Only a phillistine could deny that reading literature has intrinsic value. It makes you think, and turns you in to an agent herméneutique, a mariner in the world of thought and abstract ideals. That is it's chief virtue - it elevates the mind to a point where it can see further than ever imaginable. 
I'm sure that government ministers must believe this when they aren't sitting at their desks, but it doesn't always look like that.
"Harold MacMillan said reading Jane Austen helped him relax when he was prime minister - so it can even be therapeutic for those who lead stressful lives too."
To be fair to Mr. Johnson, this was not his only statement on the matter - he also stated that reading should help children "fire their imagination, inform their love of language and extend their knowledge". It may also serve a role in informing one's use of language and enflaming one's love of language, but such quibbles over usage are for the bookish, not for those in Westminster.
Still, perhaps this little ditty from the Department of Education might suggest that they seek to try and put a little bit of aesthetic enthusiasm in to English teaching. If this is true, then it is certainly a nice break from the previous education ministers whose attitudes towards anything approximating intellectualism was that it's "a bit dodgy", followed by all the New Labour bingo words like "out-of-touch" and "elitist".
The current attitude towards literature seems to be a little bit like trying to use a slingshot to administer aspirin (get this crystal, dear readers, and you can proceed to the Future Zone). Even if literature did not have any positive health benefits, it would still be worth reading.
Comments | TrackBack
