Relevancy of Literature?

[BlackCat]

Some of my friends never seem to take an interest in literature. In fact AP Lit is notorious to be boring in my school. Partly maybe because of the teacher, but also maybe because many find literature to be irrelevant, stories of some dead white guys. How would you explain the beauty of literature and the relevancy of it to others, specifically teenagers?

[Desolation]

I can't say it better than F. Scott Fitzgerald - "That is part of the beauty of all literature. You discover that your longings are universal longings, that you're not lonely and isolated from anyone. You belong."

I'm very interested in what other people have to say on the matter. I'll be starting back in school next year, and I'm going into the field of psychology. I'm trying to think of ways to incorporate my passion for literature into a psychological practice.

[Ohmyscience]

Some of my friends do not like it as well. They're in their 20s. I don't think you can explain it. If you want to convey its beauty just be excited about it all the time. Perhaps they might see what the fuss is all about.

Literature isn't relevant, neither are sports, games, music and all. If its fun and enjoyable it doesn't need to be.

[cacian]

get them to write their own.

[PeterL]

There are people who never see any value n literature; that's their problem. Good literature is universal, so it applies to people of all times and places. One prohlem is that some people don't see any relevance in anything that happened before their started paying attention. Those are the people who don't learn the lessons of history,and who repeat the mistakes of the past. It is sad, but there have been people like that since the beginning of history, which wasn't very long ago.

[Climacus]

Aliteracy is characteristic of our modern-day culture. That is to say, more people than ever know how to read, but most - or so it seems - choose not to. Many of my friends are unliterary too. And my efforts to remedy this haven't been very successful. But I think there's a reader lurking in most people, though not all. There's probably no tried-and-true formula, though, for culling the reader out. As for relevancy, much great literature deals with universal, always-relevant themes: good and evil, beautiful and ugly, peace and war, truth and falsehood, love and hate.

Cacian suggests writing. That's not a bad idea, even if the subjects have no discernible talent. For you can't fully appreciate something until you know of what goes into its making. The person who studies counterpoint will better appreciate eighteenth-century music. She will also be better equipped where musical evaluation is concerned. But, of course, if she never had an ear for music in the first place . . .

[KCurtis]

I can't say it better than F. Scott Fitzgerald - "That is part of the beauty of all literature. You discover that your longings are universal longings, that you're not lonely and isolated from anyone. You belong."

I'm very interested in what other people have to say on the matter. I'll be starting back in school next year, and I'm going into the field of psychology. I'm trying to think of ways to incorporate my passion for literature into a psychological practice.

Wonderful quote by a wonderful writer. A Lit teacher needs to be a dynamic one to capture the interest of the students. Not an easy task- literature can be difficult.

[cafolini]

get them to write their own.

Agree. If they don't write their own or think their own, they couldn't possibly be motivated for others.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Some of my friends never seem to take an interest in literature. In fact AP Lit is notorious to be boring in my school. Partly maybe because of the teacher, but also maybe because many find literature to be irrelevant, stories of some dead white guys. How would you explain the beauty of literature and the relevancy of it to others, specifically teenagers?

In my experience, it is best not to even try to explain the 'relevancy of literature' or anything approaching that, to teenagers (or anyone really) who is not interested. Trust me, it is just not worth the effort. Don't bother trying to 'convert' or interest the uninterested just leave it.



get them to write their own.

Agree. If they don't write their own or think their own, they couldn't possibly be motivated for others.

Who cares? And who would want to read their dribble anyway?

[Ecurb]

Blackcat: in what respect do your friends think literature is "irrlevant"? "Relevant" is an adjective, which is usually used with the word "to". In other words, a story might be irrlevant to one's understanding of baseball, but relevant to one's understanding of basketball. When "irrelevant" does not modify anything, it is meaningless.

I agree with Neely, though, that teenagers should not be forced to read novels. There's no reason to read a novel except for pleasure. If English teachers want to force kids to read polemic essays -- fine. The silliest thing about high school English is that kids READ novels and WRITE essays. If we want kids to learn to write essays, shouldn't they be reading essays?

[Climacus]

. . . teenagers should not be forced to read novels. There's no reason to read a novel except for pleasure. If English teachers want to force kids to read polemic essays -- fine. The silliest thing about high school English is that kids READ novels and WRITE essays. If we want kids to learn to write essays, shouldn't they be reading essays?
:iagree:

Critical reading and critical writing are necessary evils for some grownups, but they're inappropriate for kids.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I agree with Neely, though, that teenagers should not be forced to read novels. There's no reason to read a novel except for pleasure. If English teachers want to force kids to read polemic essays -- fine. The silliest thing about high school English is that kids READ novels and WRITE essays. If we want kids to learn to write essays, shouldn't they be reading essays?

Well that raises a different, if equally valid point regarding the school system (which is not teacher led). However, I took the main point of the OP for meaning to try to persuade non-enthusiasts into reading and appreciating literature. Here, I find, there is just no point at all.

Trying to force your views/interests on others is an ugly point anyway (even if you are right) but it is also equally pointless either way, especially with most teenagers, no offense...:smile5:

It is far better to enjoy what you enjoy and ignore other people.

....

