Comment by jaredklewis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaredklewis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This would not only be a great way to teach history, but also literature and probably other things like philosophy as well.

In literature, it is not uncommon to start with the past reading things like the Odyssey, moving forwards to Beowulf, then Canterbury Tales, then Shakespeare, then John Milton, then Dickens, and on and on.

The result is you start with the least accessible work and move forward to the most accessible. On the hand hand, by starting with a modern work like Catch 22 or whatever, you start with an accessible work that is more likely to be an enjoyable to the reader in its own right, not just as an important work. As you move backwards the reader is also gradually increasing their reading prowess, becoming more attuned to the finer points of literature, and thus more able to enjoy the older, less naturally accessible works.

Having middle and high school students wade through Shakespeare and Nathaniel Hawthorne always seemed like such dumb idea to me. For every one student that is interested by such texts, another 10 are turned off literature completely by the dense diction and distant context. Better to start with J.K. Rowling than Herman Melville if it lets more students discover the joy of reading.

I disagree in the sense that this will end up putting an overemphasis on contemporary work, and not enough on classic works. Think about how often cirriculum never gets to the end of, when such seminal and formative works such as Plato and Aristotle are fit into the last weeks you will inevietably gloss over them. We already make Gods out of our contemporary world view at the expense of downplaying the brilliance of past thinkers. I dont think we need to fan this flame. We will end up with an aesthetic that is so devoid of the basics that it barely comprehends itself, and if ever hits a dry spell will never be able to recreate its former greatness

No, you are misunderstanding what he is suggesting. He didn't say cover all of contemporary literature. He is saying spend a few years getting students hooked on contemporary literature, and then get them into say 19th century literature like with Dickens, and so on working backwards.

And let me ask you this, do think the way literature at present is taught in elementary and secondary schools is effective in getting students involved, such that they voluntarily read high-quality works for the rest of their lives?

Specifically with history, contemporary topics being skipped over is not only common but an incredible disservice to humanity. Many schools spend months on Columbus but only 1-2 weeks on the entire post Cold War era. Which one is more important for future voters to understand?

> Specifically with history, contemporary topics being skipped over is not only common but an incredible disservice to humanity. Many schools spend months on Columbus but only 1-2 weeks on the entire post Cold War era. Which one is more important for future voters to understand?

Contemporary events are often thought to be outside the scope of "history":

History depends on perspective: We don't know the consequences and thus the significance of many events; what will happen with climate change? The consequences of the Iraq War and 9/11? And also we are emotionally lost in the trees and can't see the forest, so to speak.

Also, history depends on having lots of information, much of which isn't available for a long time (declassified info, memoirs, archives, other things later revealed, etc.).

Finally, arguably history is studied so we can learn from it, not act on it.

I think the topics the parent brings up are very important, but arguably they belong in another class.

I don't think that would work with literature, because modern literature often makes allusions to earlier literature.

In addition to alluding to older literature, modern books also routinely refer to historic events, philosophy, developments in science, politics, religion, and just about everything else. So what, don't read any novels or poetry until you know the rest of human history and knowledge, inside and out, lest you miss a few allusions?

If we turn students off reading entirely, because we made them slog through the whole Bible (the ulitmate all-time most-alluded-to-by-English-literature champion) before letting them read something that might actually interest them, then what does it matter if they "get" the allusions?

By the way, not a slag on the Bible. I thought it was a pretty good read actually with exception of a few boring chunks in the old testament. But my humble opinion is that it will bore the shit out of the majority of high school students. I also wouldn't recommend Thomas Pynchon or James Joyce's Ulysses to high school students. They're great books if you come to them at the right time, but probably not the best tools for teaching literature.

> I don't think that would work with literature, because modern literature often makes allusions to earlier literature.

I think the article's idea is that people engaged by the current book will be motivated to look up the references.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com