<hr/>**评论：**<br/><br/>RhynoD: <pre><p><em>Finally, my degree is useful for something!</em></p>
<p>So educators are usually really <em>bad</em> at explaining why you read the things you read for school. The core concept to grasp here is the <em>literary canon</em>: that is, the body of works that are the foundation of [Western] literature. They are the most historically and culturally significant pieces of literature being studied currently. But how to works get added to the canon?</p>
<p>The surface layer is that they get into the canon because old stuffy [usually white, usually male] scholars <em>want</em> to study them, so they do, so it's expected that their students study them, so they do, so it's expected that to prepare for college you have to study them, so you do. It's not like a few Ivy League professors sat down in a dark, smokey room and discussed the future of the literary canon...but also it kind of is like that? Keep in mind, there are multiple "sub-canons". There is the American literature canon (featuring Anne Bradstreet, Thoreau, Emerson, Faulkner, Hemingway, Whitman, etc.); the British literature canon (Shakespeare, Geoffrey Chaucer, John Donne, Jane Austen, etc.), the poetry canon (Frost, Emerson, Whitman, Donne, Herbert, Shakespeare, etc.), the historical foundational canon (Homer, Virgil, <em>Beowulf</em>, <em>Gilgamesh</em>, etc.), the science fiction canon (Mary Shelley, Frank Herbert, Robert Heinlein, etc.). I know I'm throwing a lot of names at you; the point is that there is <em>the canon</em> and then there is "I'm studying English poetry in the late 1800s, <em>these</em> are the people I should be reading".</p>
<p>Which then <strong>raises</strong> the question, why do those scholars want to study those works? We have the benefit of hindsight, so <em>today</em> we might read Hemingway and [rightly] think he's boring and dry. But at the time his writing style was revolutionary. Before Hemingway, prose was all very <em>eloquent</em> and had propensity for verbosity. Hemingway wrote in a short, clean, <em>different</em> style. You may not like it, but he made it ok to <em>not</em> write in the old, stuffy way that everyone had been writing before him. That's not to say Hemingway was the first, or the best, but he was <em>good</em> and he was famous and he showed everyone that you could write in a different fashion. Suddenly everyone was writing in this new minimalist style, which in turn led to other changes in literature that allowed for the kinds of books we read today for fun. Without Hemingway, our literature today would look <em>very</em> different. Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson did the same thing for poetry. Those are some very specific examples, but I hope they can demonstrate how authors can influence literature, and sometimes they're a part of the canon for those reasons.</p>
<p>The very old part of the canon is in there for much the same reason, but more in the sense of <em>inventing literature at all</em>. Homer's Odyssey is the foundational work for <em>so much</em> of western literature. Literally everything you've ever read, <strong>ever</strong>, was influenced by the Odyssey. And Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest great work of literature - the oldest version of That Movie That Everyone Saw. It's the first ever example of real literature, which is kind of a big deal. Studying them can help you understand how storytelling evolved, by showing you how it started. I won't go into too much detail here about what, exactly, you would learn (narrative structure, framing devices...) because I don't need to give you an English lesson, eh? Suffice it to say, there's a lot there to unpack.</p>
<p>Some works are a part of the canon because they're just easy to digest. F. Scott Fitzgerald is fairly easy to analyze and understand on a more abstract level, mostly because all of his symbolism is the same (that is, everything represents the "unobtainable American Dream"). It wouldn't do any good to say, "Here kids, learn how to analyze literature by <em>analyzing the most difficult literature possible</em>". Of course, unfortunately that's often <em>exactly</em> what English classes do. It's akin to saying, "Here kids, let's learn how to do math. Shall we start with calculus? No? Trigonometry then..." Which is unfortunate, because literature is awesome and there's some really cool stuff to learn...once you learn the tools you need to do it. But I digress.</p>