To use an analogy:

Q: How do you try to explain the beauty of this music to teenagers who think this is just some dead white guy? How do you explain the relevancy of it? Boring music teacher or not.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNBeW_2kGEA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lC1lRz5Z_s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2j-frfK-yg

A: You just don't.

[cafolini]

In my experience, it is best not to even try to explain the 'relevancy of literature' or anything approaching that, to teenagers (or anyone really) who is not interested. Trust me, it is just not worth the effort. Don't bother trying to 'convert' or interest the uninterested just leave it.




Who cares? And who would want to read their dribble anyway?

I do. Didn't you notice?

[Dark Muse]

People just have different interests. There are things some people truly enjoy that they could never get me to see in the same way or appropriate and enjoy as they do no matter how they tried to explain it to me. I do not know if you can truly impart your own love and appreciation for literature upon another person who is simply not inclined in that direction.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Fun exercise: Next time you hear someone bash literature, first make them concede that it's art (and if they can't do that, they're probably not worth talking to in the first place). Then, start pointing out how everything that they love wouldn't exist without artistic endeavors.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I agree with Neely, though, that teenagers should not be forced to read novels. There's no reason to read a novel except for pleasure. If English teachers want to force kids to read polemic essays -- fine. The silliest thing about high school English is that kids READ novels and WRITE essays. If we want kids to learn to write essays, shouldn't they be reading essays?
This all presupposes that your assertion of the only reason novels should be read for pleasure (which I find silly) is true, but let's assume it's true for the nonce.

1. Teenagers should be forced to do a number of things they don't want to do. It's how they learn about new things, and learn that they like new things. Believe it or not, some students do find they enjoy reading certain kinds of literature they would not have known otherwise.

2. Kids do read essays. They also read text books, short stories, poetry, and novels. Kids also write poetry and short stories, so the argument that a novel has no practical purpose within a student's school career is false.

3. Students don't read novels only to learn to write.

[The Comedian]

This all presupposes that your assertion of the only reason novels should be read for pleasure (which I find silly), but let's assume it's true for the nonce.

1. Teenagers should be forced to do a number of things they don't want to do. It's how they learn about new things, and learn that they like new things. Believe it or not, some students do find they enjoy reading certain kinds of literature they would not have known otherwise.

2. Kids do read essays. They also read text books, short stories, poetry, and novels. Kids also write poetry and short stories, so the argument that a novel has no practical purpose within a student's school career is false.

3. Students don't read novels only to learn to write.

Can I print this post and distribute it at our next department meeting? Spot on.

[mal4mac]

Some of my friends never seem to take an interest in literature. In fact AP Lit is notorious to be boring in my school. Partly maybe because of the teacher, but also maybe because many find literature to be irrelevant, stories of some dead white guys. How would you explain the beauty of literature and the relevancy of it to others, specifically teenagers?

Don't they like stories? Don't they watch films? "Titanic" involved an awful lot of dead white guys, but many schoolkids seemed to like it. Ditto for vampire films :)

Isn't literature relevant if it gives pleasure? I wouldn't try to explain the attractions of literature - show it to them. Start by lending your closest friend your favourite book and ask him/her to stick with it for a few hours - explaining first why you like it so much (no plot spoilers!) That should be enough to get the magic to happen. If it doesn't - listen carefully to their complaints, and then lend them one that might suit them better.

If they are not used to reading long, adult works then it might be best to loan them short, easy works like Treasure Island or the science fiction stories of H.G. Wells (if you like them!) Don't start them off with Our Mutual Friend (Even though it's wonderful! My Xmas reading at the moment... what greater, extended pleasure can there be...)

[BlackCat]

This all presupposes that your assertion of the only reason novels should be read for pleasure (which I find silly), but let's assume it's true for the nonce.

1. Teenagers should be forced to do a number of things they don't want to do. It's how they learn about new things, and learn that they like new things. Believe it or not, some students do find they enjoy reading certain kinds of literature they would not have known otherwise.

2. Kids do read essays. They also read text books, short stories, poetry, and novels. Kids also write poetry and short stories, so the argument that a novel has no practical purpose within a student's school career is false.

3. Students don't read novels only to learn to write.

Wow, wish u were my teacher:goof:

[Ecurb]

This all presupposes that your assertion of the only reason novels should be read for pleasure (which I find silly), but let's assume it's true for the nonce.

1. Teenagers should be forced to do a number of things they don't want to do. It's how they learn about new things, and learn that they like new things. Believe it or not, some students do find they enjoy reading certain kinds of literature they would not have known otherwise.

2. Kids do read essays. They also read text books, short stories, poetry, and novels. Kids also write poetry and short stories, so the argument that a novel has no practical purpose within a student's school career is false.

3. Students don't read novels only to learn to write.

I agree that it's reasonable to force kids to do things that are good for them. Unfortunately, when English teachers force kids to read novels they don't like, they prejudice them against the entire art form. If highschool English programs want to teach one novel a year -- I'm all for it (although I wish the teachers would pick novels that kids like, instead of novels that teachers like).

However, novels are one of many literary art forms -- and they are the least academic. Novels are meant to be entertainment -- often, but not always, light entertainment. That's not a bad thing -- I love novels. But the goal of English class is (or should be): 1) To teach basic literacy, including expository and polemic writing skills; 2) To introduce students to the joys of literature, including introducing them to its basic forms: poetry, drama, prose fiction (novels and stories); epics, biography, essays (personal and polemical), history, (and a couple of others I'm forgetting). 3) To explore the ideas of the Cannon (whether Western, or not).

