

I think Shakespeare stood out because his plays contained universal
themes that stood the test of time, as well as excellent use of language
and so forth.   

> I find it interesting that translations of his plays into French and
> other languages use modern language instead of translating into the
> French (o whatever) of that period.  Shakespeare's works might actually
> be more comprehensible to them than to many of us.  Assuming the
> translation is good and that some things are very difficult to
> translate.

Ah, yeah. So many issues here. 

There are many good arguments for teaching Shakespeare in its original
language, and many good arguments against it. 

One problem with teaching Shakespeare is that it is often done by
having students *read* a text that was meant to be performed. It's damn
hard to enjoy Shakespeare (at least for me) by *reading* through the
plays in their original form. But I find that listening to Shakespeare's
works is quite enjoyable when performed well. (And agonizing when done
poorly...) It's like reading Beowulf in the original language it wasn't
*meant* to be read, it was meant to be recited and listened to. 

I would avoid Shakespeare altogether for high schoolers, and focus on
contemporary novels that would be much more accessible and interesting.
If you feel you *must* teach Shakespeare to high schoolers, then by all
means use a modernized text that is easier to understand and/or allow
them to see it performed so they can experience the work the way it was
meant to be experienced. 

> > My particular focus while in college was on mythological themes in
> > literature -- there are certain themes that continue to be expressed in
> > our stories, and hold some kind of satisfaction for the audience
> > regardless of the details. You'll find, for example, that there is a
> > pattern that can be found in all or almost all of the stories of our
> > "heroes" -- whether that be Frodo, Luke Skywalker, Superman, King
> > Arthur, Moses, Buddha or Jesus.  
> > 
> 
> This sounds like Joseph Campbell's theme of heroes.  

Exactly. Campbell, and also David Leeming. 

Best,
Zonker
--
"Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off 
their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more." - Mark Twain