Fiction, Nonfiction, and English Education

I want to preface this by noting that, obviously, I am neither an expert in the field of education nor in the study of the English language. All I have to base any commentary on is my own limited observations and experiences, which do not apply to every situation or individual.

While reading this article on proposed changes to the English curriculum in public school systems, I had various thoughts on the ideas it explained: some in agreement, some in disagreement, and some unrelated. Generally, I agree: having English place a greater focus on the study of nonfiction works would have significant practical benefits to students. I would argue that any subject of further study, be it engineering, history, mathematics, science, or even the study of literature requires a strong grasp of nonfiction reading - a skill which is sorely neglected in English classrooms. The stigma among students of nonfiction being "boring", bringing to mind dusty textbooks and dry biographies, should really be broken earlier than it is now. On the other hand, I don't feel that the extremes proposed by the CCSS are necessarily correct: 70% nonfiction reading, where additional such studies are present in other classes, is unnecessary and no longer helpful. A balance is necessary, and that's simply not present today.

This reminded me of another thought I had recently had, concerning the structure of high school English classes. While the two AP classes I've taken have had clearly defined, mostly distinct curricula with substantial amounts of new knowledge, I felt that my first two years of English courses were vague and largely review of concepts that had been covered in middle school. Perhaps as supplemental options for these level courses, additional courses could be designed that cover the necessary material while placing a stronger emphasis on nonfiction reading and writing. While this wouldn't be for everyone, it has the potential to offer a lot better option for those who wish to further their knowledge in a field that hadn't had as much of a chance to study.

Breaking Bad and Strong Fictional Characters

     I'm not one to tend to get involved in watching many television shows. The commitment involved always seems to be too excessive, and I feel that I quickly become lost when I don't have time to keep up with regularly watching them. That being said, after hearing wonderful things about it, I've recently begun watching the AMC drama, Breaking Bad - and it's just as good of a show s it was built up to be. After watching the first season, I wondered exactly what it was that made it so enrapturing, finally coming to the conclusion that the most important reason was the strength of the characters and the writing behind them.

     A brief rundown of the premise: Walter White is a fifty-year-old chemistry teacher who, despite having no history of smoking or any other endangering conditions, develops a likely mortal case of lung cancer. In an effort to provide for his family after he dies, Walt begins working with a former student of his, Jesse Pinkman, to cook and sell crystal meth. Fairly quickly, things go predictably badly, and a story involving issues of crime, morality, and family begins to emerge.

    Now, the story of Breaking Bad isn't the only strong factor: the cinematography and production is just of impressive. But as for the characters, I think the reason they're so sympathetic is tht they are very realistic in all aspects. So often in fiction, characters fall into archetypes that never really fit how people would react to given situations. To me, at least, this always feels somewhat disconcerting and makes the work as a whole feel a lot less realistic. In Breaking Bad, however, the characters are decidedly imperfect: these imperfections  however, are what makes the viewers really care about what happens to them, which is vital to any good work of fiction.

Existentialism and Myself

 In our in-class discussions of the short story “The Guest”, the philosophy of existentialism clearly played a central role. As a general idea, this philosophy was not one I was immediately familiar with – that is, I had heard use of the word in phrases such as “I'm feeling existential today” or “Quit acting like such an existentialist”, but I never actually understood the meaning behind it. Over the course of our discussion, I found myself first even more confused, then surprised, then strangely in agreement with the general characteristics of the ideal presented by existentialism. Still, I didn't want to simply accept this agreement without question, so I've decided to do some further research and reevaluate my opinions. This is what I've discovered:

One of the most significant names that seems to come up in this study, certainly the one that I most immediately recognized, was that of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche's beliefs, while extending into a wide range of categories including nihilism and the Wille zur Macht (will to power), matched closely many of the typical ideas of existentialism I identified. Most strongly connected are his views on individualism and absurdity, suggesting that there is no single true “meaning” of life, and that each individual needs to discover their own meaning and morality.

So what does all of this mean for me? Likely as not, very little to my actual day-to-day actions. It has, however, helped me to resolve some very real questions and conundrums I felt concerning my own motivations. I can accept that not every action must have a black-or-white answer of “selfish” or “selfless”, and that neither attribute is necessarily better than the other. My life and my ideals are what I make of them, no more and no less.