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. 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?
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.
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 think that it really depends on what appeals to any one individual. I have three sons and they all loved To Kill a Mockingbird but they agree with your son on Romeo and Juliet. The problem that English teachers face is that they have to have selections that appeal to both boys and girls. I remember my oldest son complaining bitterly about having to read "girly" books like The Kitchen God's Wife.
I think some kids really don't like literature and others do like it. My younger sons both love literature but my oldest would have taken a thousand math classes so that he could escape taking literature. My youngest is even taking Poetry as one of his HS elective. For kids who don't like literature I don't think different selections will make them like literature any more.
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?
Well...social relevance over the span of generations is part of what makes it actual "literature" as opposed to simply a page turner. Social relevance is what makes a person think and consider something in a different light or from a different perspective and have something to actual discuss and debate. That is kind of the point of literature and education. Page turners can be read at one's leisure - sure they're fun but how much do they make a person actually think?
If you had said something like The Scarlet Letter, I would have agreed with you more. But I regard Mockingbird as a well-crafted novel and Romeo and Juliet has plenty of mayhem and a high body count if you're into that sort of thing. As an English teacher (7th & 8th grades) I never wanted to select literature that was currently popular, like The Hunger Game series, because I thought that was something kids were more likely to pick up themselves and enjoy. Studying a novel in school puts a price tag on it for kids - they are not just reading it for their own pleasure. There are plenty of good options, but the problem may not so much be the literature itself, but the way it is deconstructed in the class.
I agree that literature choices in school tend to teach kids to hate lit, but I also think that a lot of how kids react relates to how literature is taught. A lot of us were absolutely clueless when it came to discussing literature, and the way it was taught didn't help us understand it. Also, I don't know about your son's school, but in my school, a lot of the selections were full of unspeakable violence, and I found it traumatizing. I found even Jane Eyre to be depressing, especially the first half of it.
Anne Frank is important because of the subject matter it raises. Books like Brave New World can be interesting because of the political implications. What would other people suggest? Let's see if we could put together a better list. Still, a lot of it boils down to teaching methodology. I don't think that's very evolved, for the literature field. Although it's improving a little. Now they teach "literary analysis", which is better than nothing. At least it teaches kids something about the structure of the novel, and helps them make some sense out of it.
I remember some of my friends in HS read Lord Of The Rings for class. Although it was fun for them, and at least didn't teach them to hate literature, I'm not sure what they got out of it beyond that.
Many high schools are adding contemporary books to their curriculum.
Several high schools in my area have added these two books to the freshman (I believe) English classes. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian
by Sherman Alexie and Nineteen Minutes by Jodi Picoult.
The first is a semi-autobiographical book by a young writer that has multiple themes including poverty, race relations, bullying, alcoholism and family & community bonding in America today. It is even partly a graphic novel (you can't get more "contemporary" than that).
The second is a fact based novel written about the aftermath of a school shooting and how it effects the survivors, parents, school and the entire town. It's themes include high school cliques, gun violence, the legal system, and the effects of on-going bullying.
Because testing is determined at the state level schools are required to follow the state guidelines for required reading. An individual teacher, or school district can not "just decide" to switch and do different novels or plays than the state requirements. Knowledge of certain pieces of literature are also needed for success on assessments such as the ACT & SAT.
One of my daughters absolutely LOVED To Kill a Mockingbird, the other not so much. It's personal preference. The first DD also loved "Nineteen Minutes" which she read as a young adult. I read it as well, and was not as impressed. Jodi Picoult's books are very formulaic.
My high-school-aged daughter read Romeo and Juliet and To Kill a Mockingbird in 9th grade. She enjoyed the first but not the second. Some of the kids in her class felt the other way. She hasn't read Anne Frank but I have, as a young teen, and I loved it.
Saying a classic book is boring says more about the speaker than about the book. Of course personal tastes play a role, and not everyone likes everything, but classics are classics partly because over time, so many people have loved them. Believe it or not.
1. I think a lot of H.S. choices are based on length. Like Ethan Frome.
2. Millions of people adore Mockingbird, and although pretty much every woman I know has read Anne Frank, none of them read it for school. I sure didn't.
3. Why do you and he think that even more choices should be made interesting for boys? Haven't you noticed that most entertainment is in fact is geared to males, with the expectation that females will be happy to be acquainted with Huck Finn, David Copperfield, Harry Potter, et al. - not to mention that all the stars of action movies are usually male. Perhaps this is the best time to actually require him to read about things geared toward females. Maybe they'll introduce him to Jane Austen.
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.
