Yeah you learn how to understand what Shakespeare used to think good for you. . . What else? Sorry but even colleges and universities don´t care too much for these courses, They mostly care about STEM the real science and discovering new things. . . . I don´t want to like make this division between majors but you know which ones (STEM and medicine) is only for intelligent people the rest for the normal people
Why not replace literature with a speech class, In high school? I'm required to take literature, And sure, It's a good idea to read famous works and understand what they're about, But the expectations are ridiculously high, And really, Who's gonna be writing essay on obscure novels from the other side of the world for a living? It would make much more sense to have a mandatory speech class - for people like me, I could write better arguments on websites that pop up when I Google whether or not literature is pointless. For the few of us that end up reviewing literary works or studying them, Well guess what - now you have the rhetoric skills to break apart arguments or ideas portrayed in literary work. And for all of us, A speech course would benefit our general social skills; how well we communicate with people for, For trying to explain how to do something, To convince them of something, At work. . . The list goes on. But literature shouldn't.
PS I wrote this after raging about a literature assignment for a 300 page novel that I was given a week to read at a high school with college-level courses.
Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch
The simple reason that information is always at your fingertips by way of the Internet which makes the study of classic literature a waste of time because the lessons taught by the study prove to be inadequate for the person in the modern environment. That classics no longer apply to today, Much like the religious teachings of old no longer apply.
This argument is just for boring literature, if you will think on something interesting that could become movie then it's not for you.
Literature is stupid, if you do that you don't help anyone. It would be more useful be a waiter then that, at least you would get money for something normal and more useful.
I enjoy reading, especially Dan Brown's... Anything. What I wouldn't like is going through Angels & Demons with a fine toothed comb of opinions and finding themes and symbols, only to be told that my opinions on this book are wrong because the teacher has other opinions. Reading is primarily for entertainment, information, or persuasion. Entertainment should not be sacrificed in exchange for supposed better understanding, when in actuality no one can know for sure what any author really was thinking. Informational writing should be clear enough at a glance, so no real in-depth discussion should be necessary. The only form of literature that would be worth discussing and exploring is writings of persuasion, as long as your teacher and/or colleague(s) doesn't tell you your opinions are wrong just because they don't disagree. Also, I'm happy to take a grammar, spelling, and word-learning class. Just don't try to say that I get that from books, because I really don't. All I get from books is a good read, and that's all they're meant for.
Reading is ultimately a form of entertainment, studying why the author wrote it is useless to society and you, focus on the sciences instead to be beneficial to society and the world.Clearly, literature is for those who have nothing better to do and almost as useless as grammar. Those who study literature are useless to society.
It's a pathetic waste of time to read stories and eloquent nonsense from people who lived in a different time. Does it have any use? Absolutely not. Literature doesn't do anything but waste time on something which is neither entertaining or interesting nor of any value. There's nothing that literature gifts us that is of any use, unlike the sciences in which the true value of knowledge lies. It disappoints me to see that more people believe that literature is actually a gift when it is clearly utterly useless to anybody.
Relating to people from pages in a book is lackluster compared to the experience of relating to people in person. Reading is relating at a distance (a substitute for reality), no different than imagining what it would be like to fly, savor a particular food, experience certain emotions with a living being (romance). What has a greater hold on our emotions and memory? I would say 'actually experiencing,' vs. Vicariously experiencing.
The ability to convey oneself in writing is dependent on our experiences and abstract conceptualization of those experiences. So clarity of thought is more a by-product of an innate thinking process. The ability to speak grammatically is inherent in one's attunement to the 'sound' of language, which is grasped via ears, not sight by reading words on a page. Try learning a foreign language by simply reading words and phonetic keys. It's slow and impractical.
I've always had an ample vocabulary, and even larger compared to some people I've met in my lifetime who have spent a larger portion of time reading. Vocabulary is only one piece of language, albeit a very important one (if not the most important). However, hearing words allows one to grasp the way in which public consensus has decided the word should be pronounced (e.G., folks sounds like 'fokes' and not folks; facetious = fa-see-shus, not face-chus). Also, modern (not archaic) contexts can be derived through in-person conversation, or movies, or the news. However, if immersion in verbosity is a goal, then classic literature is a great solution.
Words are cumbersome and slow. They also don't have the power of experience. People tend to repeat the same mistakes unless they are sufficiently burned. Reading, and even writing, has no immediate consequence, thus it fails to have the same 'potency' as sensory stimuli. It is highly subjective.