It's been quite a few years since I was in highschool, but my son whipped through fairly recently. I do think highschool English classes try to diversify their teaching more than they did when I was in school. But they still emphasize the novel. Yet (it seems to me) the novel is the one literary art form that DOESN'T need to be explained to teenagers, or "taught" to them. Many teenagers are avid readers -- but they bridle at being forced to read something. I've known dozens who didn't return to the "classic" novels for years after their high school English class made them think of them as musty, dull, academic tomes. When they did, of course they loved them. But high school English classes have turned more kids OFF to reading "literary" novels than they have turned ON to it.

Besides, many kids need help in learning the grammar of poetry. It's strange to them. They can't understand it. Yet poetic literacy is a valuable skill. So English classes should "teach" poetry. Appreciating drama takes some training, too -- mainly because Shakespeare is such an important figure. Teaching a kid basic literacy in and familiarity with Shakespearean language is a basic "English" skill (for the reasonably well-educated kid -- it's ridiculous to teach Shakespeare in schools where half of the children struggle to read modern English).

But what is the "skill" involved in reading a novel? I'll grant that some difficult, modern novels reveal their treasures only after energetic seeking -- but I don't think these are the kinds of novels we should be introducing to high school kids. Most novels are easy to understand by anyone who is literate. When the teachers get the kids to look for "symbolism", or "character development" they often denigrate the values the teenagers see in the novel, and discourage them from thinking about or talking about what appeals to them. That's one way in which English classes turn kids off to "literary" novels. The kids turn to "genre" novels that, at least, are THEIR OWN pleasures, unspoiled by some English teacher.

It's because I WANT kids to learn to love the novel that I think we should teach fewer of them in high school.

[Ecurb]

This all presupposes that your assertion of the only reason novels should be read for pleasure (which I find silly), but let's assume it's true for the nonce.

.

Why should we read novels except for pleasure? Should we go to plays that bore us? Should we watch movies that have us staring at our watches, praying that time would move more quickly?

Novels CAN educate as well as entertain. But if we simply want the education, we could get it elsewhere.

Obviously, pleasures come in different shapes and sizes. To call reading about Anna Kareninna diving under the wheels of a train "pleasurable" may seem strange. But beauty is a pleasure even when it is sad, or distressing, or traumatic.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I agree that it's reasonable to force kids to do things that are good for them. Unfortunately, when English teachers force kids to read novels they don't like, they prejudice them against the entire art form. If highschool English programs want to teach one novel a year -- I'm all for it (although I wish the teachers would pick novels that kids like, instead of novels that teachers like).


When the teachers get the kids to look for "symbolism", or "character development" they often denigrate the values the teenagers see in the novel, and discourage them from thinking about or talking about what appeals to them. That's one way in which English classes turn kids off to "literary" novels. The kids turn to "genre" novels that, at least, are THEIR OWN pleasures, unspoiled by some English teacher.

I like some of your others points, but just to defend the English teacher for a moment, practically speaking...

Firstly, it is a mistake to think that a teacher necessarily chooses what novel they read with a class. At best your day-to-day teacher in the vast majority of schools, is hugely restricted in what they are allowed to teach. At most they are likely to have a 'choice' of 3 or 4, but the reality is more like 1 or 2, that they have to teach. This is often due to budget constraints, syllabus or exam board requirements. So the 'choice' is mostly out of the teachers' hands.

Secondly, the typical 'high school' teacher (or what I would call secondary school in the UK, but I pretty much imagine is very much the same) what they have to cover is also tied down too. In this again, the teacher is therefore very restricted.

Thirdly, the practicality of asking 30 odd different individual students what they would want to read (which some might consider a dubious question anyway) is just not feasible. Are all 30 students to agree on one novel or is the teacher expected to prepare 30 different individual lessons for each child, based upon what 'they want to read' for every single class? Clearly a ridiculous prospect.

The image of a dusty old teacher "forcing" students to read old books out of some, almost perverted, pleasure is just not accurate and is a little naive at best, it is like something out of Dickens "facts boy, facts" etc. Do you really think it is the English teachers' aim to turn students away from reading?

The bottom line is that if an English teacher did as you suggest then they would get the sack straightaway. Real world Vs idealist fluffy world check I think.

[Alexander III]

I agree with Neely, though, that teenagers should not be forced to read novels. There's no reason to read a novel except for pleasure. If English teachers want to force kids to read polemic essays -- fine. The silliest thing about high school English is that kids READ novels and WRITE essays. If we want kids to learn to write essays, shouldn't they be reading essays?

Im sorry but that is a horrible idea. In school I hated reading, but I aslo hated the sciences and psychology and every dam one of my studies.

If I were to have studied only what I did not detest, the only classes I could have taken would have been how to ****, how to gamble and how to drink.

to be honest, most high school kids, or at least a good number are devils, especially the boys, maturity kicks in at 20ish but until then if one cant **** it, smoke it or play it, one does not give an utter ****.

So do you seriously think that one should only study what one likes?

[Ecurb]

I'm not blaming the teachers. I'm sure the curriculum is largely decided for them -- and they teach the novels the way they learned to teach them. In addition, most English teachers probably LIKED high school English classes (that's why they became English teachers). So they relate best to a certain kind of student, who, like them, enjoys that particular approach to literature in general, and novels in particular.

