Banned books in high school

[AmericanEagle]

"To Kill a Mockingbird" has just been banned at an Ontario high school because of the complaint of one parent. The parent was concerned about the racial epithets in the book.

A few months ago, another parent complained about the foul language, sexism, and violence in "The Handmaid's Tale."

I have read both of these novels in my high school English classes, and found nothing inappropriate for 14-18 year olds.

Isn't literature supposed to expand the horizons of its readers? If all 'offensive' literature were to be banned from high schools, there would be nothing for students to read.

[LitNetIsGreat]

This is another thing that deeply irritates, the banning of books as PC goes mad. Isn't this thing more common in some places in America though? Still it's annoying wherever it happens of course. Sexism in The Handmaid's Tale?:lol: What do they think it is a book promoting the use of women as sex slaves or something? :lol:

Suggest to them The Monk by Matthew Lewis. I'm sure a little incest, rape and murder, not to mention the odd spot of devil worship, will go down well instead. :thumbs_up

Ban the parents, not the books.

[Drkshadow03]

"To Kill a Mockingbird" has just been banned at an Ontario high school because of the complaint of one parent. The parent was concerned about the racial epithets in the book.

A few months ago, another parent complained about the foul language, sexism, and violence in "The Handmaid's Tale."

I have read both of these novels in my high school English classes, and found nothing inappropriate for 14-18 year olds.

Isn't literature supposed to expand the horizons of its readers? If all 'offensive' literature were to be banned from high schools, there would be nothing for students to read.

Was it banned or just challenged? Also, we should be careful by what we mean by banning. If a kid brings to Kill a Mockingbird into school I'm sure nobody is going to confiscate it. What people generally mean by banning in these situation is a book that was originally on the curriculum has been removed because of some complaints and replaced with some other book, which could've been done at the discretion of the school district at any time anyway regardless if there had been complaints about content.

On the other hand, this happened in Canada, and it was To Kill a Mockingbird . . . I wonder if it was really JBI posing as a parent who called this school district to fulfill his deluded dreams of removing it from the Canadian curriculum once and for all!

[Veho]

I feel it's a step backwards for society and rather archaic.

I'm sure books don't get banned in UK schools. Hmm, I've never heard of it before anyway.

[AmericanEagle]

Was it banned or just challenged? Also, we should be careful by what we mean by banning. If a kid brings to Kill a Mockingbird into school I'm sure nobody is going to confiscate it. What people generally mean by banning in these situation is a book that was originally on the curriculum has been removed because of some complaints and replaced with some other book, which could've been done at the discretion of the school district at any time anyway regardless if there had been complaints about content.

Yes, the book was pulled from the curriculum, but it will still be available in the school library.

I don't see why "To Kill a Mockingbird" would be offensive to any parent. The kids are probably up to worse things on MSN and Facebook.

[Saladin]

"To Kill a Mockingbird" has just been banned at an Ontario high school because of the complaint of one parent. The parent was concerned about the racial epithets in the book.

A few months ago, another parent complained about the foul language, sexism, and violence in "The Handmaid's Tale."

I have read both of these novels in my high school English classes, and found nothing inappropriate for 14-18 year olds.

Isn't literature supposed to expand the horizons of its readers? If all 'offensive' literature were to be banned from high schools, there would be nothing for students to read.

Banning of books is one of those stupid things i dislike.

"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all." Preface, The Picture of Dorian Gray

[mayneverhave]

I prefer book burning, but that's just me.

[Pecksie]

I recently read that there had been a controversy in Europe regarding the removal from circulation of some of my beloved Tintin comics, due to the same allegations of racism. Well, I guess then nobody should be reading Rudyard Kipling any more --- or Daniel Defoe, for that matter. All these authors take it for granted that 'white man' is superior to its fellow human beings --- even if the latter are 'noble savages'. But I don't think that fact justifies an action as stupid as removing a book from circulation. Most Western books written before the mid-twentieth century include that type of assumption --- whether it's about race, class, gender, you name it.

But is that a reason not to read them? Why can't people just understand that books are the product of the times and circumstances in which they were written? Are we to conclude that they do not deserve to be read, just because they are the product of a society (or even an individual) whose basic assumptions were different from ours? I hate this particular aspect of political correctness :). I remember a similar controversy regarding Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'. I say, let people read what they want. Curtailing the freedom to choose the books you read is definitely not the way to better ideals or understanding.

