My answer is: It depends on what (or whom) you regard as a teacher of literature. In the world some hold as real my guess is that it may be regarded as a positive advantage never to have practised the sullen art. In the bizarre mental world to which I sometimes retreat the following construct holds: The only real response to a work of art is another such work. (The implications of this for how we teach literature at every level are boggling in the most mindful of ways.)
In years gone by, when I worked for examination boards, I used to sometimes drop this one in at meetings over coffee upon souls I felt in need of stirring. It was oddly successful in that respect.
And now a haiku of sorts. Even though I can't get this thing to set out verse properly I feel somehow obliged to wax lyrical:
Nature and Art
A bird daft with song / Accompanying Mahler's / Second Symphony.
2 comments:
Did it come across as cunning/devious or cunning/crafty? *grin*
I think my question addresses a few of the issues that I've been grappling with over the last ten years:
1) How can we 'qualify' teachers as professionals from the viewpoint of non-teachers?
2) What constitutes the practice of a discipline?
3) At what level should we peg 'good' practice?
4) Is it possible for a teacher to teach a subject without practising it?
My answers are:
1) Very tricky. The problem is that very few people think of themselves as complete non-teachers (and that is possibly true). Education is too big a proposition; it is certainly bigger than economics, law, medicine or engineering.
2) The practice of a discipline probably consists, at the very least, of being able to define the discipline usefully, being able to use the necessary vocabulary of the discipline, and being able to carry out tasks associated with that discipline.
3) The level at which we peg 'good' practice should be set by two kinds of people: those who make use of that discipline and therefore should have a say in the product delivered, and those who practise the discipline and hence should have a say in what can be delivered. The level itself probably needs negotiation.
4) I think the answer is yes. To be a teacher of literature, you probably need to understand the concept of 'story' or 'image' and how effectively language has been used to convey that scene, state or narrative. It doesn't mean that you should be able to create such a construct.
But not being able to create such a construct is somewhat like being an architect who looks at the drawings and doesn't know about the engineering. The artifice (or edifice, to be more exact) becomes a little shakier. This is probably why every lit teacher should be at least an amateur actor, writer or poet. Would you rather trust an architect who specialised in graphic design or one who specialised in civil engineering? It depends on whether you want a building to look good or be good, perhaps.
My answers are pretty unsatisfactory, which is why it is such good fun debating through the questions.
Cunning, excellent. I knew you had something up your considerable sleeve.
Post a Comment