Pathetic Fallacy - is this a "thing"

[marmia1234]

My sons English report came home ( disclaimers: not in UK and I have a degree in English Literature)
In one section of the test they had to match a quote to its corresponding technique. For example - simile, imagery, metaphor, personification etc. One of those techniques was "pathetic fallacy" . I am flummoxed. Is this a normal thing I just missed somehow? Once he had a stab at which one was the "pathetic fallacy he was stuffed and only got 4 right out of 7 as was a bit discombobulated. Is this a common term in the UK or US
I have googled and it appears to be a version of personification.
Why is it pathetic?
Trying to add poll but seem to be unable.
YABU - everybody knows the term "Pathetic fallacy"
YANBU - WTF nobody has heard of that

Where on earth did you get your Literature degree from if you have never heard this term before.
I was taught it at GCSE. Look at the opening paragraph of Jane Eyre for an example that is easy to grasp.

I only learned it when at university (in the 90s, in philosophy of science). Different terms wax and wane in popularity!

I don't think people have a problem grasping it, they just didn't know what it was called.

All these years I thought it was prophetic 🤣

Then I am afraid that you have not studied it in any real sense.
You have probably just read it.

It is a tad modern as a term

It really isn’t. As many people have now noted, Ruskin originated the concept. Mid-19thc isn’t exactly 'modern', unless you really are trying to define it like my degree in Modern History, whose frame of study ran from 1492 to the 1960s. This was after A levels in the late 1970s in which I did Eng Lit and 'pathetic fallacy' was a term both commonly used and understood.

’Pathetic’ from the Greek ‘Pathos’ meaning emotion (usually pity/sadness)

Probably, yes. I was born early 90s and was taught it. The curriculum doesn’t (or, as far as I’m aware, has never) stipulated “children will be taught pathetic fallacy”. They usually say something like “…will be able to analyse the writer’s use of language” or “…can apply literary techniques to create impact…” so the actual devices that are taught are at the teacher’s discretion.

I think it’s simply down to the exam board curriculums people were taught, which change over time and even then teachers have discretion over what they teach from it.

I am definitely ‘reasonably well educated’ (4 degrees, final year of English lit/writing PhD) and I’ve never come across the term at all. My 19yo has, though.

For me it just seems odd that this was what was foregrounded in the school report, rather than simply stating that understanding/use of ‘literary devices’ needed work, but I’m going to guess that this section of the school report was cut and pasted from the exam board curriculum to simply illustrate what they were getting at.

Only if everyone at the party ignores you and treats you with an icy contempt.

I am 35 and used this term regularly at school from pre GCSE. I went to quite a posh grammar and was definitely taught to do the exam so there would be definite terms to try and tick off in your answers, this being one of them.

Same. Though I don't think it would have applied to any of the texts we studied

Do you mean in the same sense that you might be studying Italian, can grasp what a dog is but not know the Italian word for it.

Do you mean in the same sense that someone studying medicine might grasp what a tumour is but not know the term for it.

If you are studying a subject at degree level, then it is essential to not only grasp basic meanings but also to know what they are called.

I suppose the OP will pop up to tell us that she gained a First.

I am going to go all out say that you shouldn’t use it for Shakespeare.

Interesting.

I'm 99.9% sure I wasn't taught it, I would have remembered as it's an interesting term. Obviously I am aware of the concept but I think the term we were taught to describe this was personification (as opposed to pathetic fallacy).

Mainstream, my year 8s were explaining it to someone who got it wrong last week (not an English teacher!)

She may have studied it from a particular perspective. For example, I studied Jane Eyre at degree level as part of my 'women in literature' module. We considered it from the feminist perspective. Pathetic fallacy didn't come into it, because that did not link to the perspective we studied the novel from.

Sometimes they do cross over. I had a pupil tell me that their tutor taught them that pathetic fallacy is personifying the weather, which isn’t entirely accurate but can be. For example, “the storm raged” is both personification and pathetic fallacy, whereas “the grey clouds filled the sky” when the character is unhappy is just pathetic fallacy.

Well, I got a 2:1 without hearing the term...

It is difficult to study English Literature in the true sense if you don't know basic terms, no matter what perspective you use.

Know the basic terms and you can study any text from any perspective.

I learned about it in the 80s at secondary

Shame on whoever awarded you that. You certainly wouldn't have seen the skies over it at one time.

I disagree with this. As I said in my PP, literary devices often cross over and it’s perfectly possible to analyse language and discuss the effects, the context and the message without labelling every device used. They could have just as easily discussed the symbolism of the weather without using the term “pathetic fallacy”. Marking literature isn’t really about ticking boxes for the devices named.

This puts it well. I learned this term as an English undergraduate in the late 80’s and it was well established then.

One issue is that "basic terms" come into and fall out of fashion. I genuinely don't know whether all the Greek terms for tropes are still used?