[Paulclem]

A poem was removed from the English curriculum in England last year - one by carole Anne Duffy. It was during a lot of media coverage of knife crime in the UK.

The arguments against it's removal, (I'll have to check which one it was), were that it promoted discussion about the use of knives, and this is seen as a positive way to broach the subject with kids.

[mal4mac]

Amazing! They are now banning our "official top living poet". We should increase the circulation of these banned pieces of literature. Here's the Carol Ann Duffy poem:

Education for Leisure

Today I am going to kill something. Anything.

I have had enough of being ignored and today

I am going to play God. It is an ordinary day,

a sort of grey with boredom stirring in the streets

I squash a fly against the window with my thumb.

We did that at school. Shakespeare. It was in

another language and now the fly is in another language.

I breathe out talent on the glass to write my name.

I am a genius. I could be anything at all, with half

the chance. But today I am going to change the world.

Something's world. The cat avoids me. The cat

knows I am a genius, and has hidden itself.

I pour the goldfish down the bog. I pull the chain.

I see that it is good. The budgie is panicking.

Once a fortnight, I walk the two miles into town

For signing on. They don't appreciate my autograph.

There is nothing left to kill. I dial the radio

and tell the man he's talking to a superstar.

He cuts me off. I get our bread-knife and go out.

The pavements glitter suddenly. I touch your arm.

Carol Ann Duffy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/sep/04/gcses.english

How could they ban this poem? It could only be useful for students to discuss it in class.

The Guardian should have mentioned the MP involved. I want to know who not to vote for. But at least the article has a good quote:

'Michael Rosen, the children's laureate, said: "By this same logic we would be banning Romeo and Juliet. That's about a group of sexually attractive males strutting round the streets, getting off with girls and stabbing each other.'

Just wait, I wouldn't put it past one of the Brown/Cameron mob to delete the first four words of this quote and use it as fuel to ban Shakespeare in our schools...

[Paulclem]

We believe the decision underlines the often difficult balance that exists between encouraging and facilitating young people to think critically about difficult but important topics and the need to do this in a way which is sensitive to social issues and public concern."

Thanks Mal4mac - you did my job there. The above quote fron the Guardian link which Mal4mac posted is basically saying - we don't want the hassle. I bet the biggest consideration was what the rabid press would have made of it.

[Drkshadow03]

Yes, the book was pulled from the curriculum, but it will still be available in the school library.

I don't see why "To Kill a Mockingbird" would be offensive to any parent. The kids are probably up to worse things on MSN and Facebook.

I am pretty sure the NAACP tried to get it banned and I know other Blacks, including one in the UK on his blog (I linked to it somewhere on my blog), have found the book offensive (mostly, but not only, for using the N-word).

[Kiaroula]

I know it's not directly literature, but a movie taken from a famous book was banned when I was in the middle school, the movie was The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco.

[kelby_lake]

The Duffy poem is quite interesting. You get a sense of a boy frustrated at his own impotence, his inability to succeed in school, etc. The only thing that could give him any importance is stabbing. The Biblical allusions are a bit cheesy, but still, not bad.

Neely- I can only imagine that the sexist accusations are that it implies that men are responsible for degrading women- although I suppose there's the portrayal of female *****iness.

[AmericanEagle]

Neely- I can only imagine that the sexist accusations are that it implies that men are responsible for degrading women- although I suppose there's the portrayal of female *****iness.

The father of the student said that the book focused too much on sex, brutal situations, prostitution, and murder. He also said that young women would be uncomfortable and embarrassed when reading the book.

[LitNetIsGreat]

The father of the student said that the book focused too much on sex, brutal situations, prostitution, and murder. He also said that young women would be uncomfortable and embarrassed when reading the book.

Oh, he was an eminent literary critic then, who also had an innate understanding of what it feels like to be an young women! Yes, I'm sure that these people mean well, but still this sort of thing annoys me.

Personally I would teach this novel at the post 18 range, because you couldn't give the feminist issues that much weight otherwise. But it is still a perfectly acceptable novel to do at the 16-18 age range.

[kiki1982]

Oh, he was an eminent literary critic then, who also had an innate understanding of what it feels like to be an young women! Yes, I'm sure that these people mean well, but still this sort of thing annoys me.

That was just what I was going to say.

Can he possibly leave the real young women the time to take a decision?

