I, too, like Bingley's only point.
But now to open a can of worms:
A couple of summers ago I took a group of high school students, who'd failed senior English during the regular term, through a very abbreviated course in world lit.
The book. Oh, heaven, save us, the book! There were some fine examples of literature, but the short stories from other nations? Thin. Very. Infantile language. Too obvious moral points being made. Please do not misunderstand me here. The problem wasn't with the cultures represented, but with the literary choices offered. I asked several teachers in the county about many of the stories that had been included in the anthology, and each agreed that the choices had been poor. I wondered whether a great deal had been lost in translation. I suspect that the compilers of the anthology had played hit and miss with wanting to represent a wide range of cultures, but not holding up consistent literary standards for each chosen work.
Studying Oedipus was the high point of the summer--especially once the kids had a good understanding of the story and the irony in the dialogue. We followed up their papers and talks about the play with a terrific parody of it in which Jack Nicholson read the part of Oedipus...Edith Bunker may have played Jocasta...and Mr. Rogers played some role? NPR parody. I think it was called "The Six-Minute Oedipus" and was most likely one of Garrison Keillor's skits.
"A Doll's House" went fairly well...
But as we moved forward into contemporary literature from other cultures, that's where things fell apart and didn't offer challenging material. I must believe that much was lost in translation, which means, I suppose, that the translations were not artistically sensitive.
If I ever taught that course again, I'd chuck most of the book and supplement it with other material.