<p>But most of the canon boils down to be cultural icons of the time when they were published, or sometimes later when people rediscovered them. They can be both a window into the culture surrounding the person that wrote the works, why they wrote what they did, what symbolism they were using at the time, how they thought and viewed the world; and also a window into how that one piece of literature or author or movement changed the culture they were in, which trickled down to influence our own culture. They can also be ways to understand ourselves by analyzing our own reactions to what we're reading, and the literature in the canon often elicits strong reactions in its readers.</p>
<p>None of that is to say that the canon is perfect; far from it! I studied English and I hate huge chunks of the canon (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6de844/eli5_how_and_why_are_books_like_the_great_gatsby/di26o3c/">don't even get me started on <em>Catcher in the Rye</em></a>). But that's the idea of it: important literature that had a powerful influence on people and the times they were from, which encourages others to study that literature, which is itself a strong reaction that encourages others to study why the first people studied it, etc., so that it continues to have influence and continues to be important literature worth studying. TL;DR: The literary canon is literature that is "worth studying".</p>
<p>EDIT: Important thing I totally missed. The literary canon is also supposed to be an introduction to your own national identity. When you so much as watch cartoons you'll be getting <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jDcWAWRRHo">references to cultural icons</a>. Seriously, as an adult go back and watch Animaniacs (it's on Netflix!) and see how many references you <em>didn't</em> get when you were a kid. When you read the American literary canon it's in part teaching you what it means to be an American. It helps build a unifying web of understanding, because when you make a joke about how painting a fence is "fun" and someone else laughs, you think <em>This guy also read Tom Sawyer</em> and you feel a connection with that person. Enough of those cultural connections help form the glue that is our national identity. It kind of sounds like indoctrination...and it kind of is. And that's not <em>bad</em> because it's teaching you about your country and how to be a citizen of that country, which is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't get out of control.</p>
<p>EDIT: Hemingway has one m. I derped <em>so hard</em>. Thanks for the guys that caught it. EDIT: and Emerson, dammnit. I am a derp, sorry for the typos. Eventually I'll run out of names to misspell.</p>
<p>EDIT: for the pedants: <del>begs</del> raises</p>
<p>EDIT: Obligatory Thanks for the Gold, but <a href="http://i.imgur.com/gFLVgp4.png">I think they misspelled Emmerson</a>. <sup><sup>/s</sup></sup></p>
<p><strong>EDIT: TL;DR - Like the rest of this comment, the books you are assigned to read in class are probably worth reading for reasons that will be made clear if you read the rest of that book/this comment.</strong></p></pre>LightningSM: <pre><p>Is this subreddit's name just ironic? Idk if a 5 year old could understand this lol.</p></pre>Deuce232: <pre><blockquote>
<p>Rule 4. Explain for laymen (but not actual 5-year-olds)</p>
<p>Unless OP states otherwise, assume no knowledge beyond a typical secondary education program. Avoid unexplained technical terms. Don't condescend; "like I'm five" is a figure of speech meaning "keep it clear and simple."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Just FYI. I will also ping <a href="/u/vegantealover">/u/vegantealover</a> </p></pre>Rojav: <pre><p>They choose the books based of Historical/cultural significance and writing quality. Basically all the books you study should be chosen based on some important theme in them - of Mice and Men is about the depression, Gatsby is about the Roaring Twenties and To Kill a Mockingbird is about racism and the Great Depression. This can inform the students about important context (especially Mockingbird) and a 'real connection' often makes books more attractive to study. </p>
<p>The other reason is that these books are easy to analyse. They are full of symbolism, foreshadowing and the historical context. Books like Frankenstein might be a dry read but it is a goldmine for analysis, and the deeper themes present (social commentary, (possible) homosexuality) means you can go to town on them. It is far easier to study that (and will benefit your skills more) than to go for something more enjoyable and (often) newer - which are often more readable but less deep (or restrictively long). </p>