[AmericanEagle]

I am pretty sure the NAACP tried to get it banned and I know other Blacks, including one in the UK on his blog (I linked to it somewhere on my blog), have found the book offensive (mostly, but not only, for using the N-word).

The people who complain about the N-word are missing the point of the book. It's frustrating that ONE parent can get the book pulled from the curriculum. It's clear that the parent has never read the book, because if she did, she would know that "To Kill a Mockingbird" is one of the best books that deal with prejudice, discrimination, and intolerance. The principal should have stood up against this injustice, much like Atticus Finch.

[JBI]

The people who complain about the N-word are missing the point of the book. It's frustrating that ONE parent can get the book pulled from the curriculum. It's clear that the parent has never read the book, because if she did, she would know that "To Kill a Mockingbird" is one of the best books that deal with prejudice, discrimination, and intolerance. The principal should have stood up against this injustice, much like Atticus Finch.

Who deemed it one of the best? I personally found it a pretty crappy book, that doesn't at all take into account an African-American narrative, and merely stereotypes African-Americans, thereby again denying them a voice - if anything the book praises the good qualities of a White Man, and the innocence of a middle-class tomboyish girl, and her eccentric neighbor.

Now, if they taught something like Beloved in high school...

[kiki1982]

I think the problem there is (the N-word, but also other things) that people have not come to terms with their past or their own feelings.

I am sorry to say, but in my view, American society (it differentates according to region) is still quite racist (correct me if I am wrong) and in an attempt to mask that, people want to ban those books.

It is a mourning process. The first stage is denial (we have past that with the recognition of the slavery-thing), the second acceptance (we have not passed this yet, as we cannot face the fact that racist words like that occur). We have not yet accepted that there are racists on the world, and that society was profoundly racist in the past. Banning book for that kind of word is a bad thing as it will only provoke people into more denial (drive people the other way).

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think the problem there is (the N-word, but also other things) that people have not come to terms with their past or their own feelings.

I am sorry to say, but in my view, American society (it differentates according to region) is still quite racist (correct me if I am wrong) and in an attempt to mask that, people want to ban those books.

It is a mourning process. The first stage is denial (we have past that with the recognition of the slavery-thing), the second acceptance (we have not passed this yet, as we cannot face the fact that racist words like that occur). We have not yet accepted that there are racists on the world, and that society was profoundly racist in the past. Banning book for that kind of word is a bad thing as it will only provoke people into more denial (drive people the other way).

Absolutely. Personally, to add to that, I see nothing at all wrong with having a character in a contemporary novel who is openly racist, in fact I would quite welcome it. The more you try to bury and ban things the more they rot from the inside.

[kelby_lake]

Who deemed it one of the best? I personally found it a pretty crappy book, that doesn't at all take into account an African-American narrative, and merely stereotypes African-Americans, thereby again denying them a voice - if anything the book praises the good qualities of a White Man, and the innocence of a middle-class tomboyish girl, and her eccentric neighbor.

I think it's actually quite offensive, the way it bigs up the smug middle-class whites and makes no attempt to understand why the Ewells are as they are.

We're doing Handmaid's Tale for A-Level. I love how touchy the man is. I didn't feel embarrassed when reading it- I think the poor man is stating his own feelings

[AmericanEagle]

Who deemed it one of the best?

The book did win the Pulitzer Prize, is a staple in many high school curricula, and British librarians ranked it #1 in the list of books that all adults should read before they die. The movie is highly regarded, as well.

[kelby_lake]

The book did win the Pulitzer Prize, is a staple in many high school curricula, and British librarians ranked it #1 in the list of books that all adults should read before they die. The movie is highly regarded, as well.

British librarians need to read more then.

[wessexgirl]

British librarians need to read more then.

We read plenty.

[Nightshade]

British librarians need to read more then.


We read plenty.

Yes indeedy you just beat me to it wessexgirl!
:nod:

[kelby_lake]

Perhaps it should have occured to me that librarians might be on book forums... ;)

[Madame X]

Like moths to a flame…but their days, too, are numbered. :wave:

[wessexgirl]

Like moths to a flame…but their days, too, are numbered. :wave:

???? Do you know smething we don't? :eek:

[Madame X]

Well, I don’t question even a librarian’s mortality, that’s for sure. Then again, who really knows what pagan activities you Brits get up to on that eerie elf-infested island of yours… ;)

[JuniperWoolf]

I remember seeing on the news once this fat, pimple-covered Jesus freak tried to get Fahrenheit 451 banned because in it they burn the bible. I thought that was pretty ironic.

