Classics that aren't Boring

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

As an English major and a sort-of English teacher (student teacher, at the moment), I always feel the need to read the "classics," (I do not intend this to be a place to debate the merits of reading canonical texts, but if you do, so be it), but am usually bogged down in how boring they are.

Now, I realize this is a subjective view, but it is how I feel. I just got done reading Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent, and it was a tough go. I loved the story and the characters, but it just got so bogged down in description that it felt too plodding at points. I love "Heart of Darkness," too, but at least it is shorter--the perfect length for the ultra-descriptive style of writing, in my opinion.

Now, I'm not looking for tons of action and explosions, just a story that moves at a reasonable pace. I'm tired of reading (or attempting to read) books that take fifteen pages to describe one simple aspect of the story. It just isn't my thing. I read to escape, and I don't want to escape into a mundane world.

So, if you have any suggestions on some classics I could read every now and then, just to keep my intellectual cred in order, so to speak, I'd be much appreciative.

And, hey, wherever the conversation may go, it's all good. Let's discuss whatever may come up!

[stlukesguild]

Why on earth would you major in English and actually think of teaching something that you find boring? Seriously, I feel for your students. One would hope that one's teacher... in whatever discipline... would bring a love and passion of his or her subject to the students.

From what you have written ("I'm not looking for tons of action and explosions, just a story that moves at a reasonable pace. I'm tired of reading (or attempting to read) books that take fifteen pages to describe one simple aspect of the story. It just isn't my thing. I read to escape...") I would say that in reality you simply don't like or understand reading. The goal of literature isn't to get to the end ASAP... to grasp the "meaning"... like life itself, the journey is the goal. Those who love literature relish language, the well-chosen word, the turn of a phrase, the approach that is at time direct and at other time oblique.

How many students will you be able to turn on to reading and literature when you yourself can't find a classic that you don't imagine as boring?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I didn't know being an English teacher meant I had to love every single classic that is now considered a canonical work. I love Edgar Allen Poe, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Conrad (I did enjoy The Secret Agent and Heart of Darkness is one of my favorites, something I've read five times), much poetry (particularly Yeats), Frankenstein, Orwell, H.G. Wells, Homer, Bradbury, and others I can't think of. Is it wrong that I find SOME classic literature boring? I find it absurd to suggest that I don't have a love of reading because I find Hemingway dull. If anything, a more realistic grasp on literature, as in to have an idea of what many students may enjoy, is going to help me instill a love into them because I won't constantly trying to shove Dickens and Moby Dick down their throats.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I've read many classics I've enjoyed, and I've read many I haven't. I'd like to read more I enjoy, rather than read more that I don't. I'd like to read more of them not only to expand my knowledge, but have something canonical, and interesting, to give my students, rather than the latest Nicholas Sparks schlock that they read in droves.

I don't get a ton of time to read pleasurably these days. So, when I do get the time, I'd like to do just that, read pleasurably. Sorry if my disliking War and Peace or some other long winded masterpiece disqualifies me from having a love of reading.

[lichtrausch]

How about The Woman in the Dunes by Kobo Abe? It's not too long and it moves along at a good pace if I remember correctly.

[Seasider]

American Classics you didn't mention :-
John Steinbeck esp Of Mice and Men and Cannery Row
Theodore Dreiser esp Sister Carrie and An American Tragedy (he can be a bit long winded but worth persevering with)
Upton Sinclair The Jungle
A Confederacy of Dunces John Kennedy Toole
John Dos Passos USA Trilogy
Willa Cather My Antonia
Anything by James Thurber

[B. Laumness]

Teaching is not only about sharing books that you enjoy, it consists in showing the literary qualities of a work, how it produces effects and emotions, how it conveys a particular vision. The goal is not to say “I like” or “I dislike”, but to understand the books, to obtain a cultural knowledge, to reflect upon one’s self, to form critical thinking, to discover new values, beliefs, sensations… new worlds, so that literature is a treasure, not always easy to find and appreciate; it’s not simply for fun, it’s not an escape without relation with your own reality. If you understand a work, especially if this is a hard one, you finally like it, because it demanded efforts to see and recognize its literary qualities. You may very well teach authors whose conceptions are far from your sensibility, but are important in the history of literature. Classic means always modern, always interesting, always questioning your actual world. That doesn’t mean that all the ancient authors are classic; some lose their interest with the decades and the centuries. One of your tasks as a (future) teacher is to contribute, along with critics, academics, writers, to the evaluation of what is good to read nowadays and what responds to the above-mentioned purposes. In that aim, a very recent book is rarely a good choice, for many reasons you have already guessed, mostly because the teacher has to lead his student far from the present day if he wants him to acquire a good understanding of his language and his history, to become an historical person capable of being a conscious and active part of the world of today and of tomorrow. In France, Molière’s Dom Juan was long time judged a minor work, at least not his masterpiece (in prose and not in verses, not really a comedic play, not an invention of the writer…), and now it is the play that is the most studied in high school. In the 19th century, Racine was praised particularly for Athalie; now it’s Phèdre. At the university, Victor Hugo was not well considered during some decades, maybe because his genius was so obvious that it tended to be suspicious: how can a poet write a hundred good verses in one morning when it takes weeks and months to Mallarmé? And some said his ideas were a little dumb (Humanity, Progress, etc.), firstly Baudelaire, and this one is still an authority. Now, his works are more studied again.

Having said that about the job of a teacher, it doesn’t mean that your whole life of reader has to focus on classics. You may read and re-read classics and always find in them a solid food. Reading the Ancients, the philosophers before Socrates, Heidegger proposed interpretations that renewed their understanding. But you may also want to walk on new paths with less known writers, with recent writers… not for fun or for escape, but because you have a thirst for discovery. The problem is: how can I find these new companions if they are unknown? And can I trust the recommendations of the journalists who don’t generally promote the literary qualities of the books, who don’t know or don’t want to identify them, so that they often recommend crap? So many books are edited each year, how can I choose? You can be helped by your friends, your colleagues, the people in the Internet whose aesthetic judgment is valuable, and by the writers themselves, for culture works like a net. So, I read Egolf’s Lord of the Barnyard by suggestion of a friend. A colleague spoke to me about Jared Diamond. Bret Easton Ellis led me to Hubert Selby. I noted recommendations of some persons here, for example Italo Calvino and Octovia Paz, whom I didn’t know.

I’m currently reading Kafka’s letters – what a poor man, a genius though! He said something like that: a book has no interest if it doesn’t hit you in the stomach and in the head, if it doesn’t force you to reconsider your perception of the world.

[Mariamosis]

Although not all of these are by English authors; here are some books that I enjoyed that I remember as being "quick paced":

King Solomon's Mines - H. Rider Haggard
The Sea-Wolf - Jack London
The Call of the Wild and White Fang - Jack London
The Jungle - Upton Sinclair
King Coal - Upton Sinclair
Pudd'nhead Wilson - Mark Twain
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court - Mark Twain
Journey to the Center of the Earth - Jules Verne
The Earth - Emile Zola

[kelby_lake]

Is it wrong that I find SOME classic literature boring? No. Nobody can like everything I find it absurd to suggest that I don't have a love of reading because I find Hemingway dull. If anything, a more realistic grasp What does that mean? on literature, as in to have an idea of what many students may enjoy It's not about pandering to them; it's about teaching them, is going to help me instill a love into them because I won't constantly trying to shove Dickens What's wrong with Dickens? Don't assume that just because you find a classic boring that your class will and Moby Dick down their throats.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I've read many classics I've enjoyed, and I've read many I haven't. I'd like to read more I enjoy, rather than read more that I don't. I'd like to read more of them not only to expand my knowledge, but have something canonical, and interesting, to give my students, rather than the latest Nicholas Sparks schlock that they read in droves.