<p>Of Mice and Men is a really easy text to do analysis in, it's short and full of foreshadowing. Gatsby also has foreshadowing, but also themes of wealth, inequality etc. And some books can be 'read into' easily - that Nick is gay is not specific in the text but many student pick that up and believe it, it gives chances to develop skills simpler books don't have. </p>
<p>These make then qualify for the studying 'cannon', books like Gatsby and Of Mice and Men are chosen a lot because of the wealth of secondary literature on them, making critical opinion easy to find. </p></pre>Geo678: <pre><p>They are easy to teach. </p>
<p>Of Mice and Men is packed full of figurative language and writing tools (metaphors, similes, foreshadowing, imagery, idioms and personification), which is necessary for teaching English and writing. </p>
<p>It is relatively short so not unreasonable to expect students to be able to read it in full in a short period of time and not expensive to print, relatively speaking. </p>
<p>There are lots of classic and canon books out there, but they can be too long, or the symbolism is absent or too obscure & complex for high-school teaching. </p>
<p>Also I love John Steinbeck so don't mind adding that it is genuinely an enjoyable and unpretentious book to read as well. </p>
<p>(I haven't read Gatsby so no idea on that one)</p></pre>Trekkie45: <pre><p>I have taught in South Central LA and I now teach in Urban Indonesia. I have yet to have one student not connect personally to Of Mice and Men. Whether they are in a gang or a billionaire (I've taught both) there is something in there for them. Part of literature and story-telling is that it unites us all. Good stories can transcend time and culture. The mythical Canon is usually made up of books that teachers believe do these things. </p></pre>gagreel: <pre><p>They live in the sweet spot for the reading comprehension level in high school. Easy themes, short, secular,</p>
<p>Plus they teach you valuable life lessons. Like wearing a glove full of vaseline to keep your hand soft for your fiance. </p></pre>gewgwegweegw: <pre><p>Any combination of these:</p>
<p>(a) They're considered classics because people still enjoy them (or find value in them) long after they were published;</p>
<p>(b) They're considered edifying, in that typically they have a strong moral message;</p>
<p>(c) They present a full smorgasbord of things that can be studied, such as strong narrative themes, characterisation, cultural properties, historical interest, and so on. </p></pre>kattykatiekat: <pre><p>Books such as Gatsby and OMAM are chosen because they are arguably the most accurate representations of the literary philosophies of their respective time periods. Perhaps the very reason that English classes study books at all is to gain an understanding of the author and his/her perspective, but these so-called classic books give insight to the opinions and values of the masses at the time. For example, Gatsby was written by one of the prime modernist writers, F. Scott Fitzgerald, who was able to really capture the essence of early 20th century America in the novel. Because of this, students can go back and study Gatsby to gain some kind of understanding of what life may have been like during that era and possibly garner some new perspective that can be applied to their own belief systems. </p></pre>Horsey-: <pre><p>it's because the themes within the subtext are generally secular, unpolitical, and asexual. Schools cannot teach literature that has a tenancy to be taboo because of the inability of some students to handle it maturely.</p></pre>AquaticMeglomania: <pre><p>Considered part of the canon of English literature (heavily read, written about, and esteemed) and are also both accessible, easy, and short compared to many classics.</p></pre>: <pre><p>[removed]</p></pre>Rawrbear89: <pre><p>Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):</p>
<p>Rule 3. Top-level comments must be written explanations</p>
<hr/>