[susan_p]

I remember when I was in high school, Salman Rushdie was only rarely ever mentioned, and even if so, in very hushed tones - then again I grew up in the middle east, so a lot of things were banned there!

Another one I remember, although not banned, was Stephen King's "IT" - I was in grade 7 and the old, grandmotherly librarian refused to let me borrow it, worried that I'd be terrified and traumatised. As it goes, I never did get around to reading it after that...

[higley]

My old high school never really faced any issues with parents/groups wanting to ban a book, but my classes never seemed to read anything but Dickens and Austen anyway--all the other classes got to read the fun stuff. >:(

[Pecksie]

My old high school never really faced any issues with parents/groups wanting to ban a book, but my classes never seemed to read anything but Dickens and Austen anyway--all the other classes got to read the fun stuff. >:(

Funnier than Austen? :)

[JBI]

Amazing! They are now banning our "official top living poet". We should increase the circulation of these banned pieces of literature. Here's the Carol Ann Duffy poem:

Education for Leisure

Today I am going to kill something. Anything.

I have had enough of being ignored and today

I am going to play God. It is an ordinary day,

a sort of grey with boredom stirring in the streets

I squash a fly against the window with my thumb.

We did that at school. Shakespeare. It was in

another language and now the fly is in another language.

I breathe out talent on the glass to write my name.

I am a genius. I could be anything at all, with half

the chance. But today I am going to change the world.

Something's world. The cat avoids me. The cat

knows I am a genius, and has hidden itself.

I pour the goldfish down the bog. I pull the chain.

I see that it is good. The budgie is panicking.

Once a fortnight, I walk the two miles into town

For signing on. They don't appreciate my autograph.

There is nothing left to kill. I dial the radio

and tell the man he's talking to a superstar.

He cuts me off. I get our bread-knife and go out.

The pavements glitter suddenly. I touch your arm.

Carol Ann Duffy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/sep/04/gcses.english

How could they ban this poem? It could only be useful for students to discuss it in class.

The Guardian should have mentioned the MP involved. I want to know who not to vote for. But at least the article has a good quote:

'Michael Rosen, the children's laureate, said: "By this same logic we would be banning Romeo and Juliet. That's about a group of sexually attractive males strutting round the streets, getting off with girls and stabbing each other.'

Just wait, I wouldn't put it past one of the Brown/Cameron mob to delete the first four words of this quote and use it as fuel to ban Shakespeare in our schools...

No big deal - I am of the mind that the poem shouldn't have made the curriculum in the first place, but then again, such a narcissistic poet like Duffy shouldn't have been taken seriously in the first place anyway, she can't write good verse, yet somehow takes herself seriously, even casting herself beside Wilfred Owen in her newer poem, The Last Post.


The book did win the Pulitzer Prize, is a staple in many high school curricula, and British librarians ranked it #1 in the list of books that all adults should read before they die. The movie is highly regarded, as well.

Again, when did it win the Pulitzer? it is an excuse to side-pass the racist narrative of the Us, that's why it was so well accepted - think about it, if you create the character of all good non-racist rich White American man, by the time you hit 1960, and the civil rights movement hits, instead of claiming responsibility for one's actions, one can merely say that they are with the white man - not a part of this racist organism - it gives people a way out of their collective guilt, by praising the innocence of the girl, and thereby cloaking a filthy history in a shade of innocence - if there is the innocent girl, how then can you accuse different people of being racist?

But, we all know the British aren't that great at ranking things anyway; they put Lord of the Rings as best book, and IF as best Poem, so, the fact that some British librarians love the text is no upset.


Luckily I hear they are now substituting Zora Neale Hurston for Harper Lee, which is a good thing, but quite frankly, the fact that the text was so widely taught in the first place is outrageous.

[Scheherazade]

again, when did it win the pulitzer? 1961.

:p

[Mathor]

Again, when did it win the Pulitzer? it is an excuse to side-pass the racist narrative of the Us, that's why it was so well accepted - think about it, if you create the character of all good non-racist rich White American man, by the time you hit 1960, and the civil rights movement hits, instead of claiming responsibility for one's actions, one can merely say that they are with the white man - not a part of this racist organism - it gives people a way out of their collective guilt, by praising the innocence of the girl, and thereby cloaking a filthy history in a shade of innocence - if there is the innocent girl, how then can you accuse different people of being racist?