I don't get a ton of time to read pleasurably these days. So, when I do get the time, I'd like to do just that, read pleasurably. Sorry if my disliking War and Peace or some other long winded masterpiece disqualifies me from having a love of reading.

My thoughts.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

First, let me thank everyone who made reccomendations. Much appreciated.

As to Kelby lakes concerns:


Is it wrong that I find SOME classic literature boring? No. Nobody can like everything I find it absurd to suggest that I don't have a love of reading because I find Hemingway dull. If anything, a more realistic grasp What does that mean? on literature, as in to have an idea of what many students may enjoy It's not about pandering to them; it's about teaching them, is going to help me instill a love into them because I won't constantly trying to shove Dickens What's wrong with Dickens? Don't assume that just because you find a classic boring that your class will and Moby Dick down their throats.

Like I said, what I meant by to have a more realistic grasp on literaturei is to have an idea on what students may and may not like. I plan to teach classics, even classics I don't particularly like (doing Old Man and the Sea soon), but I also want to instill a love of reading in students, and that just isn't going to happen to most of them by constantly analyzing. I'm not so arrogant as to think I will know the tastes of all my students.

I don't pander to my students. Giving them something I think they will enjoy is not pandering. It is hard enough to get them to read at all, much less giving them material that will be difficult (and don't pounce on me saying I should teach difficult material for x reasons, I DO teach it). There has to be a balance, and finding that balance is tricky.


As to B. Laumness:


Teaching is not only about sharing books that you enjoy, it consists in showing the literary qualities of a work, how it produces effects and emotions, how it conveys a particular vision. The goal is not to say “I like” or “I dislike”, but to understand the books, to obtain a cultural knowledge, to reflect upon one’s self, to form critical thinking, to discover new values, beliefs, sensations… new worlds, so that literature is a treasure, not always easy to find and appreciate; it’s not simply for fun, it’s not an escape without relation with your own reality. If you understand a work, especially if this is a hard one, you finally like it, because it demanded efforts to see and recognize its literary qualities. You may very well teach authors whose conceptions are far from your sensibility, but are important in the history of literature. Classic means always modern, always interesting, always questioning your actual world. That doesn’t mean that all the ancient authors are classic; some lose their interest with the decades and the centuries. One of your tasks as a (future) teacher is to contribute, along with critics, academics, writers, to the evaluation of what is good to read nowadays and what responds to the above-mentioned purposes.

Keeping in mind that these are freshmen and sophomores whom I also have to teach grammar and writing to within a constricted amount of time, I plan to at least attempt to do all that you describe. Unfortunately, typing it is easier than doing it, epecially when my main battle is justy getting them to read.

[OrphanPip]

What I've found quite refreshing in recent years is reading through the "classics" of African and Caribbean literature in English.

Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart and Miriam Tlali's apartheid novel Between Two Worlds/Muriel at Metropolitan are very engaging works, that are accessible and grounded in Western literary traditions, and I've enjoyed the experience of being exposed to them.

As far as I'm concerned, with high school students I think it is easier to teach literature that is thematically accessible and engaging rather than worry too much about the literary influence and aesthetic concerns. Teaching them the ability to read critically, and form critical arguments, is enough to give them the tools to tackle more challenging works in the future.

[ladderandbucket]

Crime and Punishment is a book I always recommend to non-classics readers. Most people seem to like it. It is a pretty gripping story.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I loved Things Fall Apart, so I'll have to check out the other story you mentioned.


Teaching them the ability to read critically, and form critical arguments, is enough to give them the tools to tackle more challenging works in the future.


I agree.

[kelby_lake]

First, let me thank everyone who made reccomendations. Much appreciated.

As to Kelby lakes concerns:



Like I said, what I meant by to have a more realistic grasp on literaturei is to have an idea on what students may and may not like. I plan to teach classics, even classics I don't particularly like (doing Old Man and the Sea soon), but I also want to instill a love of reading in students, and that just isn't going to happen to most of them by constantly analyzing I'm not saying that they should all engage in academic debates but surely they should read, discuss and question, which inevitably involves some form of analysis?. I'm not so arrogant as to think I will know the tastes of all my students.

I don't pander to my students. Giving them something I think they will enjoy is not pandering. It is hard enough to get them to read at all, much less giving them material that will be difficult Some people are just not into reading (and don't pounce on me saying I should teach difficult material for x reasons, I DO teach it). There has to be a balance, and finding that balance is tricky.
True

As to B. Laumness:



Keeping in mind that these are freshmen and sophomores whom I also have to teach grammar and writing to within a constricted amount of time, I plan to at least attempt to do all that you describe. Unfortunately, typing it is easier than doing it, epecially when my main battle is justy getting them to read.

My thoughts.

[mal4mac]

Note, I don't teach literature, I *just* read it for fun. But I think you will be doing your students a great dis-service if you don't at least introduce them to Dickens and Tolstoy.

Why do you have a thing about lengthy classics? Can you have too much of a good thing? I wish War & Peace was twice as long, and David Copperfield. Still, you should be introducing students to many authors, so perhaps "The Cossacks" and "A Christmas Carol" would be good choices for "tasters". Then, even if you don't like them much, you will give those of my ilk a love that could last a lifetime. Certainly include Conrad's Heart of Darkness as well! And one of Wells' excellent science fiction novels. You could also include Orwell's 1984, but point out his other novels are really boring compared to that! Someone mentioned Zola, I've just discovered him! Why did no one tell me about him sooner...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't necessarily have a "thing" against lengthy classics (in that I automatically turn my nose to a book because it's long), I just find, more often than not, I don't enjoy them. Maybe I have just been poor in choosing. What would you suggest for Dickens?

I'd love to introduce them to all of those, mal4mac, but there just isn't enough time. I have to factor in their reading level along with curriculum restriction (which, at this moment, is quite high). I'd LOVE to do Wells or 1984, and if I had a senior class (preferrably AP--advanced placement) I would do Heart of Darkness (I think it's a bit above the reading levels of most sophomores, and definitely most freshman).

To Kelby lake:

"I'm not saying that they should all engage in academic debates but surely they should read, discuss and question, which inevitably involves some form of analysis?"

Oh, trust me, we do forms of analysis, usually at least twice a week. Just today we looked and pathos and logos in a speech by Martin Luther King Jr.

"Some people are just not into reading"

I know. It can be quite irksome.

P.S. Are you out there stlukesguild? Have I redeemed myself after that scathing criticism of yours?

[Mr.lucifer]

How about canterbury tales?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I read some of those a few years in college. I need to revisit them.

[oshima]

Well, I don't know if you would classify it as a classic, but I finished "Flowers for Algernon" yesterday. I couldn't put it down, there wasn't a moment that I had that feeling of "well, this is really tedious to read but I know it will pay off (looking at you, Bovary)". I highly recommend...

[freudianslip]

Mutatis: I know the feeling. I have an MA in English. I hate James Joyce and Jack Kerouac. I fact, I think Joyce and Kerouac are the two most overrated writers in the English language. I love Dickens, George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, Shakespeare...well you get the point. Don't worry about what you don't like.

