My experiences have been somewhat similar. Although I was one of those weird kids who spent a lot of time in the Library, knew the librarians by first name and often got strange looks from other kids by answer the question "What class are you reading that for?" with "None, I just wanted to read it."
Don't care much for Charles Dickens, though we never had to read him, and I actually sort of like some Shakespeare, though they're better performed than read.
I still hated those parts of English classes which were devoted to Literature though. Mostly it was the fact that when we analyzed a story or a poem there was A) a specific reaction we were supposed to have had, and if you didn't have that reaction, you were wrong. And B) There was What The Author Meant and we had to be able to infer that from context. Now, if the author's good at what they're doing, this shouldn't be that hard, assuming you're from a similar enough culture and time period. However, I had a poem I'd written analyzed by my grade 11 English teacher once, and I know damn well I didn't mean any of the things that were claimed I'd meant.
I've also had English teachers tell me, in great detail, what an author meant in a particular story. Yet when I read the story I didn't get any of that from it. And of course there was only one right answer. If most of the teachers hadn't told us what that was ahead of time I'd have never passed those classes. Which is another thing I never understood. If we were supposed to analyze the story/poem/play/whatever why didn't they teach us analysis techniques instead of telling us the answers and then having us write the essay?
Literature didn't put me off reading, what it really put me off of was Literary Analysis and Literary Criticism as from what I could see it was mostly people full hot air, trying to sound deep and meaningful. I've since learned there can be meaningful Literary Criticism, but it can be hard to find.
I'm also profoundly glad I didn't take CanLit in grade 12, as the teacher, while not a straight laced Catholic type, had this massive fetish for Margret Atwood. There are people who like Atwood, there must be, but I'm apparently not one of them. I've tried a few of her books, 'The Edible Woman', 'The Handmaid's Tale' and 'Oryx and Crake'[sp?] and most of the time I get to a point fairly quickly, where I wonder why I should care about the story/characters. The thought of doing a Literature class entirely devoted to her work... *shudder*. I'm definitely not her target audience.
F
--
"Your ability to bang your head against reality in the hope that
reality will crack first is impressive, but futile."
-- Geoffrey Brent, in rec.games.frp.dnd
Don't care much for Charles Dickens, though we never had to read him, and I actually sort of like some Shakespeare, though they're better performed than read.
I still hated those parts of English classes which were devoted to Literature though. Mostly it was the fact that when we analyzed a story or a poem there was A) a specific reaction we were supposed to have had, and if you didn't have that reaction, you were wrong. And B) There was What The Author Meant and we had to be able to infer that from context. Now, if the author's good at what they're doing, this shouldn't be that hard, assuming you're from a similar enough culture and time period. However, I had a poem I'd written analyzed by my grade 11 English teacher once, and I know damn well I didn't mean any of the things that were claimed I'd meant.
I've also had English teachers tell me, in great detail, what an author meant in a particular story. Yet when I read the story I didn't get any of that from it. And of course there was only one right answer. If most of the teachers hadn't told us what that was ahead of time I'd have never passed those classes. Which is another thing I never understood. If we were supposed to analyze the story/poem/play/whatever why didn't they teach us analysis techniques instead of telling us the answers and then having us write the essay?
Literature didn't put me off reading, what it really put me off of was Literary Analysis and Literary Criticism as from what I could see it was mostly people full hot air, trying to sound deep and meaningful. I've since learned there can be meaningful Literary Criticism, but it can be hard to find.
I'm also profoundly glad I didn't take CanLit in grade 12, as the teacher, while not a straight laced Catholic type, had this massive fetish for Margret Atwood. There are people who like Atwood, there must be, but I'm apparently not one of them. I've tried a few of her books, 'The Edible Woman', 'The Handmaid's Tale' and 'Oryx and Crake'[sp?] and most of the time I get to a point fairly quickly, where I wonder why I should care about the story/characters. The thought of doing a Literature class entirely devoted to her work... *shudder*. I'm definitely not her target audience.
F
--
"Your ability to bang your head against reality in the hope that
reality will crack first is impressive, but futile."
-- Geoffrey Brent, in rec.games.frp.dnd