I would agree with you on the book. The film, however....

...perfection.

[hellsapoppin]

I believe Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn is the book which has been banned the most times in USA schools. Such a move is counter productive to the interests of our youth who are being denied the opportunity to learn just how little value racist society gave to innocent Blacks in that era. As a nation that claims to be egalitarian, we need to value all human life equally. Biographical data of Mr Clemens suggests that this was his view and that his book was an exposé of social bigotry in that time.

Open-mindedness is the ideal way to end all bigotry. That is what books of this kind teach. On that basis, we must never ban them.

[JBI]

The father of the student said that the book focused too much on sex, brutal situations, prostitution, and murder. He also said that young women would be uncomfortable and embarrassed when reading the book.

True enough, but the book was supposed to have a shock quality - it seems out of the 1980s Feminst sex-wars context, the text really doesn't read the same way - the book itself was supposed to be a culmination of different opposing discourses, favoring Sex-Positive feminism as a form of liberation against repressive anti-sex feminism. Still I wouldn't want to be the teacher teaching it to a high school class - Cat's Eye or Surfacing would probably work better - certainly those works are more enduring, and easier to teach.

Then again, the dystopian sub-genre of feminist literature is perhaps a decent introduction to certain discourses, and I think many people these days grow up without knowing what feminism is (for instance, in a politics class in high school, when the teacher asked who was a feminist, only a couple of the girls and myself raised our hands, whereas the rest looked at us as if we were weird).

[wessexgirl]

No big deal - I am of the mind that the poem shouldn't have made the curriculum in the first place, but then again, such a narcissistic poet like Duffy shouldn't have been taken seriously in the first place anyway, she can't write good verse, yet somehow takes herself seriously, even casting herself beside Wilfred Owen in her newer poem, The Last Post.

But, we all know the British aren't that great at ranking things anyway; they put Lord of the Rings as best book, and IF as best Poem, so, the fact that some British librarians love the text is no upset.




Well luckily for us, the British curriculum setters don't listen to JBI. You seem to be deliberately missing what Duffy has done with the poem The Last Post. Like any other poet, she is referencing an iconic earlier poet and their work. Why do you insist on seeing it as narcissistic? It's what poets have always done, and always will do. Anyone with a knowledge of literature would know that, but you seem to have a real downer on Duffy, (also with Bloom on another thread I notice, but I'll address that there).

And as for slating the Brits for their ability at ranking things, well that could be cause for an international incident. How dare you sir, pistols at dawn may be called for.....:p Seriously though, is it a touch of sour grapes? After all, does anyone take any notice of any Canadian lists? Is Britain becoming the new USA in your targets? I would hope not, as you may not have much ammunition to wade in against us too. :)

[LitNetIsGreat]

But, we all know the British aren't that great at ranking things anyway; they put Lord of the Rings as best book, and IF as best Poem, so, the fact that some British librarians love the text is no upset.




And as for slating the Brits for their ability at ranking things, well that could be cause for an international incident. How dare you sir, pistols at dawn may be called for.....:p Seriously though, is it a touch of sour grapes? After all, does anyone take any notice of any Canadian lists? Is Britain becoming the new USA in your targets? I would hope not, as you may not have much ammunition to wade in against us too. :)

:lol:

Before you launch the British fleet of rusty old warships, there is a good point made though. I have said before that the British public only think that two poems actually exist in the world, If, and that one about daffodils by Wordsworth...If wins because a poem about flowers is a bit sissy.:blush:

When it comes to large scale public opinion (of any country) I personally have little faith in the result of almost anything, for this is never going to be a vote of quality, it is going to be a vote of mass popularity and therefore it is inevitable that the quality is going to be watered down. Most popular restaurant: McDonald's. Most popular alcoholic drinks Carling (lager), Trophy (bitter), Strongbow (cider). Most popular food: frozen ready meals. Most popular cheese: tasteless cheddar. Most popular music ? some sort of "gangster" rap? Most popular TV: The X Factor and soaps. Most popular films: American blockbusters and "rom coms" etc, etc, if see what I mean...popularity rarely denotes quality in literature and everything else.