[Miss Floy]

If you like mysteries, G. K. Chesterton's Father Brown stories and Dorothy L. Sayers's Lord Peter Wimsey stories are excellent. In fact, anything by G. K. Chesterton is worth reading as well as terribly exciting. I just finished The Man Who Was Thursday and The Ball and the Cross. Of course, those might not be considered "classics." As for Dickens, Great Expectations was a particularly thrilling read.

[Ecurb]

Students must be sufficiently skilled readers to enjoy any book. "Classics" (after all) referred originally to Greek and Latin tomes -- all of which would be boring to those of us who don't read Greek or Latin. Similarly, high school students who can't read at their grade level (many Native Spanish speakers in the U.S., for example) will probably not enjoy Shakespeare. Wading through the unfamiliar language is a task, not a pleasure.

That beings said, there's no reason for anyone (other than a student who wants a passing grade) to read a novel that bores him. Math books, science books, even history books: perhaps. But a novel? Why read a novel except for enjoyment?

Since I just quoted C.S. Lewis in another thread, I'm reminded that he descried the distinction between "high brow" and "low brow" literature. "High brow" literature is not of a distinct class -- instead, it is simply more entertaining than low brow literature. It not only entertains the reader while he is reading, but, in many case, for the rest of his life, when he thinks about the book again, or reads it again.

[Wilde woman]

I feel your pain. I've taught a few summer high school English courses, and it is not at all easy getting freshmen and sophomores excited about literature. I think kids that age respond to texts with shock value, so I try to cater to that. The hardest part is getting the discussion started. So if the content is shocking enough, that will at least give the more outspoken kids the nudge to start a discussion.

From my experience, high school kids seem to really like dystopian literature, so it makes sense to teach either 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, or A Clockwork Orange.

Thinking back to my high school days, I really liked:

Swift's A Modest Proposal
Poe's Masque of the Red Death
Miller's The Crucible
Plath's The Bell Jar
'O Connor's A Good Man is Hard to Find
Tolkein's The Hobbit
Heller's Catch-22 (though I think it'd be difficult for freshmen/sophomores)

I'm also a big fan of revisionist literature, and introducing it is a great way of allowing the students to see that literature did not just appear out of a vacuum, that lots of writers were in dialogue with each other. It's also a nice way to make texts that may come across as boring more fun, by seeing what later writers did with them. I'd recommend:

Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Jane Eyre and Wide Sargasso Sea
Beowulf and Grendel
Medea and Bash (by Neil LaBute)
Wizard of Oz and Wicked

I feel like there's also one or two obligatory Shakespeare plays. I did R&J, Julius Caesar, and Othello in freshman and sophomore years. But I think I'd start with Midsummer Night's Dream as a nice intro to Shakespeare.

[stlukesguild]

Are you out there stlukesguild? Have I redeemed myself after that scathing criticism of yours?

Considering your opening post...

I always feel the need to read the "classics,"... but am usually bogged down in how boring they are.

I'm tired of reading (or attempting to read) books that take fifteen pages to describe one simple aspect of the story. It just isn't my thing. I read to escape...

...should you have expected something different? I can't imagine myself as a student art teacher making a declaration that I find the majority of "classic" paintings to be boring and need some suggestions of paintings that aren't boring.

I have no illusions that anyone SHOULD be expected to read a given body of literature and enjoy it simply because they are classics. To me the ultimate values of reading are aesthetic pleasure and a development of empathy... an understanding of other people, other cultures, other times, other places, other values, standards, and beliefs. Teens and young adults are notoriously self-centered and egotistic: they are the center of the world. One of the goals of the teacher in the humanities, it would seem to me, would be to introduce students to others possibilities... other ways of thinking, etc... To do this a teacher should be able to recognize the merits of exemplary art from a variety of cultures and eras even if the works are not particularly personal favorites.

Your later posts suggest an admiration for more "classics" than your initial post admits to with your declaration of how "(I) am usually bogged down in how boring they are." Boredom is not much in the way of criticism as it is essentially a personal opinion and says more about you than the work of art. What you find boring, another might find completely entrancing. I continue to question why anyone with a professed dislike for a majority of classic literature would wish to major in literature and teach literature. I can't imagine wishing to teach classical music if I found Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Handel, and Schubert to all be "boring."

By the same token, you admit to a personal prejudice against lengthy, descriptive writing and a preference for writing that offers an "escape". What should a student who loves rich, lush, poetic descriptiveness or gritty realism expect in your class? We all have our personal prejudices and preferences, but one expects a certain objectivity from a teacher... a passion for his or her discipline... and an ability and willingness to explore a vast realm of this discipline... even beyond one's personal preferences.

My personal preferences do not include comic-book art, graffiti, Sponge Bob, contemporary fashion, car design, etc... but I am aware that I need to explore these... understand these... and be able to discuss these with students whose preferences in art may be quite removed from my own. Through an exploration of the student's own prior knowledge and interests... for example: anime and the armor of Samurai warriors... I've been able to lead students to explore a broader array of art such as Japanese Ukiyo-e prints and screen painting.

Again... I question why anyone would wish to major in... let alone teach a topic that doesn't enthrall them:

I'm tired of reading (or attempting to read) books that take fifteen pages to describe one simple aspect of the story. It just isn't my thing. I read to escape...,

...if you have any suggestions on some classics I could read every now and then, just to keep my intellectual cred in order, so to speak...

Why major in a field in which you find so much to be but a dreary struggle? Why seek to teach a subject that you would only wish to skim lightly over... just to keep up the illusion of your academic credentials... as you put it?

[YesNo]

How about canterbury tales?

The Wife of Bath's Tale is my favorite. That should get them interested.

And with something like Shakespeare's plays, why should one ever ask a high school student (or anyone else, except a scholar) to read them? They are plays. They should be watched.

[stlukesguild]

And with something like Shakespeare's plays, why should one ever ask a high school student (or anyone else, except a scholar) to read them? They are plays. They should be watched.

Because the texts are so complex... and poetically rich that reading the plays is essential... although watching the plays may give a grasp of the flow and how the drama and humor play out. Performance of the plays also limits our experience to the particular interpretation of the individual performers rather than to our own interpretations.

[kiki1982]

I believe The Wife of Bath and her tale and Moll Flanders could have some stuff in common...

[ceelo]

I find a lot of posts in this thread quite sad. Many of you seem to be underestimating the power of the mind, the power to formulate your own tastes, likes and dislikes.

It can be a great challenge to even get children and teenagers to read, sometimes getting them to enjoy a book.. whether it be a classic or something quite fluffy and light, is enough. In time they will develop and explore their own interests in literature.. however, they must develop an interest in reading for this to happen first. Don't be so naive, it's a well known fact that less and less teenagers seem to be interested in reading these days, do you really think a classic that would engage the average reader of literature would engage students who are reluctant to read in the first place?

[JBI]

And with something like Shakespeare's plays, why should one ever ask a high school student (or anyone else, except a scholar) to read them? They are plays. They should be watched.

Because the texts are so complex... and poetically rich that reading the plays is essential... although watching the plays may give a grasp of the flow and how the drama and humor play out. Performance of the plays also limits our experience to the particular interpretation of the individual performers rather than to our own interpretations.

Two mediums my friend - they are both equally as valid as art forms. The question though comes down to staging and acting - Shakespeare most surely had cues and ideas, but now directors are more free - that gives a peculiar feel to it.

We have, as far as I know, one major cue that is not written, that of Pyrymus stabbing himself with the scabbard when performing the play in A Midsummer Night's dream, as the joke is the sword will not unsheathe (a traditional cue). Likewise, we usually mix the different versions to create our "Oxford" or Arden editions, basically the works of debating editors.

