This has to be intentional. He makes a point about no individual author, but does make a point about the age of the writing and the span of it having been taught having a cultural and communicative value beyond the author his or herself, or the specific text. A point about teaching over time and societies over time itself. You then immediately rephrase them to be the same thing when they were deliberately separated. No argument regarding the point offered for why it's important, just a slide into an absolutely idiotic presumed premise: "Do you not think there are a lot of authors in the past 70 years of note?" to stand in for what you are disagreeing with. This is a worm on a bobber, not an argument.
If you want to call something (fish) bait, I don't think it's going to be that productive to really engage with you at this time. You know enough, or should, to know that I'm genuine even in the face of disagreement. Petty sometimes, sure, but genuine. I'm pretty sure "worm on a bobber" is intentional, because the translation of "bait" isn't something that is on the level around here
Perhaps read my reply to Yeekim below, but it's entirely your choice.
On the contrary. It makes a huge difference, because it cuts off everything but modern literature. You lose entire genres that way.
Here's the crux though. "modern" is a moving target. Seventy years ago, Charles Dickens was
seventy years ago. By your measurement of the time, at that point in time, Charles Dickens was modern literature.
Like I said, I'm not married to the specific time frame, it just happens to be a convenient example. And I sure can understand why you're opposed to older works falling out of fashion. The problem is, you don't seem to
want to understand the benefits in focusing on (more) modern texts. I
get Shakespeare, specifically with regards to English language and literature. I had to study Romeo and Juliet three times (no other play. Just Romeo and Juliet. Three different points during my schooling. It was like the lit-lang equivalent of the Second World War, which I also did two or three times). Though we did a performance of the Tragedy of Julius Caesar once (not really related to English at all - we had a drama bit at school). But like I said to Valka earlier, you can teach the enduring concepts without having to force someone to
sit through something like that.
I was originally focusing on your point about the authors being replaceable. New English literature is being written all the
time is my point, and we shouldn't be bound to an author just because they were prolific for a specific time period. There are contemporary analogies to Dickens - or at least, certainly in the last seventy years or so. The
problem is the same problem this thread tied itself to with the silly WSJ piece. The
problem is that we see modern authors and we see "politics". Guess what! Dickens was political! But it's a safe choice, because it's far enough (now) in the past that it can't cause arguments about said politics. It's an easy choice. And it's definitely not without merit.
My point isn't necessarily that "older authors are bad". It's that in the same way you claim we're losing things (genres, novels, authors, you name it) by setting a cut-off (and by "we" I mean the however many handful of people listed in the rag piece in the OP), by laser-focusing on what was, we miss other good choices in the time(s) since. I can see the appeal.
It's more technical.
They are taught to read what they are reading. Modern literature is far more readable, and thus doesn't teach how to read old literature. It's a different skill. Yes, a self motivated kid can take the tools and train themself. But that was always true.
I agree it's not a ban, first thing I said in this thread.
Yeah, I know you agree - sorry, that was more for the fullness of the explanation. I'm running three or four things in parallel here and I keep losing context. Wasn't meant to be saying you said it was a ban
Honest question: what worth is there in reading "old literature". What do you
mean by old literature? English has several variants (not that Victorians like Dickens were that
different, though for example Shakespeare definitely was), but we barely touch any of them. To me there's a lot of value in authors' varying styles - take the more straightforward (but inherently Christian) C.S. Lewis and contrast it to Lewis Caroll (particularly Through The Looking Glass). I don't know what you mean by "old" literature, so it's hard for me to put value on it.
And can't this be taught even if specific authors aren't? You can teach about Early Middle English without using Shakespeare. Sure, Shakespeare is a
wealth of information, but it's also stylistic - you'd need to go into his style vs. the style of the time (as authors so frequently contravene). And this is already a depth of information that is probably too much for anyone shy of college (17- 18 years old here, for the record) level.
I didn't tag you, but you felt a need to make a post to me that was just an attack. Your utter hypocrisy about everything you've grilled me for on this thread (of which you haven't even adequately addressed how you and your ideological cohorts are not guilty of them - you just disingenuously played bait-and-switch with the subject and made flimsy, arrogant non-statements about the rest), is NOW COMPLETE, with this act! Now that you have proven yourself shamelessly and unrepretantly guilty of everything you criticized me for on this thread, and displayed hypocrisy and disingenuous double-take in your "defense," that beggars the imagination, I can now imagine my New Year's!
I didn't tag you either, given your apparent quitting of the thread, but go off I guess.
.