[Nightshade]

:lol:

Before you launch the British fleet of rusty old warships, there is a good point made though. I have said before that the British public only think that two poems actually exist in the world, If, and that one about daffodils by Wordsworth...If wins because a poem about flowers is a bit sissy.:blush:

When it comes to large scale public opinion (of any country) I personally have little faith in the result of almost anything, for this is never going to be a vote of quality, it is going to be a vote of mass popularity and therefore it is inevitable that the quality is going to be watered down. Most popular restaurant: McDonald's. Most popular alcoholic drinks Carling (lager), Trophy (bitter), Strongbow (cider). Most popular food: frozen ready meals. Most popular cheese: tasteless cheddar. Most popular music ? some sort of "gangster" rap? Most popular TV: The X Factor and soaps. Most popular films: American blockbusters and "rom coms" etc, etc, if see what I mean...popularity rarely denotes quality in literature and everything else.

Sorry as part of the great british public, what is this If poem?
Seriously though, I dont think that is true. For one thing I bet most people who watch tv would recognise any number of poems sure they arent the most literary, but youve got Impaticence from the new samsung advert and the Great British Summer for some alcholic drink whose name I forget.
Aside from that most kids I have come into contatc with have an opinionon poems and theyre favourites and in turn they will grow up with them buried somewhere in their psyche.

ANd you forget Shakespeare's sonnet 130. And amazing number of people know that one, as its on the GCSE syllabus. ANd there was a doctor who and catherine Tate Sketch around it for comic relief a while back.
And ok these are not the most ideal ways to come in contact with poetry but hey why should there be a best way? :D

[LitNetIsGreat]

Really though, education via advertisements, that about says it all! I think you have just emphasized all my points, thank you.


what is this If poem?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXziWRCMalA

[Nightshade]

I just think poetry should be enjoyed why beat it to death with anaylisis?
The whole world is full of poetry just experiance it :D
And that ends my semi profound monet of the day :p

[wessexgirl]

I actually like If. Here's the real one Night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AJqESdw7xs&feature=related

I like this recitation, (apart from a few slip-ups with the lines), and I think there are some great sentiments in there. I know Kipling may be old-fashioned and out of favour with a lot of critics these days, but he reaches the public with these sentiments, and is helped admittedly by being eminently quotable, just what the public likes. But I don't see anything wrong in that. A case of the public and the critics not being in tune perhaps, but at least the Nobel committee liked him.

Just posted the poem, as Hopper slips up on some of the words Night.

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

:)

[Nightshade]

Oh I like that! But then I have yet to meet a Kipling poem I havent liked.

[kelby_lake]

Well luckily for us, the British curriculum setters don't listen to JBI. You seem to be deliberately missing what Duffy has done with the poem The Last Post. Like any other poet, she is referencing an iconic earlier poet and their work. Why do you insist on seeing it as narcissistic? It's what poets have always done, and always will do. Anyone with a knowledge of literature would know that, but you seem to have a real downer on Duffy, (also with Bloom on another thread I notice, but I'll address that there).


Unfortunately for us, instead of studying Shelley, we have to study Duffy, whose poems vary in Rapture very from the quite interesting to the smutty (and Swinburne is the master at that :p). I don't like her referencing Owen because she just repeats the blatantly obvious point of his poem. We know what his poems mean, we don't need someone doing a SATS analysis of it.

Oh I like that! But then I have yet to meet a Kipling poem I havent liked.
Or a Kipling cake :D

[LitNetIsGreat]

I just hate the poem. It is pure sentimentality, I can't read it without feeling very, very sick.:sick: Maybe part of this is because it is held in such high regard with a public who doesn't read poetry, but mostly it is just the sickening nature of the whole piece. Oh, it's just horrible.

To be fair to Kipling though, he obviously didn't intend it to become a sort of propaganda piece for the righteous British Empire (minor exaggeration) and there is probably some small merit in the poem at best, but I would have to read it with a large wooden peg on my nose just to get through it now.

The best part of the poem for me is the notion of living life to the full in the 60 second closing sentimentality, but really, how many people nod their head at this and then continue to live their boring existences: bring on the frozen ready meals and the can of Carling and switch on the TV?

I'm sorry if that sounds bad; but it is how I feel about it.

[kelby_lake]

I just hate the poem. It is pure sentimentality.

Aren't all poems pure sentimentality?

I like the poem- we had to learn it off by heart when we were younger. Just because it's reminding us of 'the right thing to do' doesn't make it bad for that. It has a good rhythm too.

[Nightshade]

Oh I like that! But then I have yet to meet a Kipling poem I havent liked.
Or a Kipling cake :D

:lol: I was going to say that, or rather I have yet tomeet a kipling ( including the baked forms) I havent yet liked. But I dont like cherry bakewells :D

[kelby_lake]

Cherry bakewells are yummers! :D

[LitNetIsGreat]

Aren't all poems pure sentimentality?