I think the schools (curriculum, teachers, etc.) could profit from a slightly different approach, that's all.

I googled "most taught books" and came up with this list (doubtless from the U.S.):
1. Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare
2. Macbeth by Shakespeare
3. Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
4. Julius Caesar by Shakespeare
5. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
6. The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne
7. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
8. Hamlet by Shakespeare
9. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
10. Lord of the Flies by William Golding


There are 4 plays (all Shakespeare) and 6 novels. On the positive side, all the novels are short, and all of them are good (which makes my complaints seem a little petty -- but I'm not an educator, I'm just making this up as I go along).

Here are my complaints about the list: 1) William Golding as the only British novelist on the list? What's that all about? Let's face it, Lord of the Flies is a mediocre novel, and Golding in hardly a Western Cannon novelist. I'm sure those who choose this novel think it will appeal to teenagers (because it's about boys), and like the notion that children are savages (because, as teachers and administrators, they have to deal with them). However, I just can't see this as a top-10 most taught book.

2) "To Kill a Mockingbird" is a very good book, but political correctness hangs about it like a perfume. Besides, Harper Lee is not a pantheon author. If our goal is to teach kids about the Cannon, this book isn't in it.

3) The Scarlet Letter is too ponderous for high school kids. I remember hating it (although I now like it). I think administrators and teachers think high school kids will like it because it's so naughty (titter, titter). But, let's face it, high school kids today are beyond that.

4) Of Mice and Men is mediocre -- I'm sure it's chosen for its moral lessons and because it's so short.

5) Huckleberry Finn is a great book, and I think it's appropriate for high schoolers who are good readers. But the dialect makes it very difficult for unskilled readers.

Personally, I'd prefer more English novelists (I think most American high schools teach a Dickens novel, but he wrote so many of them that no single novel made the list).

[kensington]

Parents need to read to children from the time they are born.

This conversation is like trying to figure out how to potty train a child in the 6th grade, and convince the kid that it's a good thing.

[Ecurb]

So do you seriously think that one should only study what one likes?

As I said earlier several times, no, I don't. However, since novels are by their very nature an entertainment and a diversion, I don't think we should study THEM unless we like them. I also think that nobody should be forced to watch every Seinfeld episode on TV unless he likes Seinfeld. When teachers start assigning Seinfeld episodes, I'll say the same thing about them I'm saying about novels.

Studying novels one doesn't like is like going to movies one doesn't like. It's just plain silly. The notion that novel reading is "good for the reader", sort of like a dose of medicine that tastes horrible, but cures some disease, is a vast stretch, and I don't buy it. It's pretentious. In fact, the extent to which that notion is promulgated by the schools is the extent to which I disapprove of their tactics.

[Alexander III]

As I said earlier several times, no, I don't. However, since novels are by their very nature an entertainment and a diversion, I don't think we should study THEM unless we like them. I also think that nobody should be forced to watch every Seinfeld episode on TV unless he likes Seinfeld. When teachers start assigning Seinfeld episodes, I'll say the same thing about them I'm saying about novels.

Studying novels one doesn't like is like going to movies one doesn't like. It's just plain silly. The notion that novel reading is "good for the reader", sort of like a dose of medicine that tastes horrible, but cures some disease, is a vast stretch, and I don't buy it. It's pretentious. In fact, the extent to which that notion is promulgated by the schools is the extent to which I disapprove of their tactics.

But what is the difference between studying novels one doest like or studying poems one doesn't like, or studying the human anatomy which one doest care about, or learning about behaviorism which one doest like?

[mike thomas]

wots dose funnie marcs on the pag

[kelby_lake]

But what is the difference between studying novels one doest like or studying poems one doesn't like, or studying the human anatomy which one doest care about, or learning about behaviorism which one doest like?

Agreed. In school, you learn a specific way of how to read literature. It's not the only way to read literature and nobody suggests that everyone must read all literature with a critical eye, but it is good for students to learn that way of reading.

[kensington]

wots dose funnie marcs on the pag

haha! :shocked: That's the kid who was never read to, just sat down in front of the television.

It's like if you have a 6th grader that would rather "go" in his/her pants than use the facilities, you may as well give up at that point.

[Ecurb]

But what is the difference between studying novels one doest like or studying poems one doesn't like, or studying the human anatomy which one doest care about, or learning about behaviorism which one doest like?

The difference between studying literature and anatomy is obvious: there's a value to learning anatomy, just as there is a value to learning anything factual. Understanding Math, physics, chemistry, etc. is essential to forming an adult view of the world.

Reading novels may also be important to forming an adult view of the world. But it's important in a distinct way. When you learn how to locate Japan on a map, you are learning about the real world. When you read a novel, you are learning about an imaginary world. Teaching facts is one responsibility fo schools.

My main objection to teaching novel reading as if it were calculus, though, is that reading novels is very fun for most people, while solving equations is fun for only a select few. One of the goals of literature class should be to inculcate the joy of reading into students. I'll agree that one of the goals of physics class should be inculcating the lifelong joy of physics into students -- but since that is far rarer, it's a more difficult task.

