PulpLit.net

All fired up about math and grammar

Why do we not teach math and reading comprehension in the same class?

One has rules which attempt to describe logical processes. The other has rules which attempt to help us describe those processes to each other. And yet people who are good with words often describe themselves as "bad at math." (Not a particularly creative phrase, I might add. [no pun intended])

I am no stranger to this. I am terrible with numbers. I can't make them talk to me in a language that makes sense. But logic itself, along with geometry and algebra-- the language of arranging rearranging things in fun shapes and descriptions of shapes really isn't all that different from the domains my worst math teachers described as a complete waste of time-- Fine Art and English (music having long ago gained disproportionately enthusiastic support as a mathematical invention).

The relegation of these subjects into two disparate hemispheres of learning only leads to two things: math students who have difficulty with word problems and worse, literal-minded readers incapable of applying imagination to interpretations of grammar and structure. "I'm suspending disbelief here, isn't that enough?" they seem to ask, implying that writers are meant to lead readers on creative journeys, but only ones on which they are not required to encounter new situations or think for themselves-- something like a tour-bus safari of reading. The scenarios and ideas presented may be different, but the road itself must be straight and smooth. Never should we have to change a tire to keep the bus on the road.

Take the use of the second-person point of view as an example. Whenever the writer uses the second person, we are told, (or we assume, like a rookie detective in season 1 of an ABC network drama) he or she is addressing the reader directly. Because we are human, we conclude that the word "you" refers specifically to "me, the centre of my own universe." We then overlook the other relationships made possible through the use of this point of view.

For instance, what if the characters in a story are unaware they are being read? What if the Narrator is observing Them and addressing his internal monologue to You, another character in the story? Is that the Wrong use of the structure? Many teachers, readers and (most importantly for writers seeking publication) editors say so, yet this logical use of "you" can be backed up by everyday experience. If you (yes, you the reader, in this case I am aware you are out there, or at least I hope you are) are sitting on a train, eavesdropping on a conversation and one of the parties uses the word "you," do you stand up and answer? I doubt it, unless you want to start a fight.

If the medium can be the message, then the structure can be the story. We just have to stop telling each other it's wrong. We have to stop expecting never to be confused by anything, and we need to contemplate the value of learning to think our way out of our own confusion. From the cradle (until adolescence, when apparently all is lost), we are taught by parents, teachers, librarians and an assortment of advertising materials that "reading is fun." And that's true, but thinking is funner. It's time someone stood up for it.