Our ideas of Shakespeare work on many levels. We cannot ignore that dramatic presentation is just as valid as reading. It is just that dramatic presentations are based on particular readings themselves.

[The Comedian]

I can understand how you might find some classics boring -- we all do. For some the peaceful joy of Walden has all the allure of staring at a halogen light. While others find the marriage plots of Emma as emotionally stimulating as tax-prep software. . . .

As a fellow teacher, I do understand your classroom issue -- you need to your students emotionally invested in the reading so as to encourage a life of reading and thinking that is more fruitful than the dulling effects of a 12-hour Halo session. I totally get it. . . . . (I think Wilde Woman also said as much too).

I've always found that diversity is the way to get students pulled into literature. In a good class they should all "like" (hopefully love) a book and dislike a book or short work.

As for suggestions. . . . Science fiction always seems to rally the most response, in my experience anyway. Often the metaphors are clear and the students get an honest joy in discovering them. Try 1984 or War of the Worlds, and Watership Down. Short works are also nice -- students get to read an entire book (quite an achievement for some) and not get too bored in the process. The Moon and Sixpence, The Stranger, My Antonia, and some of the Greek Tragedies ("Medea" is great). [EDIT] I've also had great luck with "Lysistrata" too -- nothin' like makin' those calloused-minded modern young men and women blush.

I'm designing an "Introduction to Literature" for college freshmen designed around Alan Moore's comic "League of Extraordinary Gentleman" in which he uses innumerable characters, plots, and allusions to Victorian literature. I plan to use this as a tease, so to speak, to introduce the more traditional works that we'll read later such as Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, The Invisible Man and some Arthur Conan Doyle stories. . .in addition to some poetry and drama associated with the theme of the comic and culture of the times.

Hope this helps!

[stlukesguild]

I find a lot of posts in this thread quite sad. Many of you seem to be underestimating the power of the mind, the power to formulate your own tastes, likes and dislikes.

It can be a great challenge to even get children and teenagers to read, sometimes getting them to enjoy a book.. whether it be a classic or something quite fluffy and light, is enough. In time they will develop and explore their own interests in literature.. however, they must develop an interest in reading for this to happen first. Don't be so naive, it's a well known fact that less and less teenagers seem to be interested in reading these days, do you really think a classic that would engage the average reader of literature would engage students who are reluctant to read in the first place?

I don't believe anyone has underestimated the ability of individuals to formulate their own tastes or preferences... or the validity of the same. Of course the majority of students develop a taste for the latest pop music, the latest films, and the latest popular fiction because that is what their peers like and that is what the giant commercial markets are pushing.

One of the roles of the teacher is to introduce students to possibilities beyond their own personal preferences and those of popular culture. It is somewhat absurd that some defend sticking with students' narrow tastes when it comes to reading, but we would not advocate such with science, math, history, etc... It is understood that contrary to Rousseau's idealistic thoughts, the student is not necessarily in the best position to decide what he or she need to learn or should be required to learn.

On one level, a standard curriculum (in literature ans in every other subject) is necessary to develop and promote shared culture in order for students to engage in in discussion as well-rounded individuals. The greatest danger to any democratic culture is ignorance and the inability to engage in real critical thinking. At the same time, the standard curriculum in the humanities is of great value in developing a sense of empathy... an understanding of other cultures, other ages, other ways of thinking, other religions, other values than one's own. The self-centeredness of wishing to read only that which one immediately relates to is part of the reason we have such tunnel-vision and inability to understand opposing or different views when it comes to politics... national and on the international scale.

Yes, building upon the students' personal likes and prior knowledge is a good way to initially lead them to alternatives and other possibilities... but you are absolutely wrong if you mean to suggest that reading Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings will lead to a life-long love of reading and eventually exploration of serious literature. There are no facts to support this, and it shouldn't be surprising. We don't find a majority students who spend their youth listening only to the latest pop music branching out into alternatives: classical, jazz, opera, blues, etc... although certainly some will.

[stlukesguild]

Two mediums my friend - they are both equally as valid as art forms.

Yes... of course one can say the same of any literary work or text given another form... be it recitation, the theatrical production, or film. To suggest that the texts shouldn't be read (or aren't well suited to reading) because they were originally written as plays misses the fact that Beowulf and The Odyssey and a great many plays and poems were first written (if they were even written down) to be performed in an oral manner... or performed as part of a ritual... etc... is completely ridiculous.

[kelby_lake]

And with something like Shakespeare's plays, why should one ever ask a high school student (or anyone else, except a scholar) to read them? They are plays. They should be watched.

Yes, but a bad production can put you off a play for life. And some great ones aren't performed often.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Are you out there stlukesguild? Have I redeemed myself after that scathing criticism of yours?

Considering your opening post...

I always feel the need to read the "classics,"... but am usually bogged down in how boring they are.

I'm tired of reading (or attempting to read) books that take fifteen pages to describe one simple aspect of the story. It just isn't my thing. I read to escape...

...should you have expected something different? I can't imagine myself as a student art teacher making a declaration that I find the majority of "classic" paintings to be boring and need some suggestions of paintings that aren't boring.

Where did I say I disliked a majority of classic literature? I like the majority that I've read. I made this thread because, of late, I've had a run of bad luck, it would seem, as to my choices.



I have no illusions that anyone SHOULD be expected to read a given body of literature and enjoy it simply because they are classics. To me the ultimate values of reading are aesthetic pleasure and a development of empathy... an understanding of other people, other cultures, other times, other places, other values, standards, and beliefs. Teens and young adults are notoriously self-centered and egotistic: they are the center of the world. One of the goals of the teacher in the humanities, it would seem to me, would be to introduce students to others possibilities... other ways of thinking, etc... To do this a teacher should be able to recognize the merits of exemplary art from a variety of cultures and eras even if the works are not particularly personal favorites.

Which I do, as I think I've mentioned. I teach literature from many different viewpoints (within the allowances of the curriculum), and ones I don't particularly enjoy (which I never tell the students).


Your later posts suggest an admiration for more "classics" than your initial post admits to with your declaration of how "(I) am usually bogged down in how boring they are." Boredom is not much in the way of criticism as it is essentially a personal opinion and says more about you than the work of art. What you find boring, another might find completely entrancing. I continue to question why anyone with a professed dislike for a majority of classic literature would wish to major in literature and teach literature. I can't imagine wishing to teach classical music if I found Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Handel, and Schubert to all be "boring."

If you are suggesting I am lying when I said I like more classics than I originally intimated, well, there's nothing I can do about that. You will believe me or you won't, I'm not going to go to great lengths to convince you otherwise if it is the latter.

Again, I have mentioned how I do not let my personal biases completely control what my students will read. I do not reject a selection just because I do not like it. The idea of doing so is absurd.


By the same token, you admit to a personal prejudice against lengthy, descriptive writing and a preference for writing that offers an "escape". What should a student who loves rich, lush, poetic descriptiveness or gritty realism expect in your class? We all have our personal prejudices and preferences, but one expects a certain objectivity from a teacher... a passion for his or her discipline... and an ability and willingness to explore a vast realm of this discipline... even beyond one's personal preferences.

My previous comment should suffice for this, too.


