Poll: The study of Literature

In a recent discussion in the Empires forums, I've seen some anti-intellectual sentiment directed toward the study of literature. I'm actually not particularly surprised to see anti-intellectualism toward this field of study; I live in America, after all. Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to open up a survey of what the Empires community thinks about the study of literature in general.

Literature, then, is generally any sort of written piece with an intention other than simply attempting base communication of ideas. If this definition sounds a little vague to you, it is because it is left intentionally vague, but I felt obligated to provide something for you to work with. Even some of my professors can't completely agree on a definition of literature. Literature can include fiction, nonfiction, poetry, drama and film, but is not limited to that. Philosophy and scientific works have been widely considered literary works up until very recently - basically the last 200 years or so have seen somewhat of a separation (though it is not complete - many contemporary scientists have been found to attempt popularization of science through literary works).

The study of literature would be some sort of investigation into the cause, nature, or application of literature, whether it be a formal, academic investigation or an informal, private one.

What this survey is not about:

This is not a debate on whether or not you like literature (that would be a silly discussion) but whether or not you think the study of literature offers an individual or society any sort of value. This is also not a debate on whether an English major emphasizing literature has a good chance at finding gainful employment or not, even though that came up immediately last time. I'm pretty comfortable in that department; however, thank you for your concern.

I would also implore you to post your reasoning for your choice.

 

If by 'study' you mean 'read lots' in order to be able to write better, yes.

Otherwise, not really.

Reasoning: I read lots and thus my speech and vocabulary have improved, as has my ability to write in a somewhat engaging fashion.

Aside from that I can see little reason. Language exists for the purpose of communication, therefore being proficient at it if you want to communicate is a good idea, and reading is a way to do that. Otherwise I can see little rationale for it, other than in order to be able to teach literature.

 

what a biassed poll, im sorry i made you insecure about your educational path with that comment i gave about it picled

 

I'm not insecure about it. I thought it would be interesting to discuss. Anyway, I don't really see any inherent bias. Either you think the study of literature is useful or you don't, correct? If you somehow disagree with me and believe that the poll is biased perhaps you could offer an alternative wording?

It seems to me that you at least value the study of literature on an individual personal level. One of your priorities is to communicate in an "engaging fashion" which is pretty strictly relegated to the realm of literature and you've studied literature at least somewhat in order to increase your ability to write in as such, but that's just my take on it. It's really too early in a survey of this nature to start getting into debates so I'll just leave it there.

 

Well I can't answer it, I think it has one specific use, and therefore should not be abandoned, but as a rule I don't think it's hugely useful, certainly not as an academic subject.

 

Hmm, I would like to make a small change to the poll, but I can't figure out how. Is is possible? I agree that one of the poll choices is prescriptive and the other is descriptive and so I should probably make a small change to make them more consistent. Anyway, I'll do it after my world lit class =p

edit: for the record, the only thing I would change is to either remove "should be abandoned" from the second choice or add "should be endorsed" to the first choice, to make both choices either descriptive or prescriptive.

 

I never said language itself isn't useful, as Chris said you need language to communicate your ideas, but sitting around in universities for 20 years writing essays on people's books doesn't seem highly useful to an individual or society as a whole.

All the effort put into that could be better utilised in better english classes for young students to help them learn grammar and spelling from an early age.

It doesn't matter if you're Einstein, if you can't speel gewd or grammar right then nobody will take your written work seriously, especially job interviews. Or written work for whatever your job is.

 

its "usefulness increase" per "study hour put into it" goes down the more you study it

i have hard time to relay, but i mean its useful, but not useful to spend overly much attention too

 

Literary works disseminate ideas. Without literature humanity would be less evolved intellectually and have a much poorer understanding of the nature of the history and the richness of different cultures and ideas.

 

that does not mean you have to spend your life to it

 

Yes but as he pointed out in his post this is not asking whether you like literature, but whether you think the study, particularly acadamic, of literature is a worthwhile pursuit.

Not 'do you think literature should exist'.

 

Somewhat what Deadpool said.

The study of literature is a cornerstone of scholarly practices. We need scholars, they are intellectuals, but less to do with doing and more to do with knowing.

Further than that though, is the study of literature is another area where it is more important to know. To understand and interpret, and draw your own conclusions. It's another place where ideas are shared, debated and evolved.

In a world where far too many people know facts and figures but don't know the first fuckin' thing about how to use their brain, i'd rather a study existed where people actually do.

Still don't like bastards who think quoting someone else makes them elite, though (just a pet hate of mine).

 

Personally I'd prefer a world where people know things about actual real stuff rather than stuff other people have written about.

The academic study of literature is usually the study of things written by other people in history and only makes you an expert in crap people in history have written.

On the other hand studying science makes you knowledgeable about science, which is actually useful for something other than teaching other people about science.

 

#agree

Edit:

That is real stuff. The study of literature is more about the study of humans than anything else. The study of humans means you'll be able to understand people better, which yields all sorts of benefits, not least of which is the fact that if you know what makes people tick, you can work with, around or through them easier. You can manipulate them (for all those of an evil psyche out there).

Studying science is just as worthy, although more so in this society.

And lol, even though I hate some people quoting others to make themselves feel elite, it doesn't mean there's no wisdom in what has gone before. Wisdom is the value that'll help you recognising other than the facts and figures when you weigh up decisions...and helps you cast divine spells :p

 

No the study of humans is, depending on what part of them you study, psychology, biology, or sociology.

The study of literature is the study of 'things people who could write wrote down' and is likely to give a marvellous insight into how opinionated and self-obsessed those people were, but little else.

 

I actually said that an informal, individual perspective on the study of literature is equally valid and would indicate an affirmative response.

The rigorous, academic study of literature, being a discipline of humanities, is by definition also a study of humans.

I actually hate quotes unless they are used whimsically or ironically as well. Irony is my favorite idea of all time and I try to incorporate it in almost everything I do and say.

I never once mentioned the word 'language.' In fact I explicitly ruled out basic communications as literature in my original definition, so grammar and spelling school would both be excluded from the study of literature.

 

It is hardly a very good study of them, there's no rational basis for it, what you're studying is at best the personal, unsourced, biased, oftentimes illegible, insane scrawl of people who were fortunate enough to not be so ignorant as to be incapable of writing at that point in history, and at worst the completely fictional made-up nonesense that anybody with a pen and paper can write.

It tells you absolutely fuck all about humanity, it can only tell you anything about the person who wrote it and even that is entirely open to interpretation. It is one of the most worthless pursuits imaginable if what you are trying to acquire is some sort of useful knowledge about the world.

 

Let me ask you something. Would you consider a literary study of Adolf Hitler's speeches to be useful to humanity?

 

As a component of his general political strategy as well as the historical context and the social conditions in germany at the time as a result of the aftermath of the first world war, also expanding to study all the other people involved in his rise to power, and the various tactis employed to garner support. Combined, this may allow some understanding of what causes an increase in support for radical political parties in general in the sort of society present in 1930's germany. Of course in modern times when we know about that and have far greater influence by things like mass media and global communications, those conclusions may easily become unapplicable, and certainly would not indicate the only reasons such support could arise.

So in succinct answer, it would be a very minor component of a very large, multidisciplinary study by historians, psychologists, sociologists, and political scientists, which may yield some interesting if rather narrow-ranging information which could be of interest to academics.

Or in a single word, no.