Mainly, though, I think that English class should emphasize other forms of literature more, and novels less (for the reasons I enumerated in my first post). In addition, I think high school English classes are BETTER at teaching poetry -- they actually get quite a few students to understand poetry better and like it better. High school English rarely does this with novels. Those students who like to read ALREADY love novels -- they just get turned off by the English class approach to them.

[Ecurb]

Agreed. In school, you learn a specific way of how to read literature. It's not the only way to read literature and nobody suggests that everyone must read all literature with a critical eye, but it is good for students to learn that way of reading.

True. We should teach literature -- just fewer novels and more drama, poetry, history, biography, essays, etc. Writing critical essays appears to be a key skill schools want to teach -- but is writing critical essays about novels a better way to teach it than writing critical essays about, say, other critical essays? I remember reading very little literary criticism in high school -- but being expected to write it. That makes no sense. It would be like reading nothing but critical essays, and then being expected to write fictional stories.

[KCurtis]

There are 4 plays (all Shakespeare) and 6 novels. On the positive side, all the novels are short, and all of them are good (which makes my complaints seem a little petty -- but I'm not an educator, I'm just making this up as I go along).

Here are my complaints about the list: 1) William Golding as the only British novelist on the list? What's that all about? Let's face it, Lord of the Flies is a mediocre novel, and Golding in hardly a Western Cannon novelist. I'm sure those who choose this novel think it will appeal to teenagers (because it's about boys), and like the notion that children are savages (because, as teachers and administrators, they have to deal with them). However, I just can't see this as a top-10 most taught book.

2) "To Kill a Mockingbird" is a very good book, but political correctness hangs about it like a perfume. Besides, Harper Lee is not a pantheon author. If our goal is to teach kids about the Cannon, this book isn't in it.

3) The Scarlet Letter is too ponderous for high school kids. I remember hating it (although I now like it). I think administrators and teachers think high school kids will like it because it's so naughty (titter, titter). But, let's face it, high school kids today are beyond that.

4) Of Mice and Men is mediocre -- I'm sure it's chosen for its moral lessons and because it's so short.

5) Huckleberry Finn is a great book, and I think it's appropriate for high schoolers who are good readers. But the dialect makes it very difficult for unskilled readers.

Personally, I'd prefer more English novelists (I think most American high schools teach a Dickens novel, but he wrote so many of them that no single novel made the list).

You're complaints do sound a bit petty. First of all, they are your opinions. Of Mice and Men is not mediocre, and I read it as a teenager. Same with To Kill a Mockingbird. Political Correctness has nothing to do with why that novel is chosen. It is a historical novel, and it happened in the south, it's important. I loved Lord of the Flies when I was 13! It is a good book.

[Ecurb]

"Petty"? How so? How is it "petty" to express one's opinion about novels? (Of course they are "(my) opinions" -- what else could they possibly be?)

I disliked Lord of the Flies when I was 13, and I still dislike it today. I repeat, how does Golding qualify as the only English novelist on the list? What about Austen, or Eliot, or Dickens, or Trollope, or Forester (to name only a few)?

When kids could be reading "Passage to India" or "Pride and Prejudice", they're assigned this tripe. No wonder they think "literary" novels are boring.

[kensington]

"Petty" could have been omitted.

I read To Kill a Mockingbird when I was in 9th grade and loved it. And the movie with Gregory Peck is so wonderful - I don't know about politics but you can learn what a father is supposed to be.

[OrphanPip]

"Petty"? How so? How is it "petty" to express one's opinion about novels? (Of course they are "(my) opinions" -- what else could they possibly be?)

I disliked Lord of the Flies when I was 13, and I still dislike it today. I repeat, how does Golding qualify as the only English novelist on the list? What about Austen, or Eliot, or Dickens, or Trollope, or Forester (to name only a few)?

When kids could be reading "Passage to India" or "Pride and Prejudice", they're assigned this tripe. No wonder they think "literary" novels are boring.

I think you'd have a much harder time getting kids to appreciate Forster and Austen than Harper Lee. To go back to the fact that teacher's are primarily trying to teach literacy and basic writing skills, Lee is useful because the themes and language are accessible to young teenagers, which makes her novel easier to write about. Whether the kids are just regurgitating PC drivel or not, at least they can write about it.

Forster's novel deals with racism as well, but it's also about colonialism and it is much more subtle, which unfortunately means that a good number of students would likely miss the point entirely. P&P is not likely going to interest any teenagers beyond its romantic plot. These works draw most of their merit from their formal aspects, which is the most difficult element of literary criticism for kids to appreciate. Why make the job difficult when the goals of an English teacher can be met with simpler works that have broader appeal for the age group?

I love Austen and Forster, but I don't think they're great for kids who are not already dedicated readers of these sort of novels. If Austen is going to be taught to secondary school kids, it would probably be best to go with Emma anyway, the matchmaker plot is much easier to appreciate.

[Ecurb]

One advantage of Austen is it seems like a reasonable goal to teach kids something about the development of the novel as an art form in English class. Austen was the first "realist". Prior to her novels, novels were adventure stories, or robust comedies (ala Fielding), or allegorical satires (Swift). Her contemporary, Sir Walter Scott was perhaps the most popular novelist of all time (in percentage of novels sold), but the novel didn't go his way, it went her way.