My personal preferences do not include comic-book art, graffiti, Sponge Bob, contemporary fashion, car design, etc... but I am aware that I need to explore these... understand these... and be able to discuss these with students whose preferences in art may be quite removed from my own. Through an exploration of the student's own prior knowledge and interests... for example: anime and the armor of Samurai warriors... I've been able to lead students to explore a broader array of art such as Japanese Ukiyo-e prints and screen painting.


Again... I question why anyone would wish to major in... let alone teach a topic that doesn't enthrall them:

I'm tired of reading (or attempting to read) books that take fifteen pages to describe one simple aspect of the story. It just isn't my thing. I read to escape...,

...if you have any suggestions on some classics I could read every now and then, just to keep my intellectual cred in order, so to speak...

Why major in a field in which you find so much to be but a dreary struggle? Why seek to teach a subject that you would only wish to skim lightly over... just to keep up the illusion of your academic credentials... as you put it?

I made this post first and foremost to get some suggestions on classics. I do not find the subject a dreary struggle. You assume a lot by one short post. I don't see any post that says I would "skim" over the subject. The academic cred comment was made tongue-in-cheek. But, nice job adding illusion. I guess none of us are above little ad hominem jabs.

[stlukesguild]

Where did I say I disliked a majority of classic literature? I like the majority that I've read. I made this thread because, of late, I've had a run of bad luck, it would seem, as to my choices.

This is something quite different from what you suggested in your OP:

...but (I) am usually bogged down in how boring they are.

"Usually" would suggest that more often than not you are bored with the classics.

So, if you have any suggestions on some classics I could read every now and then, just to keep my intellectual cred in order, so to speak...

This phrase doesn't suggest much in a way of the love of reading classics, but rather the desire for some suggestions of some light reading that would help you to maintain the illusion of being serious about reading.

I could be wrong in this interpretation, but I doubt I'm the only one who would read such comments in this way. I think your current statement of having run into a bad run of experiences with the classics you have read recently makes far more sense or clarifies things.

If you are suggesting I am lying when I said I like more classics than I originally intimated, well, there's nothing I can do about that. You will believe me or you won't, I'm not going to go to great lengths to convince you otherwise if it is the latter.

You have no need to convince me as to your love of literature. You are the one who has made the decision to invest the time and effort in the degree with the goal of teaching. Only you can say whether this is the right path for you. I merely offered a challenge based upon your initial post.

I do not find the subject a dreary struggle. You assume a lot by one short post. I don't see any post that says I would "skim" over the subject. The academic cred comment was made tongue-in-cheek.

Again, I doubt that I would be the only one somewhat puzzled by why someone would wish to major in a subject that they are not passionate about (although money always comes into play:D) or feel that they are qualified to teach a subject that they are not fond of. This was the gist I got from your OP. As that was clearly not your intention, I apologize. As a teacher for some 15 years I have seen any number of co-workers with little or no real passion for their field of study (literature, music, art, etc...)... music teachers who cannot name one living composer outside of John Williams, art teachers who struggle with "Modern" art like Van Gogh and Picasso, English/Reading/Literature teachers that haven't voluntarily read a "serious" book in years... who have no real interest inlearning themselves... yet expect to inspire a passion for learning in others... and then there are quite a few more who haven't the slightest ability to develop a relationship with their students... who virtually hate teaching... if not children. I wish you well and hope you never fall into that category.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I apologize, too, as I do see how the use of the word "usually" would suggest me disliking the classics the majority of the time. This is true, but only recently.

In hindsight, I should've better phrased my OP, but when I do these things, I usually just slap 'em down, do a quick spell/grammar check, and hit post, for time's sake.

I agree with everything you said about teaching. And, trust me, I have not reached that cynicism and dissilusionment that seems to plague so many. Even in some of my fellow student teachers I see a disturbing lack of passion for literature. Hell, in my methods of teaching literature class, there was a student who didn't even finish reading The Absolutely True Diary of a Pat-time Indian. The damn thing took three hours to read! If she didn't read that, she sure as hell didn't read Frankenstien or Huck Finn (which I enjoyed). I doubt any of them even pick up a book more than 2o years old on a voluntary basis. One of them worships Harry Potter for God's sake!

Now I'm just ranting. In all fairness, there are others (classmates of mine, that is) more well read than me, who do read more "classics," so I guess I fall somewhere in the middle. But I can assure you I do have a passion for literature, and even when I don't enjoy a certain work, I can almost always see its virtues and appreciate it.

And, I too, definitely hope I never fall into the category you describe. If it I ever even start to think I'm leaning that way, that's the time to move on to a different profession.

[mal4mac]

Mutatis: I know the feeling. I have an MA in English. I hate James Joyce and Jack Kerouac. I fact, I think Joyce and Kerouac are the two most overrated writers in the English language. I love Dickens, George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, Shakespeare...well you get the point. Don't worry about what you don't like.

I agree with you freudianslip! But I've read most of Dickens, George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, Shakespeare. Who else would you recommend? I've just discovered Zola, who I'd place in the same category. Who else am I missing? Who else do you hate? I've just attempted Henry James' Wings of a Dove, but he's in there with Joyce and Proust on my avoid list now!

[billl]

I agree with you freudianslip! But I've read most of Dickens, George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, Shakespeare. Who else would you recommend? I've just discovered Zola, who I'd place in the same category. Who else am I missing? Who else do you hate? I've just attempted Henry James' Wings of a Dove, but he's in there with Joyce and Proust on my avoid list now!

Wilkie Collins is good--he was a contemporary of Dickens, and wrote his novels as serials, like Dickens did, so that might help keep a person turning the pages. He is famous as an early writer of detective fiction, so the stories are sort of Victorian thrillers (don't expect Stephen King, but there is some suspense and intrigue/mystery going on). Careful you don't run across spoilers if you research on Wikipedia or whatever. Collins's books are maybe not as interesting as Dickens's novels in a "literary" sense, apart from their historical role in detective fiction--but they aren't devoid of literary interest, either. I have only read one, The Woman in White, and it worked quite well for me one time when I wanted something like Dickens but not Dickens.

[drago]

I was humored that someone would have the guts to say on this forum they did not like classics that were drawn out and lengthy! I agree on Mice and Men, then. It is short as well as touching. And I may have missed which class you plan to teach, but I greatly enjoyed anything Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote my high school years - especially The Scarlet Letter. Not only did I fall in love with the book my classmates did as well. Literature isn't about entertainment and being an English teacher, entertaining should not be your goal. You want to feed your students pieces that make them think, not keep them laughing. I agree that lovers of english as in love with the language, the way the author pieces words together and describes things. I can name a great many books I infatuated myself with because of simply how it was written over the actual storyline themselves.

[kelby_lake]

Anna Karenina is great :D

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I was humored that someone would have the guts to say on this forum they did not like classics that were drawn out and lengthy!

What can I say? I have massive balls.


I agree on Mice and Men, then. It is short as well as touching. And I may have missed which class you plan to teach, but I greatly enjoyed anything Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote my high school years - especially The Scarlet Letter. Not only did I fall in love with the book my classmates did as well.

Teaching just your average sophomore and freshman English classes. And I do need to read The Scarlet Letter, one of the many I haven't gotten to.


Literature isn't about entertainment and, being an English teacher, entertaining should not be your goal. You want to feed your students pieces that make them think, not keep them laughing.

I agree, to an extent. I don't think entertainment should be the only goal, but I don't think it should be discounted entirely. There are many pieces that can keep them entertained and also keep them thinking.

Also, I'm starting Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea on Monday with the sophomores.

