AQA english "literature"! GCSE

[Charlotte67]

Mary, Mary, take a bow



Without a doubt the post of the century.

[Josa]

Mary, just read your post and will have to say COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE

[Charlotte67]

Hang on a minute

Magwich...

... Havisham

Am I missing something? Are you toying with us? Scratching head to get the joke...

...

...

Nope, Magwich, you'll have to spell it out for me. Your Expectations are too Great.

[sycamore]

If only English Lit lessons had actually been like this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[magwich2]

No,just coincidence!
Magwich was our cat's name.
New kittens are called Tattycoram and Pumblechook for future reference!!

[Mary Whitehouse]

"I don't mind them rote-learning Wordsworth "

So utter crap is OK, but god forbid anyone should ask them to think.

The blessed Lakeland bard himself:

"Not five yards from the mountain-path,
This thorn you on your left espy;
And to the left, three yards beyond,
You see a little muddy pond
Of water, never dry,
I've measured it from side to side:
'Tis three feet long, and two feet wide."

Awesome...what can Duffy offer to compare to this?

Mike

Dear mike1880,

No, no, no, no - you have completely failed to appreciate the brilliance of Wordsworth within the historical context. I am relieved to see a few people are beginning to come round to the point of view of magwich and myself but you are not one of them. Granted, I am in a better position to understand. It is a lot easier to get a perspective on these things when you are dead.

When Wordsworth wrote The Thorn, he was deliberately adopting a plodding, prosaic style in order to make a literary point. He was interested in exploring whether the mundane could be art. Tedium recollected in tranquility, I guess you could call it. It was the poetic equivalent of exhibiting a urinal or a pile of bricks in an art gallery, except that he did it more than a century before Duchamp. But please, don't tell the children this, or we will fire them up into a pointless debate about what does and doesn't constitute art, when we know perfectly well that art is Keats and Constable, not Duffy and Formaldehyde. (On the other hand, if I could have Duffy in formaldehyde, then that is one thing I would like to see).

But back to Wordsworth. Yes, we must beware the Intentional Fallacy and yes, it is unremitting drivel that would give the Vogons a run for their money, but at least it is not filth. And just because it is tedious, why does that make it unfit for rote learning? Even more discipline is required to memorise dull and dreadful poetry. And as an added bonus, it will probably put the children off poetry for life, which will prevent them from coming into contact with any more filth in the future. Job's a good un, as we say in literary circles. I would much rather they studied a text which gave them true insight and wisdom. Collected Articles of The Daily Mail would get my vote.

I have a confession. Despite all I have said about Duffy, I have to admit I am loving Warwick Avenue. Especially the gorgeous video where the tears are streaming down her face as she hits that long note. Magwich, I would have thought you would also have a soft spot for this one, what with there being a reference to your home stomping ground in the title?

Anyway, lets get back to talking about you, mike1880. I notice you have registered yourself using a number, rather than just a normal name, as if you are some sort of mass-produced robot or android. I take it this constitutes a silly misplaced criticism of post-industrial society and life in the shadow of global capitalism? Well, I am warning you - magwich and I are keeping a log of dangerous subversive types who frequent this site, and you have just gone to the top of the list.

I hope this answers your points about Wordsworth.

Kind regards,
Mary Whitehouse

[fm]

Returning to Havisham, I think it is a brilliant, thought-provoking poem about betrayal and rage. Just my opinion (although I do have a degree in English literature).
I helped my not very literate son study it two years ago and it actually got him to really think (a rare event) and understand the use of language to convey strong emotion.
As to the strength or lewdness of the language, it is fairly on par with what flies round the playground from Year 9 onwards, whether your child attends a grammar or a comprehensive. The little darlings just like to keep it from you to protect your feelings.

[T.i.p.s.y]

Agree fm, if anything it shows these "lewd" words in the context they should be in rather than being banded about the playground and on TV where people use words because there vocab isn't sufficient!

[fm]

Thanks for the support, Tipsy.

In actual fact, part of the syllabus in which the Duffy poem is included also has the children comparing and contrasting these modern poems with pre 1914 poetry(I think it is) so their outlook is broadened. They also do some brilliant poems from other cultures.

I certainly wouldn't worry it will have an affect on children. The things we parents do has much more affect than telly, GCSE poetry or anything else you'd like to name.

[Alex]

In my Catholic Grammar school back in the Mary Whitehouse era the phrase "as smooth as a baby's bottom" was blacked out in every copy of "The Otterbury Incident".

Are we to shield our sons and daughters from Chaucer, Shakespeare, DH Laurence, the Metaphysical poets to name but a tiny few of the authors which have made regular appearances on examination reading lists for a long, long time. Bawdiness, lewdness, "bad" language and s - exual content are not modern literary phenomena.