<p><em>Please refer to our <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/about/rules" rel="nofollow">detailed rules</a></em>.</p></pre>nijjerfajjot: <pre><p>Here is my take...yes they are both great novels with very deep meaning, but lots of english teachers (i had to read both these books in high school) think that molesting pupils about finding imagery and symbolism that is pretty stretched will teach them something, and it gives the impression that the teacher is some transcended being. I remember when i was in school and for a whole period we had to analyze and find examples of water imagery in Gatsby...some stoner kid who thought it was bullshit raised his hand and found a quote that was simply "i have a swimming pool"...i fucking lost it</p></pre>jacksully567: <pre><p>Most curriculum cover brit lit, or american lit, which explains certain titles of literature chosen from that time,but most always they choose from classics, specifically from what's called the "western canon", a selection thought to heavily shape western civilization.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon</a></p></pre>HidingFromSupervisor: <pre><p>Ooh ooh I got one more for this one. How are graphic stories like "The Lottery" allowed for children to read in English/ELA classes? I read that and the lesson was "somethings were deemed too inappropriate" and that was it. Had to write a book report on a stoning which could still be very possible just because of the wow factor of the story at the time of its original release, nothing of value was learned from it.</p></pre>catacavaco: <pre><p>In Brazil, for English classes, we read "Wuthering Heights" a lot. I've had it from different teachers in multiple levels.</p>
<p>Just random extra info, for French classes, "Le Petit Prince" is also a recurring book.</p></pre>droopus: <pre><p>Because Stenbeck is incredible, though I'd suggest East of Eden, then Grapes of Wrath. Then twelve years of therapy.</p>
<p>Just saying....</p></pre>takemewithyer: <pre><p>First off, my credentials: B.A. in English from UC Santa Barbara, M.A. in Modern Literature from Queen Mary University of London.</p>
<p>John Steinbeck and F. Scott Fitzgerald are canonical American authors. Period. Full stop. Why? They were best sellers. Why? Because they captured what is known as the "zeitgeist" or the 'spirit of the era,' to paraphrase. They also happened to be masters of the novel form. Don't believe me? Read "East of Eden" and "Tender Is the Night." Disagree? Go ahead. Write something better. These men wrote what is known as "the great American novel." Who will be next?</p>
<p>You?</p>
<p>Her?</p>
<p>Me? </p>
<p>Who knows?</p>
<p>Bye.</p></pre>BobbyDazzzler: <pre><p>I'm in my last year of an English degree and I have never studied either of those books. I was schooled in England and am doing my degree in Australia. Maybe it's an American thing?</p></pre>ConnieSchull: <pre><p>Can we get a TL; DR on top answer?</p></pre>Elipes_: <pre><p>This post is just in time for the English literature exam I'm siting it 45 minutes. About poetry and an inspector calls. I've had to study it for 3 years and I'm still yet to have been told any reason for it other than it's an extra gcse. The exam boards only keep this subject because it's always been here. There isn't much point</p></pre>WarlordBeagle: <pre><p>I think that it is just based on rumors and fads. There does not seem to be any scientific basis for it. Some teacher will use some book for grade X and it will go well for her, so she talks it up to her buddies. If she is popular with her co-workers, it may spread. If they have a good experience with it, it may spread further etc. Teaching materials, goals, discussion points, etc so the teacher can teach/waste time without thinking all help. </p></pre>: <pre><p>[removed]</p></pre>Rawrbear89: <pre><p>Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):</p>
<p>Rule 3. Top-level comments must be written explanations</p>
<hr/>
<p><em>Please refer to our <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/about/rules" rel="nofollow">detailed rules</a></em>.</p></pre>unfilteredbuttz: <pre><p>Because they are great books (arguably) and your teacher sweated over lesson plans over these books and they carry it over to the next year and the next (lazy).</p>
<p>And they are part of a reddit conspiracy that when a Karma Whore posts the same "What are redditors favorite books? You find that the average redditor hasn't turned a page of a new read in years since they were force fed these titles by Teach. </p></pre>: <pre><p>[removed]</p></pre>Rawrbear89: <pre><p>Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):</p>
<p>Rule 5. ELI5 is for factual information, not opinions</p>
<hr/>
<p><em>Please refer to our <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/about/rules" rel="nofollow">detailed rules</a></em>.</p></pre>Ramsays: <pre><p>Why ask questions? Just read them old sport.</p></pre>