I like "To Kill a Mockingbird". But it's a stand alone novel, out of the mainstream, written by an unknown (it was Lee's only published work). If "Passage to India" is difficult, how about "A Room with a View". It's romantic, sweet, and has some controversial themes kids could discuss. I'll grant that the atheist theme might be controversial in some schools (I forgot about that when I suggested it, 2 seconds ago).

I think "Mockingbird" might be better for younger kids -- isn't it likely that 16 and 17 year olds would think it a bit childish, with its 6-year-old heroine? I imagine some boys would think Austen too feminine, but I bet the girls would all like her novels. P & P (while not her best novel in my opinion) has the romantic, Cinderella story plot, which is why it's the most popular. Also, Darcy is so snooty, and Elizabeth so charming that high school kids would love them both, I'd bet. In addition, kids like humor, and Austen is very funny.

Whom do the kids like better at first, Wickham or Darcy? Whom do they think is more admirable, Jane or Elizabeth? What about Mr. Bennet? Is he a good father? How about Mrs. Bennet? She's embarrassing, but isn't she actually a more active and concerned parent than her husband? What IS to become of her daughters if they don't get married?

These are the kinds of questions novel-lovers ask about novels, not, "What are the themes Austen is trying to develop in the novel?" The "themes" are secondary to gossiping about the characters, as if they were our friends. Moral lessons are not the prime virtue of novels; interesting characters are.

[OrphanPip]

One advantage of Austen is it seems like a reasonable goal to teach kids something about the development of the novel as an art form in English class. Austen was the first "realist". Prior to her novels, novels were adventure stories, or robust comedies (ala Fielding), or allegorical satires (Swift). Her contemporary, Sir Walter Scott was perhaps the most popular novelist of all time (in percentage of novels sold), but the novel didn't go his way, it went her way.

Well that's not quite true, realism in English goes as far back as the early prose fictions of Aphra Behn (History of a Nun) and Daniel Defoe (Roxana). Austen herself is deeply indebted to her immediate influences, Richardson (Pamela) and Burney (Evelina). We might even say that realism is indebted to the amatory fictions of Eliza Haywood, whose fantastical stories always seem to end with very real consequences.

I'd say Austen is important because she's a transitional figure, she is reacting against sentimentalism at a point where the more defined literary traditions of Romanticism and 19th century Realism haven't been flushed out. She's important because she was influential on both forms of the novel that dominated the 19th century.

However, I think you'd have a hard time getting teenagers to be excited about that fact.



These are the kinds of questions novel-lovers ask about novels, not, "What are the themes Austen is trying to develop in the novel?" The "themes" are secondary to gossiping about the characters, as if they were our friends. Moral lessons are not the prime virtue of novels; interesting characters are.

A theme is not a moral lesson though, it is just an abstract subject treated in some way throughout the work, any work has themes. Your questions are still questions about theme, they are speaking about the thematic representation of love and family in the work. Moreover, your questions seem more like questions of plot and personal relation rather than really meaningful. The useful questions would be what the treatment of those themes reflects about Austen's culture, the form of the novel, Austen's attitudes towards her culture, our attitudes towards Austen and the late 18th century, and how all of this relates to subsequent and contemporary treatments of the same ideas.

But again, this is too much to ask of 15-16 year olds. Getting them to even grasp the ideas at work in a clearly didactic work like Lee's novel is a challenge for teachers.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

A lot has been said since last I visited, so I'll just address what was a direct reply to me and some other points. My apologies if things are repeated.

I agree that it's reasonable to force kids to do things that are good for them. Unfortunately, when English teachers force kids to read novels they don't like, they prejudice them against the entire art form. If highschool English programs want to teach one novel a year -- I'm all for it (although I wish the teachers would pick novels that kids like, instead of novels that teachers like).
The problem is there is no novel that all kids will like and vice versa. Even when teaching Shakespeare or Dickens, there are almost always at least a few students who do enjoy it. I taught Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, (not by choice) and it was an even split between those who didn't enjoy it and those who did. Your argument seems to be that we shouldn't teach novels because it will expose kids to something they dislike, but this sacrifices the kids who would be exposed to it that would like it. Either way, these same kids will probably form the same opinions whether or not they are exposed to literature in the classroom (and, let's be honest, by the time they're in high school, chances are they won't be exposed anywhere else).

And, again, your idea that teachers should choose books that students like and not books that they like is kind of silly. First, there's no reason students and teachers can't like the same books. Second, if we let students have complete control (and this also assumes that students could all agree on what to read), we'd have classrooms across the nation teaching Twilight and Harry Potter.

It should also be noted that most high school English classes let students choose their own personal books to read, aside from the class assigned reading.

However, novels are one of many literary art forms -- and they are the least academic.
Well, I just completely disagree with you, there. Especially since you didn't really explain this position. Maybe you do somewhere else in the thread. If that's the case, I'd love to read it.

Novels are meant to be entertainment -- often, but not always, light entertainment.
This is also an arguable point.

That's not a bad thing -- I love novels. But the goal of English class is (or should be): 1) To teach basic literacy, including expository and polemic writing skills;
Which reading novels can do. First, reading is essential to learning basic literacy (something so obvious I doubt it needs to be said), and novels are one of the most enjoyable things to read. I'd rather not bore my students to death with essay after essay. Plus, like I said, expository and essay writing are not the only types of writing students do, or should do.

