Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Had a long discussion with my 9th grader last night which came around to this: Why do they pick such boring books and plays for high school literature? Which made me think back to my own school years and I have to agree. It seems almost as if the literature chosen is designed to make kids hate reading.
They're in the midst of To Kill a Mockingbird, and might get to Romeo & Juliet this year.
Yeah, we had to compare Romeo and Juliet to West Side Story.
My paranoia leads me to believe that getting kids to read so much material about the past keeps them from thinking about what kind of future to create.
They gave us a total of 4 science fiction stories to read in 4 years, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, 1984 and Rescue Party. But looking at how society has changed and failed to change since the Moon landing I think the traditionalists have too much control of the schools. But even the SF they select is rather stodgy. I read lots more stuff of my own choosing than the Eng Lit courses assigned. What I selected on my own was far more interesting.
Now we are stuck on a planet suffering from the stupid use of technology for the last 50 years.
We need for kids to read literature that is more forward looking...
Had a long discussion with my 9th grader last night which came around to this: Why do they pick such boring books and plays for high school literature? Which made me think back to my own school years and I have to agree. It seems almost as if the literature chosen is designed to make kids hate reading.
They're in the midst of To Kill a Mockingbird, and might get to Romeo & Juliet this year. This isn't a kid who hates reading, but would like variety. He's already stated he much rather study Macbeth, Hamlet, Henry V, or Othello instead of Romeo & Juliet because they have more action and appeal to a boy.
Let's be honest: How many people would really read Mockingbird or Anne Frank if they weren't required reading in school? Is it merely social relevance and tradition that ties us to the same things when there are many books that would stir the imagination better and capture young readers for a lifetime if that's really the goal?
I read them when I was 10.
Actually, I read Romeo & Juliet when I was 5. I thought it was stupid - killing yourself because you thought your SO was dead, and then they wake up and see you're dead, so they kill themselves as well.
But I wouldn't have been able to form an opinion had I not read the whole thing!
To Kill A Mockingbird is still one of my favorite novels.
Maybe they're trying to get kids to broaden their experience and not just suck down a steady diet of murder and mayhem. Although there's actually plenty of murder and mayhem in Romeo & Juliet.
Yeah, we had to compare Romeo and Juliet to West Side Story.
My paranoia leads me to believe that getting kids to read so much material about the past keeps them from thinking about what kind of future to create.
They gave us a total of 4 science fiction stories to read in 4 years, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, 1984 and Rescue Party. But looking at how society has changed and failed to change since the Moon landing I think the traditionalists have too much control of the schools. But even the SF they select is rather stodgy. I read lots more stuff of my own choosing than the Eng Lit courses assigned. What I selected on my own was far more interesting.
Now we are stuck on a planet suffering from the stupid use of technology for the last 50 years.
We need for kids to read literature that is more forward looking...
You know, I like James P. Hogan. I've read a lot of his stuff. But it is frankly brain candy.
It is not literature.
I agree about Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, and 1984. I'm not familiar with Rescue Party.
Anything by Ursula K LeGuin blows Japes P. Hogan out of the water. But I'm pretty sure some of her more relevant themes would not be welcome in your average high school.
Most of the books considered "classic" were seen as garbage or mediocre in their own times. Then someone rewrote history 30 years later and then they became "essential reading".
Not all of them. To Kill A Mockingbird was immediately successful and won the Pulitzer Prize. It has sold over 30 million copies.
I still find Moby Dick the most dull, boring book every written. I pretended to finish it for class and studied the Cliffs Notes.
In my school it was like half and half, so it wasn't too bad. I agree that The Scarlet Letter sucked, it was such a daunting read, and it feels like I haven't even learned anything after reading it. I have no idea why they keep teaching that
My high school teacher told us that half of the book was like instructions on ship building??? Don't know if that's true, but Im glad she spared us from reading that
To Kill a Mockingbird and Catcher in the Rye were two of the most boring books I've ever read. Naturally, both were forced upon me in highschool. It is definitely time to change things up a bit.
I remember suffering through Catcher in the Rye in high school, and I loved to read. Thought it was the worst book I ever read, until the next one: A Separate Peace.
Thirty years later, my daughter comes home from high school raving about this great book they are reading called Catcher in the Rye. She was serious. She loved it. Weirdo.
I have never read To Kill a Mockingbird. Maybe I'll take it out of the library.
Had a long discussion with my 9th grader last night which came around to this: Why do they pick such boring books and plays for high school literature? Which made me think back to my own school years and I have to agree. It seems almost as if the literature chosen is designed to make kids hate reading.
They're in the midst of To Kill a Mockingbird, and might get to Romeo & Juliet this year. This isn't a kid who hates reading, but would like variety. He's already stated he much rather study Macbeth, Hamlet, Henry V, or Othello instead of Romeo & Juliet because they have more action and appeal to a boy.
Let's be honest: How many people would really read Mockingbird or Anne Frank if they weren't required reading in school? Is it merely social relevance and tradition that ties us to the same things when there are many books that would stir the imagination better and capture young readers for a lifetime if that's really the goal?
Because you wouldn't otherwise read them. It's called exposure to things outside of what you'd choose. It's a good thing to be forced outside of your box now and again.