No. Certainly nothing like that thing.

[JBI]

The Nobel committee liked him, as do I, but lets be honest, not everything everyone writes is good. Take the Canadian anthem, for instance - terrible words, horrible tune, yet it persists - does that mean every Canadian song is mediocre? No, of course not, but when it comes down to it, it's just a mediocre tune.

It's not impossible to rip on an individual poem - more people may know Wordsworth's I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud, and may people may know Whitman's O Captain, my Captain, but certainly that automatically make them better than the Ode, or Song of Myself. Even the most revered authors wrote bad things, as everyone is sure - but to run around calling them the best invites comments.


Unfortunately for us, instead of studying Shelley, we have to study Duffy, whose poems vary in Rapture very from the quite interesting to the smutty (and Swinburne is the master at that :p). I don't like her referencing Owen because she just repeats the blatantly obvious point of his poem. We know what his poems mean, we don't need someone doing a SATS analysis of it.

Oh I like that! But then I have yet to meet a Kipling poem I havent liked.
Or a Kipling cake :D

No, the problem I found with the poem is the arrogance - in a sense she is casting herself as Owen, by highlighting the connection they share as Poets (while smugly suggesting, in a sort of off hand way, the current world crises, as if Duffy was somehow in Owen's position). I think to make that jump is audacious, and doesn't really work here in that poem. Dante has the nerve to do it in The Comedia, with Virgil guiding him, but even so, the connection is off - Dante isn't comparing himself to Virgil, just feeling a connection - Duffy has, I would argue, tried to speak through Owen's words, to try and construct herself as Owen, temporarily seeing the vision - the history backwards, the "truth", what should be said, and in so doing, totally steps out of line, suggesting that her middle-class 21st century Poet Laureate experience is justifiably able to usurp and see over Wilfred Owen, dying in the trenches.

[AmericanEagle]

Take the Canadian anthem, for instance - terrible words, horrible tune, yet it persists - does that mean every Canadian song is mediocre? No, of course not, but when it comes down to it, it's just a mediocre tune.

This is the first time I've seen you admit that something Canadian is bad :)

[kasie]

The Nobel committee liked him, as do I.....

Well, that's all right then - Kipling's OK, folks, the Nobel committee and JBI like him. :thumbs_up


Just a minute though, I thought you didn't much rate Prize Winners, JBI? :confused:




Nightshade - allow me to deal with the cherry bakewells on your behalf. No, no, don't thank me, anything to help, it'll be a pleasure. Really.

[JBI]

Well, that's all right then - Kipling's OK, folks, the Nobel committee and JBI like him. :thumbs_up


Just a minute though, I thought you didn't much rate Prize Winners, JBI? :confused:




Nightshade - allow me to deal with the cherry bakewells on your behalf. No, no, don't thank me, anything to help, it'll be a pleasure. Really.

Don't quote out of context for cheap laughs at my expense. I guess the quote must have gotten lost somewhere, but I was responding to the last post on page 3, which references the Nobel as an authority - I was merely trying to illustrate, how you can give an award to a good author meanwhile not agreeing that all his works are good, or deserve the title of "Best loved poem".

[mal4mac]

After all, does anyone take any notice of any Canadian lists?)

I'll be looking at Frye's list as Haroild Bloom rates him as the best modern critic. :)

[JBI]

I'll be looking at Frye's list as Haroild Bloom rates him as the best modern critic. :)

Frye didn't sit down and write a list of books worth preserving. If you are looking for a critic who values - Frye deliberately tried never to make value judgments unless he had to. That being said, you could perhaps look at his Conclusion to the Literary History of Canada for a list of long dead Canadian "classics", but I think two pages into Hearne you'll probably give up.

[kasie]

Don't quote out of context for cheap laughs at my expense. I guess the quote must have gotten lost somewhere, but I was responding to the last post on page 3, which references the Nobel as an authority - I was merely trying to illustrate, how you can give an award to a good author meanwhile not agreeing that all his works are good, or deserve the title of "Best loved poem".

I consider my wrist duly slapped.....I will never do it again.....until the next time I read a reply that looks somewhat unironic ......

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such remarks will be deleted without further notice.

.

[dfloyd]

why don't these critics just ban high school.