2) To introduce students to the joys of literature, including introducing them to its basic forms: poetry, drama, prose fiction (novels and stories); epics, biography, essays (personal and polemical), history, (and a couple of others I'm forgetting). 3) To explore the ideas of the Cannon (whether Western, or not).
Now, these two points strike me as quite odd, because they seem quite the argument for reading novels more than we do even now. And, beyond that, it also seems an argument that students should read more old, stuffy, boring novels rather than the ones we assume they'd enjoy.

It's been quite a few years since I was in highschool, but my son whipped through fairly recently. I do think highschool English classes try to diversify their teaching more than they did when I was in school. But they still emphasize the novel. Yet (it seems to me) the novel is the one literary art form that DOESN'T need to be explained to teenagers, or "taught" to them.
An interesting idea, but it needs more elaboration.

Many teenagers are avid readers
Really? I guess it depends on your definition of "many."

-- but they bridle at being forced to read something. I've known dozens who didn't return to the "classic" novels for years after their high school English class made them think of them as musty, dull, academic tomes. When they did, of course they loved them. But high school English classes have turned more kids OFF to reading "literary" novels than they have turned ON to it.
But, again, we run into the problem of students who do end up loving the classics in high school. Not to mention most school do incorporate classic literature and contemporary literature.

But, I can't help but notice you're starting to argue a completely different point--that "classic" novels shouldn't be taught, and not just novels in general, which is a much more reasonable, and debatable, argument.

Besides, many kids need help in learning the grammar of poetry. It's strange to them. They can't understand it. Yet poetic literacy is a valuable skill. So English classes should "teach" poetry.
Almost all do, though not nearly as much as the should.

I'm wondering, though, how poetry is any less of an art form with the goals of entertainment than the novel is?

Appreciating drama takes some training, too -- mainly because Shakespeare is such an important figure. Teaching a kid basic literacy in and familiarity with Shakespearean language is a basic "English" skill (for the reasonably well-educated kid -- it's ridiculous to teach Shakespeare in schools where half of the children struggle to read modern English).
Again, a whole other debate.

But what is the "skill" involved in reading a novel?
If I'm not mistaken, you mentioned basic literacy above, no? Plus, not all novels are easy to read, and that doesn't just include contemporary.

I'll grant that some difficult, modern novels reveal their treasures only after energetic seeking -- but I don't think these are the kinds of novels we should be introducing to high school kids. Most novels are easy to understand by anyone who is literate.
Unless we want to debate what "literate" means, I think if you spent a couple days as an English teacher, you'd find this isn't the case

When the teachers get the kids to look for "symbolism", or "character development" they often denigrate the values the teenagers see in the novel, and discourage them from thinking about or talking about what appeals to them.
Now you're making sweeping generalizations of all classrooms. Fact is, most students are lucky if they even get to delve into subjects like symbolism and character development.

That's one way in which English classes turn kids off to "literary" novels. The kids turn to "genre" novels that, at least, are THEIR OWN pleasures, unspoiled by some English teacher.
Again, I must turn to the students who aren't in line with this example.

It's because I WANT kids to learn to love the novel that I think we should teach fewer of them in high school.
Then, what do you suggest the alternative should be?

Why should we read novels except for pleasure? Should we go to plays that bore us? Should we watch movies that have us staring at our watches, praying that time would move more quickly?
To the two latter questions: Yes and yes. To the former--cultural education, exploration, history, broader understanding, etc etc.

Novels CAN educate as well as entertain. But if we simply want the education, we could get it elsewhere.
And we do. Novels are a part of the whole.


As I read through the rest of the thread, Ecurb, it seems most of your complaints are about how English is taught and what is taught in it, not necessarily that the novel should be taught less. In a lot of classrooms, if it was taught less, it wouldn't be taught at all. I agree more poetry should be taught, definitely.

[BlackCat]

nice debates going on here. From my experience as a recent immigrant to the United States, literature literally is my savior. It was through literature that I learned my basic reading and writing skills, plus the vocabs. I learned how to speak through literature, how to think through literature. Others might say books are boring and English classes are rigid and inapplicable, but as for me exposing literature to students might be the best thing to do. Not only to teach them basic English grammar or theme exploration, but to also teaches them the understanding of different people and different ideas.

[kensington]

nice debates going on here. From my experience as a recent immigrant to the United States, literature literally is my savior. It was through literature that I learned my basic reading and writing skills, plus the vocabs. I learned how to speak through literature, how to think through literature. Others might say books are boring and English classes are rigid and inapplicable, but as for me exposing literature to students might be the best thing to do. Not only to teach them basic English grammar or theme exploration, but to also teaches them the understanding of different people and different ideas.


"literature literally is my savior" - That's very nice BlackCat. Imagine if everyone could have that experience!

[Alexander III]

One advantage of Austen is it seems like a reasonable goal to teach kids something about the development of the novel as an art form in English class. Austen was the first "realist". Prior to her novels, novels were adventure stories, or robust comedies (ala Fielding), or allegorical satires (Swift). Her contemporary, Sir Walter Scott was perhaps the most popular novelist of all time (in percentage of novels sold), but the novel didn't go his way, it went her way.

