Helen Fulton, the head of English and related literature at the University of York, has recently been quoted in The Daily Mail expressing concerns about the future of the subject and the way that it is being taught. Fulton claims that current methods of teaching English literature put a greater emphasis on skills rather than knowledge, to the extent that, “even those with 3 As at A-level including English can’t put books in historical context.”
Such fear for the future of English literature is something which goes beyond the confines of York. This month an article was published in The Telegraph illustrating the frustration of a private tutor, who agreed with Professor Fulton concerning both the inability of students to view texts in perspective, and the bias felt towards contemporary American Authors over the traditional greats on the basis of comprehension.
Fulton makes it clear that she is aware of “the impending death of narrative,” but could this reluctance to maintain the importance of English literature mark the demise of the subject as we know it?
With the rise of short, computerised texts and video games, people are beginning to see ‘literature’ in a different light. The interactive nature of these mediums allows us to alter the traditional narrative structure, and as such lessens the necessity of being consumed in the author’s written world.
These forms of entertainment, through their accessibility, have slowly been usurping the power of the book and as a result, students are less willing to stretch themselves in the understanding of the traditional literary greats; never mind more modern works.
Obviously, we cannot change developments in technology, but this doesn’t mean that we should not strive to deliver an informative education that does not bow down to the pressures of modern life. By glorifying the use of skills and not of knowledge, we are doing just this.
The emphasis on skills in the teaching of English literature cannot be deemed as an out and out bad thing; the perceived irrelevancy of an academic subject in the jobs market rendering the correct skills a priceless commodity. Regardless, the stress on skills offers students a skewed perception of what literature actually is.
Instead of being something of great cultural value, literature to modern day students is increasingly becoming a game of spot the metaphor. It’s no wonder therefore that students have come to believe that simpler texts are better works of literature, just because the similes and pathetic fallacy that they’ve been trained to sniff out come to the fore more easily. We no longer want to unmask the hidden wonders of Shakespeare or break through the seemingly opaque troupes of Chaucer or Joyce. Modern mentality states that if the exam tick boxes aren’t obviously present, then it clearly isn’t of note. Ironically, education is making us lazy.
So what should be done? Instead of encouraging the redundancy of literature for the sake of beauty and pleasure, education should seek to bring back the magic of the works themselves. Students should be taught not only to analyse texts, but also understand where they fit into the bigger picture and (maybe most importantly) refuse to see literature as a task.
Reading will never be the pinnacle of entertainment that it once was as it blurs into the background of the digital age, but education should not be a catalyst in this fall from the forefront. Teaching often falls back on the canon of English literature, an undeniably valuable resource, but also one which renders students unwilling to push themselves into anything unknown. We need to value our cultural heritage past and present and be proud of it, before English Literature becomes extinct.
I have to disagree, not least because you refer to the ‘opaque troupes of Chaucer or Joyce’: I assume you mean tropes? Unless Chaucer had a following of a group of clouded dancers… This mistake is ironic considering your argument that English students are becoming more reliant on skills and games of ‘spot the metaphor’ and therefore less interested in ‘knowledge’. Firstly I have to question your assumption that ‘skills’ and ‘knowledge’ are mutually exclusive. Knowledge implies a familiarity with something and therefore includes skills acquired through education or experience. Secondly, you limit your discussion of the skills acquired through an English Literature degree to an ability to spot literary techniques (which I can’t imagine is that much of a ‘priceless commodity’ in the jobs market) whilst ignoring other practical skills acquired during an English Literature degree (for instance: comprehension, analysis, an ability to present ideas and balanced well-thought out arguments).’It’s no wonder that students have come to believe that simpler texts are better works of literature’. Really? Says who? What exactly do you mean by ‘simpler texts’? And how (aside from the obvious but easily conquerable barrier of his use of archaic terms) are literary techniques ‘hidden’ in works by Shakespeare more than in any other text? I have absolutely no idea (and i’m not sure you do either) what you mean by ‘encouraging the redundancy of literature for the sake of beauty and pleasure’. The beauty and pleasure of what? And how can literature be being made redundant when the very act of dissecting a text and noting the use of literary techniques would be impossible without the literature itself. I do agree that historical context and the wider picture are important and are things that are neglected in an age where education is often seen as a means to an end, specifically with an exam at the end. However, this article is an extremely lazy, wide sweeping and ill informed attempt to approach this issue. Finally, even the hyperbolic (see, I spotted it!) and unnecessarily dramatic ending (I don’t on any level share your view that there is a risk of English Literature becoming ‘extinct’) isn’t enough to redeem this piece of writing, the majority of which I believe you wrote without really thinking your ideas through.
Great article :D