[tscherff]

try germinal by zola
interesting political piece that ends up being a page turner at the end. also has a number of very fertile discussion points on life.
very timely with the chilaen mine story

[wat??]

Crime and Punishment is a book I always recommend to non-classics readers. Most people seem to like it. It is a pretty gripping story.

Crime and Punishment is also very readable and a good introductory to Russian literature for anyone who hasn't had time to digest all of the familiar form and patronymic names used by Russian authors.

[f4b2g9]

As an English major and a sort-of English teacher (student teacher, at the moment), I always feel the need to read the "classics," (I do not intend this to be a place to debate the merits of reading canonical texts, but if you do, so be it), but am usually bogged down in how boring they are.

Now, I realize this is a subjective view, but it is how I feel. I just got done reading Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent, and it was a tough go. I loved the story and the characters, but it just got so bogged down in description that it felt too plodding at points. I love "Heart of Darkness," too, but at least it is shorter--the perfect length for the ultra-descriptive style of writing, in my opinion.

Now, I'm not looking for tons of action and explosions, just a story that moves at a reasonable pace. I'm tired of reading (or attempting to read) books that take fifteen pages to describe one simple aspect of the story. It just isn't my thing. I read to escape, and I don't want to escape into a mundane world.

So, if you have any suggestions on some classics I could read every now and then, just to keep my intellectual cred in order, so to speak, I'd be much appreciative.
Try The Great Impersonation by E. Phillips Openheim

[OrphanPip]

Hmm, coming back to this, Stephen Crane's The Red Badge of Courage might work for high school sophomores as well. It's fairly short, and deals with a character somewhat close to them in age.

I'm not sure what Americans teach in high school, in Canada we had practically no American literature in high school except for Arthur Miller.

[hazelk]

Why not try "Jekyll and Hyde", I have just acquired a copy of "Frankstein"
by Mary Shelley, also I have "The Scarlet Letter" on my TBR stack.

[stlukesguild]

Hmm, coming back to this, Stephen Crane's The Red Badge of Courage might work for high school sophomores as well. It's fairly short, and deals with a character somewhat close to them in age.

I'm not sure what Americans teach in high school, in Canada we had practically no American literature in high school except for Arthur Miller.

Pip!! Please!! No!!! I was forced to read The Red Badge of Courage in three different classes from Middle-School through high-school... each time followed by in-depth discussions on war led by young teachers who had all probably attended college during the Vietnam War years. I quite like Crane... but doubt I'll ever be able to bring myself to read that book again. Why not Ambrose Bierce' An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge or Chickamauga and some of Melville's Civil War poems and Whitman's When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd?

Perhaps these wouldn't be appropriate for your students, but for yourself...

Nathanael West- Miss Lonelyhearts
Gore Vidal- Myra Breckenridge
Flannery O'Connor- A Good Man Is Hard to Find, The Artificial Nigger, Good Country People, A Late Encounter with the Enemy, Revelation, etc...
Theophile Gautier- Mademoiselle de Maupin, The Mummy's Foot, Clarimonde: Le Morte Amoureuse, One of Cleopatra's Nights, Omphale: A Rococo Story
Italo Calvino- The Baron in the Trees
Tolstoy- The Kreutzer Sonata
Thomas Mann- Death in Venice
Gunter Grass- The Tin Drum

[mortalterror]

I'm not sure what Americans teach in high school, in Canada we had practically no American literature in high school except for Arthur Miller.

I know that Canadians have an ingrown resentment of the United States, but did you at least have any British literature thrust upon you as a child? The Canadian corpus isn't substantial enough to complete anyone's education.

[OrphanPip]

I know that Canadians have an ingrown resentment of the United States, but did you at least have any British literature thrust upon you as a child? The Canadian corpus isn't substantial enough to complete anyone's education.

Of course we had British literature, up until the mid 70s that was essentially what was exclusively taught in schools. Although, I would disagree that Canadian literature isn't substantial enough to satisfy the education of high school students. The American and British canon is devoid of anything that speaks to the experiences of French or native Canadians. The schools also serve a purpose of propagating the cultural traditions of Canada.

It has nothing to do with an ingrown resentment of the USA, you say that as if it should come as a surprise that people would be more interested in their own culture rather than yours. There's plenty American cultural influence in Canada as is.

[JBI]

Of course we had British literature, up until the mid 70s that was essentially what was exclusively taught in schools. Although, I would disagree that Canadian literature isn't substantial enough to satisfy the education of high school students. The American and British canon is devoid of anything that speaks to the experiences of French or native Canadians. The schools also serve a purpose of propagating the cultural traditions of Canada.

It has nothing to do with an ingrown resentment of the USA, you say that as if it should come as a surprise that people would be more interested in their own culture rather than yours. There's plenty American cultural influence in Canada as is.


We still resent them to an extent though, there is that truth element. Then again, that too isn't restricted to Canada. Still, there is something to be said of not having American literature fed.

The US has the condition of a national literature born in the time of Nationhood, in the Benedict Anderson sense, with also a very strong cultural drive that puts the US as the focus, and seems to limit its perspective - that is pretty much fact, there is no denying that the US is more concerned with the US than Canada is with Canada.

Perhaps people just feel resentment that this self-obsessed culture is pushing itself on top of them. The general attitude of many posts would suggest that.


Reading French literature, for instance, does not seem to have the same nation-idea behind it. Neither does British literature for the most part - so where does that leave Canada.

As a lover of Canadian literature in general, I would argue that perhaps there is something to be gained. Our concept of self is noticeably different, and it is good to have this dialog that is called Canadian literature, especially when literature from the South is constantly throwing its self-obsessed ideas over our heads. Perhaps this idea of showing another side is important - after all, we are not in the same country, and literature is not a museum, but a continual process - a dialog that is constantly changing. Why not then give exposure to the home dialog?

Besides which, from experience, my high school textbook was one of the more multicultural books - it had everything from lesser-known Japanese poets, to Chinese poems (of assorted genres) to essays by African writers, American poets, and all sorts of other stuff. From what I understand the book is a standard in Canada - to suggest a sort of need for American literature is ridiculous.

With translation, we can appreciate from all corners of this world - to suggest that the American or British traditions in themselves are more relevant is quite ridiculous - quite simply, if length wasn't a factor, and you swapped Cat's Cradle for a grade 10 class with Genji, or Don Quixote, or Dream of theRed Chamber nobody would lose, in fact, the gain would be tremendous.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yes, but one can not deny that great literature has come out of America, and to completely deny oneself or a whole nation of students to that literature out of a resentment to the country's percieved self-obsession would be a disservice, no?

I agree, though, that the USA is too pushy when it comes to the rest of the world, and I definitely agree we are way to self-concerned when it comes to literature--we need much more diversity in the classroom, but don't paint us all with the same brush. Not all of us feel the need to be so egocentric. We all don't come from Texas, which is like a whole other country inside of the US.

I do have to question this quote, though: "there is no denying that the US is more concerned with the US than Canada is with Canada." Really? You seem to be very prideful of Canada, and quite resentful to the USA. I know I am quite dissapointed in the USA, as I know many others in the USA are, and have no real resentment to any other nation. Sorry, but this quote seems quite arrogant in itself.

And thanks for all the suggestions that have been made. Do you, JBI, have any suggestions for contemporary Canadian literature? It is something I haven't explored, I admit.

[mortalterror]

The American and British canon is devoid of anything that speaks to the experiences of French or native Canadians.
To hear you tell it, Canadians drive backwards and live on the moon. But 75% live within 100 miles of the U.S. border and 90% live within 150 miles. Ethnic backgrounds, languages, and civilization ages are all roughly the same, but what could we possibly have in common?


