CNY pics!
To the Friends: Aww thanks guys. pepper chili crab in honour of my existence? haha sure or not…i dont ever remember us going to seafood restaurants. oh and ‘the man’ and ‘the man other than the man’ are friend(s) in york. yea i was quite mystified at first too :) like our very own masked man.
Anyway, am down with a cold, and stuck in room tonight instead of trooping down to Alcuin for a easter break discussion. Oh well. Occupying myself with reading STI, and lo and behold, i spotted familiar names in the Forum section of ST. Li Shengwu and Tham Li Jing penned the letters ‘Classroom still belongs to Yeats and the Bard’ (ST, Jan 21) and ‘Judge a piece of writing on how it stirs emotions’ (ST, Jan 31) respectively. These letters were written in response to MOE’s decision to incorporate more local literature into the literature syllabus.
Well, I dont know many Shengwus and Li Jings, and well, no doubt there is a possibility that they might not be the RJ seniors i know of. and i dont even know them personally. and If its a case of mistaken identity then uh, i’ll feel silly, twiddle my thumbs, and then perhaps delete this entry.
Background information: Shengwu was responding to a Mr Paul Tan’s article, ‘Give local writing its place’ (ST, Jan 18). In this article, Mr Tan praises MOE’s decision to review the literature syllabus to incorporate more local writing. Shengwu writes in, responding with: ‘that local writers are improving does not necessitate their immediate inclusion in the literature syllabus’. And that ‘if substantially better overseas writers exist, we should not give our limited syllabus space to Singaporean writers in a fit of blind patriotism.’ He concludes with ‘until [local writers can stand on equal footing with the bard, eliot and hemmingway], give the time and the classroom to Yeats and Shakespeare.’
This provokes more responses in defense of local literature – a Miss Stephanie Chu responds with ‘Local writing makes literature more accessible’( ST, Jan 27). She writes: ‘it is possible to learn the rudiments of literary analysis through local texts because they are rich in terms of stories, images and themes. A good example would be Sing To The Dawn.’ I am skimping over Miss Chu’s arguments here, but the gist of her letter is that local works are close to our hearts, as opposed to works of Shakespeare, which require lengths of explanatory notes to bridge the culture and time gap; and that ‘for students who are more keen, Shakespeare would be good to lay the foundations for what literature has to offer as an academic field. But for the majority of students who will not touch literature at a higher level, there is nothing more accessible and closer to matters at home than our own writers’.
And if you read today’s Forum, you’ll spot the response to Miss Chu’s letter, and it is written by Familiar Name #2. In response to the inaccessibility of Shakespeare’s works, Li Jing writes: ‘I have had wonderful literature teachers in secondary school and junior college; even now I marvel at the way they transformed what seemed like a foreign language into words that spoke to my heart’ and reiterates his ex-classmate’s claim that Catherine Lim and Kuo Pao Kun pale in comparison to Yeats and Shakespeare (and in fact, says Li Jing, they cannot match contemporary writers like Kazuo Ishiguro and Jeanette Winterson as well.)
Alright now, where do you stand?
For me, part of the fun in studying literature lies in reading the secondary texts ie the criticisms. admitedly, the pressure to start on secondary readings only start in the junior college days. you start to dig up these secondary readings on the internet, or in obscure corners of the libraries, and realise that there has been SO much written on these primary texts you’re studying. i’ve got to confess: it is in fact, at times more fascinating to read these secondary texts than the primary texts themselves. it can be more fascinating to read what the shakespeare scholars have to say about the bard’s works. and it is primarily because there has been so much, so much written on the classical english works – medieval, renaissance, victorian, romantic literature – that i would find it more worthwhile for students to study these works. it gives more avenue for development, endless scope, and so much room for discussion.
you want local context, well, there always the possibility of reading what local critics have to say about whatever primary text is being studied. the study of literature is not about judging the value of a literary work; it isnt even about comparing the relative value of works. personally, at least, it is about discovering how words can approximate emotional states; it is about different authors’ experiments with styles; and even about character/virtue/school of thought. some works speak to you, and you immediately form a connection with the character/author, and if you find works of such, then congratulations, you will always never feel alone in your solitude. Give the students scope, so they can find work of such a nature.
