What are the costs and benefits of teaching television as a form of literature in classroom?

We have always had stories. They were first told orally as fairy tales, folklore, and epic poems, and were eventually written down. And for as long as we have had stories, we’ve had literature. Stories are usually considered literature when they have long-lasting artistic or social value. Epic poems like The Odyssey or novels like To Kill a Mockingbird are considered literature because they have deeper meanings that go beyond the story. Both stories are meant to do more than just amuse the reader. A pop novel, like a James Patterson book you can buy at the airport, would not traditionally be considered literature because it is not meant to do much more than entertain the reader.

As we’ve transitioned from hearing stories to reading them, our ideas have changed about what kinds of stories have merit. We have always made a point to pass on the stories we value to next generation, regardless of their form. Therefore, it should not be so outrageous to declare that a new form of literature has been forged and needs to be passed on: television shows.

Television shows can be as complex as novels and can provide students with opportunities to learn that novels do not. Yet, there are legitimate concerns about using classroom time to dissect1 television. One issue is that complex television shows tend to have adult or graphic themes not suitable for the classroom. Another concern involves how much time students spend on television. Plenty of students already watch and discuss television in their own time, so is television needed in the classroom, too? Finally, the written word teaches cognitive2 skills that television cannot.

rivalry

explanation:

word count 168

serve the people! ,” smoothly translated by julia lovell, offers an initial sample of yan lianke’s writing to an english-speaking audience. a bluntly drawn, mildly erotic fable, it teases mao zedong by poking fun at a true believer who obeys the chairman’s precepts too literally. to a western sensibility, the broad strokes of yan lianke’s humor would seem to pose little risk of inciting rebellion, whether of the flesh or of the body politic. but then, part of the book’s attraction is that it doesn’t have a western sensibility. it lets the reader see — or rather, intuit — what jokes chinese officials don’t consider funny, and how very little it takes for a writer to be branded an incendiary in 21st-century china, more than three decades after the death of mao, a decade after the death of deng xiaoping and seven years since china entered the world trade organization, a move that would seem to signal a willingness (however wary) to mingle with the rest of the world.