> The meaning of a word is determined by its
context, so it's not particularly significant or
objectionable that "books" is used to mean fiction
here.

While I believe that books should mean, say, what
is sold on Amazon or what is in a large public or
academic library, for "context," here on HN books
are more like the ones I listed, e.g., Knuth, and not
what is emphasized in NYR. Gee, is there some
irony here?

> I think you're being a bit dramatic with regards
to having to read fiction in school.

But being "dramatic" is heavily what fictional
literature is about, right? More irony here?

> Society has decided that reading fiction is part
of a well-rounded education.

Well, if not "society" then a lot of people in K-12
education, people, who, a guess, were English majors
in college. There's some social-academic field
self-perpetuation here, maybe?

> The same objections you make could be made about
having to learn algebra; most people can object that
they will never directly use it in later life and
that they could have spend the time learning other
things.

I explain more in

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8410549

in this tread. There I mention that in the grade
1-12 school I went to, algebra was optional. I took
it, sure, along with all the math that was offered.

In that post, I also explained that much of my
objection to fictional literature was the amount of
it required with significant math and science having
many fewer years and all those optional.

So, in grades 1-12 I want to, and as I explain at a
comparatively good school, the dichotomy is not just
fictional literature versus algebra but 12 years of
such literature, required, versus just four years of
math (beyond trivial arithmetic), one year of
chemistry, and one year of physics, all optional and
none very advanced. Bummer.

> It is not useful to compare the value of fiction
versus non-fiction, they have completely different
functions, and there's no reason for it to be a case
of either/or.

Well, we can compare years required, and this long
after the Age of Reason and the rise of the STEM
fields, the 12 years of English as essentially
just fictional literature, with, say, just one year
of physics, is way, way too much. We should be in
line for some disruption. At the very least the
12 years should teach a lot of writing, no, not
creative writing or how to write fictional
literature but writing for business, law, medicine,
politics, and the STEM fields. Maybe eventually
such writing lessons could actually leak over into
journalism?

> In both cases an argument for teaching it is that
it exercises the mind, developing a sense of
abstraction in the case of algebra, and imagination
and empathy in the case of literature, I would
argue.

I can have some agreement with such an argument, but
there is much more to consider. And, as simple as
your argument is, it was never clear in the 14 years
of English I was force fed. In fact, no reasonable
purpose was made clear.

Yes, it was suggested that some of fictional
literature could teach about people. Hmm ....
Eventually I did learn some about people, via
experience and some well respected materials out of,
say, the clinical psychology field, especially E.
Fromm, The Art of Loving, i.e., love and emotions,
psychology, and religion.

Now that I have learned, I can return to some of
fictional literature and see that, yes, some lessons
were there as examples of, say, candidate human
behavior.

E.g., can watch the movie In Harm's Way where
there are four women: One is really a total slut;
she is married but, still, when her husband is not
around, likes to go to a party, get drunk, pick a
man, go to a beach, go skinny dipping, and spend the
night. Another woman wants to be a slut but hides
it even from herself, E.g., she is engaged and there
behaving with high propriety but, when her fiance is
not around, goes to a party, undresses to her
undies, and tempts her escort, whom she suspected
needed no tempting, to rape her. The third is an
excellent version of a wonderful, perceptive,
supportive, devoted, loving wife and mother to be.
And the fourth is an excellent example of a woman
for a man past being a father again. So, Otto
Preminger gave a nice range of possibilities. But,
unless walk into the movie already knowing these
lessons, possibilities, fairly well, will likely
miss the significance. Thus, the movie is more
entertainment, say, to reinforce what the audience
already knows, instead of a way to learn more.

Really, mostly, over the years, I've had to conclude
that fictional literature is a poor way to learn
much of anything significant about people; I will
grant that there are a lot of examples that might
provide more on your "empathy"; even here, if that
is one of the intended lessons, then it is taught
indirectly and ineffectively.

Background 1 -- Seriousness: When I read some
fiction and take it seriously, I want clear
presentations of the points being made and good
evidence for the reality, correctness, and practical
relevance of the points.

Background 2 -- Art: Or, I can like some of art,
and one definition is the communication,
interpretation of human experience, emotion.

Conclusion: Instead of such seriousness or even
such art, I finally concluded that the content of
nearly all of fictional literature is just
presenting to the reader vicarious, escapist,
fantasy, emotional experience entertainment.
Teaching good, solid lessons about people? Not very
much.

So, here we have a case of literary criticism of
literary criticism.

Net, for the teaching of English, I suggest: (1)
Cut way back the required time spent on fictional
literature. (2) For the fictional literature
taught, be much more clear on just what the content
is supposed to mean and why we should take it
seriously. (3) Do much more in teaching writing
other than creative writing.