I will say, if you are hoary and tired, then yes, reading can allow one to live life that can no longer be savored in the same way that life can be experienced while still 'young' and healthy (this could include some people in their 60's and 70's in terms of healthy disposition and ability to interact with their environment). But, to enhance any ability, whether it be learning a particular skill, even as a subset of language, such as grammar or vocabulary, I would say intense focus on the particular skillset is necessary for increased ability, at least at an efficient level. So, if you want to expand your vocabulary, then read a dictionary. If you want to become more proficient at the technicalities of grammar, then get a compendium of grammar rules and examples of usage. Would it be easier to know that a perfect tense is a completed action by analyzing or waiting for an unexpected serendipitous eureka moment, or by simply looking up 'perfect tense' in a table of contents and finding a concise definition with a few examples? The choice is clear.
The simple reason that information is always at your fingertips by way of the Internet which makes the study of classic literature a waste of time because the lessons taught by the study prove to be inadequate for the person in the modern environment. That classics no longer apply to today, much like the religious teachings of old no longer apply.
The study of literature is fine if you have the free time and capital to justify doing it. The arguments of those being useless to society are hobbled by a view of usefulness as purely productive, when the aspect of consumption itself is vital to the exchange and creation of capital. Looking back some time, literature as an object of study was often related to the bourgeois, aristorcratic, or leisurely classes as a way of pursuing refinement for the court or society life. While in recent times literature has taken up the mantle of championing political cause and argumentation, at heart it is still a kind of ventilation mechanism for the intellectual energy of a country or group, so to speak. Literary study can in fact produce, but just a continuing dialogue within the relatively hermetic realm of the academy and literary studies. While this can be taken as useless when placed in contrast with scientific or economic sciences, it all depends on the perspective of the studying person’s needs. If one can in fact afford to spend this kind of time, it’s a rich environment for furthering discussion of the few remaining questions that science cannot answer quite yet. The benefits and products of science will still be created, and still purchased and still used and still taken for granted as is the nature of this kind of process. Consider that for every major scientific figure who creates a paradigm shift, there are hundreds who serve little function other than drone labor for the purposes of fulfilling the idea that they themselves lacked the capacity to create. One could argue that even the least useful of scientists or engineers is still more useful than one who studies literature, and once again from the vantage of production this may very well be true, but it still can’t negate the fact that even those using these developments still contribute via the very act of purchasing and funding the companies who create them. So, while this isn’t exactly a defense claiming that literary study is in fact important, the aim is to at the least demonstrate that it isn’t entirely bereft of value, for the aforementioned point as well as the fact that by nature of it contributing to its own dialogic world then it is in fact contributing, whether one likes that world or not. Ideally, one would have the private means to support taking this direction, and in turn whatever they find could add color to life as a whole if little else, all while still contributing to the greater machinery of society.
Those who read have higher EQ than those who do not - this is because they are constantly shifting perspectives. Seeing things from another person's point of view is something that should be encouraged. It encourages imagination. When you read, you cannot see the characters or the situations, you have to imagine them - and this wires the brain in a positive way. Sometimes you learn so much from a book. Keep reading.
When you read and study literature you get to see the world from a different perspective that may be very different from your own. They could be of a different class, have different struggles, live in a different area, or differ in many other ways. Seeing how these people perceive and process information will help the reader to sympathize with, understand, and relate to other people along with gaining knowledge of other cultures.
Just because we feel the need to despise something, the first target is 'why do we study old literature, its old there's no point'. That is an extremely nonchalant and immature answer to a task - one that mimics a child whom is defying authority. Despite its age, a novel or poem or any type of literature that withholds and exudes immense value and literal beauty should be recognised, respected and encouraged to be read. We can all learn from the inevitably more intelligent friend who has a better structure of essay and vocabulary, so why can we not learn from a published author who gifts you with the same benefits.
No, studying literature is not a waste of time, because a person can understand the human race by reading what other people have written. A person who has studied literature can also improve their abilities to read and speak language. A person who studies literature can learn things about themselves as well.
Studying literature is quite cool actually. Being able to use phrase that capture the mind of the reader is great. You can express exactly what you're feeling in the right words. Can build an image in our mind with literature. It's quite beautiful. The way a person starts reading, and is not able to stop simply because the the wird are so intricate and precise. The image they build, is so clear that there is no confusion or struggle to understand. You just wanna keep reading. Literature to me is quite captivating.
Exposure to literature improves vocabulary, grammar, and spelling, as well as providing knowledge of history and culture that could not be adequately obtained through film and other media. However, when courses allow kids to just watch the movie instead of reading the book, most of these benefits are lost. Therefore, it's only beneficial if you actually read.
No, studying literature is not a waste of time and instead helps readers to better improve their reading skills as well as their analytical skills. Reading literature can help readers find a deeper sense of reading, and can help to fine tune critical thinking and analytical skills which can come as a result of reading literature.
By studying famous works of the past, we learn more about history. We can see how current events at the time helped influence these works. Also, many words in the English language that we used were at one time invented by somebody, and the likelihood of that source being literature is high. Shakespeare himself invented hundreds of words.