The schools also serve a purpose of propagating the cultural traditions of Canada.
That's what I figure is going on up north. America went through that phase in the mid-1800s when it was trying to show it's independence from the European tradition, even though all we'd really achieved at the time was Poe and Cooper.


It has nothing to do with an ingrown resentment of the USA, you say that as if it should come as a surprise that people would be more interested in their own culture rather than yours.
At this point, Canadian culture is largely American culture anyway, and it seems a little silly to deny it. You wear our clothes. You listen to our music. You drive our cars. You live in our buildings, watch our movies, and read our books. We're like the girl you **** but won't bring home to your parents.

Of course, you should be more interested in what's yours. But if I didn't own a hammer I'd borrow one from a neighbor. Instead of filling your childrens heads with propaganda about how great their own tradition is, you would probably be better off just teaching them from the best texts available. I'd be pretty upset if my kid was only reading American literature and wasn't getting the best education possible. Vonnegut is alright, but he's no Shakespeare. It's not a native issue, it's a matter of quality. When you only have so much time to reach the little devils, why waste both your times on second rate garbage, even if it was manufactured in the next town over?

By the time I was in high school, American literature felt like a straight jacket. By the time I was in college, the English language felt like a prison. Now I'm older, and the whole Western tradition has begun to feel confining. Getting hung up on things like nationalism seems quaint and provincial at this stage of history when an identity should be so much more than an accident of birth.


With translation, we can appreciate from all corners of this world - to suggest that the American or British traditions in themselves are more relevant is quite ridiculous - quite simply, if length wasn't a factor, and you swapped Cat's Cradle for a grade 10 class with Genji, or Don Quixote, or Dream of theRed Chamber nobody would lose, in fact, the gain would be tremendous.
Precisely my point. A native resentment doesn't serve anybody. But any largely Anglophone nation, really can't afford to exclude the early contributions of Britain, or the later additions of America.


I do have to question this quote, though: "there is no denying that the US is more concerned with the US than Canada is with Canada." Really? You seem to be very prideful of Canada, and quite resentful to the USA. I know I am quite dissapointed in the USA, as I know many others in the USA are, and have no real resentment to any other nation. Sorry, but this quote seems quite arrogant in itself.
While visiting Plato's home one day, Diogenes, disgusted by its exquisite and costly carpets, contemptuously wiped his feet upon them. "Thus do I trample on the pride of Plato," he declared. "Yes," replied Plato, "with greater pride!"

[OrphanPip]

To hear you tell it, Canadians drive backwards and live on the moon. But 75% live within 100 miles of the U.S. border and 90% live within 150 miles. Ethnic backgrounds, languages, and civilization ages are all roughly the same, but what could we possibly have in common?

If you think French Canadians, or even Atlantic Canadians have much in common with the USA, you don't know anything about Canadians. Did you grow up with a portrait of the queen in your home, because I did. Canada's history and cultural attitudes about itself are far different, I didn't claim we have nothing in common, but we are distinct. I certainly feel distinct from Americans.



That's what I figure is going on up north. America went through that phase in the mid-1800s when it was trying to show it's independence from the European tradition, even though all we'd really achieved at the time was Poe and Cooper.

Um no, American school still propagates American culture, or are you unaware of American government or history courses in American schools. Or American literature even. We're not even speaking of a literary movement, there is no strong nationalist movement in Canadian literature. Most of our prominent writers today are distinctly non-nationalist, Rawi Hage or Michael Ondaatje are hardly promoting a nationalism in Canadian literature. You could maybe make that claim about Atwood, she hates the US. Canada went through its nationalist period in the 19th century too, like every country in the West. It's just your arrogance of cultural superiority that makes you think Canada is just discovering nationalism now.



At this point, Canadian culture is largely American culture anyway, and it seems a little silly to deny it. You wear our clothes. You listen to our music. You drive our cars. You live in our buildings, watch our movies, and read our books. We're like the girl you **** but won't bring home to your parents.

American pop culture dominates everywhere in the world, if we used your definition everyone on Earth is an American. And this is even a recent event in Canada that came around with the invention of the TV. It is also primarily a problem of Ontario and the West, and less so for Quebec and the Atlantic region which have more clear cultural differences from the USA. You also act as if there is no Canadian literature, movies, or books, and that none of us ever interact with them. All those things exist, despite American obliviousness to them. I'm not exactly sure what an American building is too, our floors are actually numbered in the European fashion.



Of course, you should be more interested in what's yours. But if I didn't own a hammer I'd borrow one from a neighbor. Instead of filling your childrens heads with propaganda about how great their own tradition is, you would probably be better off just teaching them from the best texts available. I'd be pretty upset if my kid was only reading American literature and wasn't getting the best education possible. Vonnegut is alright, but he's no Shakespeare. It's not a native issue, it's a matter of quality. When you only have so much time to reach the little devils, why waste both your times on second rate garbage, even if it was manufactured in the next town over?

The fact that you think Canadian literature is just second rate garbage is the reason why nobody likes the US. You should also note I didn't say American literature shouldn't be taught, I just said it shouldn't be emphasized. Why should we shove loads of American literature down the throats of high school students.



Precisely my point. A native resentment doesn't serve anybody. But any largely Anglophone nation, really can't afford to exclude the early contributions of Britain, or the later additions of America.

I think we'll be alright, the later additions of America aren't all that relevant to the needs of high school students. They just need to learn how to read and write properly.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Mortalterror doesn't speak for all Americans.

I have been to Canada (albeit just across the border to Niagra Falls) and just there I could see cultural differences, and that area is about as westernized as Branson, Missouri.

Both of you are arguing at the extreme end of your side. Should Canada focus more on Candian literature? Perhaps. Should Canada disregard all American literature because of American ignorance? Of course not.

[Scheherazade]

From OP:

Now, I'm not looking for tons of action and explosions, just a story that moves at a reasonable pace. I'm tired of reading (or attempting to read) books that take fifteen pages to describe one simple aspect of the story. It just isn't my thing. I read to escape, and I don't want to escape into a mundane world.

So, if you have any suggestions on some classics I could read every now and then, just to keep my intellectual cred in order, so to speak, I'd be much appreciative.Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That's kind of lame. The conversation evolved to the point it has, and has taken a pretty interesting turn? Why can't it continue?

[Jeremydav]

I have to agree with your detractors, Mutatis. You don't seem to possess an attitude of literary scholarship. No one likes all classics, of course, but where is the depth of appreciation?

[JBI]

Yes, but one can not deny that great literature has come out of America, and to completely deny oneself or a whole nation of students to that literature out of a resentment to the country's percieved self-obsession would be a disservice, no?

I agree, though, that the USA is too pushy when it comes to the rest of the world, and I definitely agree we are way to self-concerned when it comes to literature--we need much more diversity in the classroom, but don't paint us all with the same brush. Not all of us feel the need to be so egocentric. We all don't come from Texas, which is like a whole other country inside of the US.

I do have to question this quote, though: "there is no denying that the US is more concerned with the US than Canada is with Canada." Really? You seem to be very prideful of Canada, and quite resentful to the USA. I know I am quite dissapointed in the USA, as I know many others in the USA are, and have no real resentment to any other nation. Sorry, but this quote seems quite arrogant in itself.

And thanks for all the suggestions that have been made. Do you, JBI, have any suggestions for contemporary Canadian literature? It is something I haven't explored, I admit.