Had a long discussion with my 9th grader last night which came around to this: Why do they pick such boring books and plays for high school literature? Which made me think back to my own school years and I have to agree. It seems almost as if the literature chosen is designed to make kids hate reading....
I went to junior high and high school in the early Fifties. It has never occurred to me that in those grades the reading we were being given was intended to make us want to read. I think that was supposed to have happened in primary grades back then.
The reading I remember was exclusively American and English authors. The purpose, I would say, was to acquaint us with the literature and history of our own country, and by extension with that of England, which was considered the origin of American culture. I think the idea was to make up realize that while we were being served up battles, etc. in the U.S. history course, that the nation was at the same time building and shaping a culture through its literature.
I lived in NY State and the Board of Regents designed a uniform syllabus for many courses and the exams for those courses were the same across the state...I presume they also had a list of reading for these courses from which the teachers could select which books to use. We were fortunate in that the primary lit teacher was a rather marvelous "old lady", who while she dressed in widow's black in longish old fashion dresses and wore her grey hair in a bun was as sharp as the proverbial razor. For each book that we read she found a contemporary non-fiction writing of that era to supplement it. When we read Macbeth, she read us excerpts from Hollingsheds Chronicles and commented on them, which gave Macbeth a context and spin beyond the play itself. She did the same with all the books, she made sure that each one was tied into a historical reality.
However, sixty-five years later her splendid teaching would probably only find a place in a few elite private schools. Her methods and goal would be anachronistic - or worse - in public schools today. The role of public education in contemporary American society and culture (and in some other countries as well) is to produce a mass of complaisant citizens with a superficial homogeneity, but essentially tuned to work for the pleasure of endless consuming, which is what will provide their primary identity. The ability to acquire professional skills is valued, but an education that cultivates historical and cultural depth is undesirable when the citizenry is expected to be endlessly malleable and useful. Historical or cultural reflection are undesirable. Thus, it is good that students leave school feeling that reading is onerous and without purpose and analytical thinking tedious and pointless outside the realm of science and business.
If students were equipped otherwise, they might suspect that not only are the various emperors' impressive new clothes a joke but their own are of a similar nature.
Had a long discussion with my 9th grader last night which came around to this: Why do they pick such boring books and plays for high school literature? Which made me think back to my own school years and I have to agree. It seems almost as if the literature chosen is designed to make kids hate reading.
They're in the midst of To Kill a Mockingbird, and might get to Romeo & Juliet this year. This isn't a kid who hates reading, but would like variety. He's already stated he much rather study Macbeth, Hamlet, Henry V, or Othello instead of Romeo & Juliet because they have more action and appeal to a boy.
Let's be honest: How many people would really read Mockingbird or Anne Frank if they weren't required reading in school? Is it merely social relevance and tradition that ties us to the same things when there are many books that would stir the imagination better and capture young readers for a lifetime if that's really the goal?
Because lit class isn't all about everyone have a good time?
I'm 46 years old. I read To Kill A Mockingbird a few years ago. Last year I read Catcher In The Rye. You can't please everyone. You do know that, right? And, yes, I do think the cultural relevance of a work of fiction matters. Does it really need to be explained why those books - and not, say, World War Z or the novelization of Transformers 3 - is in the curriculum?
As for Shakespeare, the influence of his works are so pervasive in the fictional (and non-fictional: Band Of Brothers, anyone?) narratives of western culture - be they novels or television or films or even comic books - that the study of Shakespeare in an English Literature class seems rather obvious.
Also, by the time of a lit class a student was introduced to reading a number of years before. Those earlier years are infused with attempts to engender a love of reading. When in high school, it's about academic study and not simply doing something that is fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradPiff
Most of the books considered "classic" were seen as garbage or mediocre in their own times. Then someone rewrote history 30 years later and then they became "essential reading".
"Most"? Not really.
Sure, there are exaxmples - Moby Dick comes to mind. But To Kill A Mockingbird, mentioned by the OP, was very well-received. So were a great many other lit class standards, such as Catcher In The Rye, Great Expectations, Of Mice And Men, and so forth.
Finally, I thought I'd offer a perspective from my local high school, which I attended in the 1980s and which today my three children all attend (two seniors and a sophomore).
My older son loved the required The Great Gatsby and A Prayer For Owen Meany (I, too, love both those books). My younger son very much enjoyed Peace Like A River. Those are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head. But I just did a little googling, and here's a sample of the fare I found from the course syllabi of our high school that are posted online.
British Literature:
Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726) - never read it, but I did enjoy the Classic Comic version...
Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre (1847)
Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None (1939)
Ishiguro Kazuo's The Remains Of The Day (1989) - I loved this book, and plan to read it again.
John Gardner's Grendel (1989) - a modern retelling of Beowulf, from the monster's perspective.
Ian McEwan's Saturday (2005)
The American literature course includes: A Yellow Raft On Blue Water The Scarlet Letter The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn The Age Of Innocence - I love everything I've read by Edith Wharton The Great Gatsby A River Runs Through It The Bean Trees
Also, selected readings by Thorough, Whitman, MLK, Longfellow, Hemingway, and others are included.
I really don't see any issue with this body of works as a whole for lit classes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