Try the works of Alice Munro, I doubt she would disappoint, also The Studhorse Man by Robert Kroetsch is an excellent comic novel.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I have to agree with your detractors, Mutatis. You don't seem to possess an attitude of literary scholarship. No one likes all classics, of course, but where is the depth of appreciation?

Have you read the whole thread? If you have, and still feel this way, I don't know what to say. I feel I've explained my attitude of "literary scholarship" quite thoroughly.

And, thanks JBI, I'll check those out.

[Jeremydav]

Have you read the whole thread? If you have, and still feel this way, I don't know what to say. I feel I've explained my attitude of "literary scholarship" quite thoroughly.

And, thanks JBI, I'll check those out.

Nothing you've said in this thread has led me to believe that you enjoy literature as much as you should.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What do you mean, "depth of appreciation"? I've appreciated every piece of classic literature I've read, whether I enjoyed it or not.

[JBI]

Of course, you should be more interested in what's yours. But if I didn't own a hammer I'd borrow one from a neighbor. Instead of filling your childrens heads with propaganda about how great their own tradition is, you would probably be better off just teaching them from the best texts available. I'd be pretty upset if my kid was only reading American literature and wasn't getting the best education possible. Vonnegut is alright, but he's no Shakespeare. It's not a native issue, it's a matter of quality. When you only have so much time to reach the little devils, why waste both your times on second rate garbage, even if it was manufactured in the next town over?


While I do not deny that American literature has its great writers and texts, "the best literature possible" does not feature a predominantly American canon in my eyes. There is something to be said of the tradition of American literature, but it is hardly as original or amazing as its promoters make it seem - generally speaking, it is in part American self-promotion (you mention promoting while only having Poe and Cooper) and American ignorance of outside traditions that perhaps leads to this confusion. Simply put, the US is but a short segment of literary history, and its texts, though many are good, are not the be all and end all of literature.

In the textbook for high schoolers, or universities then, why not discuss a place for American literature? Well, we can start by suggesting that the Chinese tradition is longer and more developed, which is a known fact, and that the English tradition benefits from a longer history of writers, and of readers - as do the Italian, French, German, Japanese, etc. traditions - so perhaps we should add them too. While we are at it then, we can say in the past 100 years Latin American authors have also been very influential and powerful players in the development of literature in the world, especially in prose fiction - the works of magical realist authors and nationalist authors using distinctly Latin American-originated motifs and tropes have made it as far as China and back - so we must look at them to while we make our list. Then there are historical presidents - we have our classic canon, from Homer, the Bible on one side, and from hundreds of other texts on others - surely if we are having this great exposure to the great authors, they must be included.

Do not get me wrong, I promote reading great books, but simply put, if you insist that I as a Canadian aught to be appreciating Walt Whitman, I return the challenge and suggest that one cannot say that without first reading the Japanese Book of One Thousand Leaves without realizing a cultural bias that takes its own tradition too seriously. IT is important to read American books, but they are not the be all and end all as many Americans forget.

Likewise English is but one language in the world that just happens to be the major language now (not that Chinese is not an equal rival).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's funny how much personal opinions and outlooks can change in eight months.

[dfloyd]

I would suggest you turn to real estate or car sales before you damage any students' budding love of literature.

[G L Wilson]

All classics are boring, that's why they're classics.

[fancy dancing]

Jude the Obscure, by Hardy, blends Victorian ideals and morales with the modern novel and modern writing style. Some say that it's the precursor to Existentialism with institutions, like Christianity, marriage, and higher education, failing the protagonist, and thus, failing Jude. Happiness, in the context to this novel, would be seen as Romanticism in Jude's eyes. Indeed, Jude's actions and fruits of his labor lead him to utter failure time, and time again.

Awesome read.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I would suggest you turn to real estate or car sales before you damage any students' budding love of literature.
Did you read the whole thread? Probably not. And if you have, you're just being obtuse, and I don't feel like rehashing what I've made perfectly clear.

[IceM]

Siddhartha is uber easy and is a philosophical detour from the Western "I must have this" materialism. Very well written, simple to follow, simple to understand; I can't imagine having any students struggling to understand this.

Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is the commonplace love story, just better written. The girls will slurp that up, the guys will dig it for the girls, and it covers early English Lit.

Perhaps not yet considered a classic, Italo Calvino's Cosmocomics is a strong introduction to Post-Moderism. It's wildly entertaining, taking the storyline of an essential immortal being that, in the various short stories engrossing the tale, takes different forms and goes through different periods. Enlightening? Perhaps not. But entertaining nonetheless.

[ChicagoReader]

Now I havent read this whole thread BUT, it amazes me how much people are jumping on Mutatis, he simply said some of the classics were boring to him, not the majority, some classics bore me too and I'm an English major (planning on teaching), I guess I have to switch majors...

[prickly_pete]

I guess I have to switch majors...

Nah, the rest of us will need someone to serve us coffee on our way to work...

[Der Wegwerfer]

I would suggest you turn to real estate or car sales before you damage any students' budding love of literature.

are you being serious? b/c I don't see the sarcasm emoticon!

seriously, for so many that consider themselves literature buffs they have proven to not be very good readers.

the OP never stated that they don't like the classics, or a majority of the classics. I don't know how often I've read from people that they were forced to read so many classics or long books in school and were turned off by literature and reading, this can only be a bad thing for us all.

these same people have subsequently said that perhaps 15 or 20 years later they have returned to some of these books and had a new appreciation of them. Sometimes the books are just above us as younger students and the OP is just simply trying to find ways to keep their students engaged in the reading process. Whether you want to read that as "entertained" or however that's your decision. :smilewinkgrin:

a simple post looking for help from a literature-experienced crowd turns ugly with lots of judging IMO.

the great thing about literature, even just taking into consideration English language literature, is that it is so vast and broad there is something for everyone. I'd bet quite a bit not everyone here likes every single classic or author, and there's nothing wrong with that - but the OP is in the same boat.

just my thoughts, and sorry I don't have any more thoughts as to what actually to read besides what's been dutifully offered here so far. All good suggestions.

[ChicagoReader]

are you being serious? B/c i don't see the sarcasm emoticon!

Seriously, for so many that consider themselves literature buffs they have proven to not be very good readers.

The op never stated that they don't like the classics, or a majority of the classics. I don't know how often i've read from people that they were forced to read so many classics or long books in school and were turned off by literature and reading, this can only be a bad thing for us all.

These same people have subsequently said that perhaps 15 or 20 years later they have returned to some of these books and had a new appreciation of them. Sometimes the books are just above us as younger students and the op is just simply trying to find ways to keep their students engaged in the reading process. Whether you want to read that as "entertained" or however that's your decision. :smilewinkgrin:

A simple post looking for help from a literature-experienced crowd turns ugly with lots of judging imo.

The great thing about literature, even just taking into consideration english language literature, is that it is so vast and broad there is something for everyone. I'd bet quite a bit not everyone here likes every single classic or author, and there's nothing wrong with that - but the op is in the same boat.

Just my thoughts, and sorry i don't have any more thoughts as to what actually to read besides what's been dutifully offered here so far. All good suggestions.

thank you

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Thank you both, :).

[cyberbob]

LOL at the delusional people who think an English major or even English teacher shouldn't find any classic boring.

If you are one and you don't, you must've not read enough classics.

Besides, do you think Bio or History or Math or Chem or Physics or Philosophy majors don't find ANY parts of their subject boring?