I like "To Kill a Mockingbird". But it's a stand alone novel, out of the mainstream, written by an unknown (it was Lee's only published work). If "Passage to India" is difficult, how about "A Room with a View". It's romantic, sweet, and has some controversial themes kids could discuss. I'll grant that the atheist theme might be controversial in some schools (I forgot about that when I suggested it, 2 seconds ago).

I think "Mockingbird" might be better for younger kids -- isn't it likely that 16 and 17 year olds would think it a bit childish, with its 6-year-old heroine? I imagine some boys would think Austen too feminine, but I bet the girls would all like her novels. P & P (while not her best novel in my opinion) has the romantic, Cinderella story plot, which is why it's the most popular. Also, Darcy is so snooty, and Elizabeth so charming that high school kids would love them both, I'd bet. In addition, kids like humor, and Austen is very funny.

Whom do the kids like better at first, Wickham or Darcy? Whom do they think is more admirable, Jane or Elizabeth? What about Mr. Bennet? Is he a good father? How about Mrs. Bennet? She's embarrassing, but isn't she actually a more active and concerned parent than her husband? What IS to become of her daughters if they don't get married?

These are the kinds of questions novel-lovers ask about novels, not, "What are the themes Austen is trying to develop in the novel?" The "themes" are secondary to gossiping about the characters, as if they were our friends. Moral lessons are not the prime virtue of novels; interesting characters are.


As orphan pip said Austen was hardly the first realist.

Also I think you do not get high school kids. I mean

"P & P (while not her best novel in my opinion) has the romantic, Cinderella story plot, which is why it's the most popular. Also, Darcy is so snooty, and Elizabeth so charming that high school kids would love them both, I'd bet. In addition, kids like humor, and Austen is very funny. "

that is just not the way this works. I mean your conception of the high school kid is as one dimensional as his conception of the average 40 year old...

Like I said, the last 50 years in schools have been about making it "fun" and interesting for the children. And that clearly just has not worked. I am more of a traditionalist. Italian Liceo have and German gymnasiums have a virtually unchanged sytsem since the 1950's - any Italian or German who has graduated from a liceo or gymnasium tends to think that his peer english student who has just finished his A levels, is a retard. An Italian student finished Liceo with a broad culture of art and history, and when he realizes how little education his fellow english boy received in his secondary school, it is no wonder that the Italian feels himself so superior to the perceived "idiot".

Honestly I believe, teach children hard stuff, classic stuff, dont care about weather they like it or not, the simple fact that what they are learning challenges them makes it interesting. Unlike schooling in england where children are bored out of their minds as it is so simple are targeted at the lowest common denominator.

rant over.

[JuniperWoolf]

Like I said, the last 50 years in schools have been about making it "fun" and interesting for the children. And that clearly just has not worked.

It's really annoying, actually. You should see some of the stuff my brother used to bring home. How condescending is it to have a non-academic Canadian teenage boy read seven short stories about hockey (and one novel about war, and that was his ENTIRE selection)? I mean really, that's just too glaringly obvious. You can tell what an administration thinks of you by what they force you to read, and apparently they think 16 year old non-academics are all boys and are all idiots who just like to watch hockey. Maybe they think all they're good for is being shot at too.

*edit* Alberta classes are broken up into "academic" groups and "non-academic" groups.

[Alexander III]

It's really annoying, actually. You should see some of the stuff my brother used to bring home. How condescending is it to have a non-academic Canadian teenage boy read seven short stories about hockey (and one novel about war, and that was his ENTIRE selection)? I mean really, that's just too glaringly obvious. You can tell what an administration thinks of you by what they force you to read, and apparently they think 16 year old non-academics are all boys and are all idiots who just like to watch hockey. Maybe they think all they're good for is being shot at too.

*edit* Alberta classes are broken up into "academic" groups and "non-academic" groups.

At 16 in Liceo my cousin was studying The divine Comedy, learning to translate poetry from ancient greek and latin into Italian, and studying the philosophical works Kant.

These are all things which the average english or american student doesn't get to until university, and even then it is much more limited.

[LitNetIsGreat]

The difference between studying literature and anatomy is obvious: there's a value to learning anatomy, just as there is a value to learning anything factual. Understanding Math, physics, chemistry, etc. is essential to forming an adult view of the world.

I'm afraid I'm scratching my head a little here as I am with all of this post. I don't really know where to start. Your first point seems to be suggesting that there is no practical value in teaching literature at all, which is rather a broad assumption and brings the usual debates/defence of art, which I just don't want to dig up again. I can't be bothered to 'defend' the point of literature on a literature forum or anywhere else, so I'll just pass on that for now and leave my objection in the air.


Reading novels may also be important to forming an adult view of the world. But it's important in a distinct way. When you learn how to locate Japan on a map, you are learning about the real world. When you read a novel, you are learning about an imaginary world. Teaching facts is one responsibility fo schools.

This just sounds like something straight out of Dickens and I enjoyed it, but it shows a fossilized view of what the role of education should be in many respects. It also calls for a 'defence of literature' type response which I don't have the time or inclination for (as above).


My main objection to teaching novel reading as if it were calculus, though, is that reading novels is very fun for most people, while solving equations is fun for only a select few. One of the goals of literature class should be to inculcate the joy of reading into students. I'll agree that one of the goals of physics class should be inculcating the lifelong joy of physics into students -- but since that is far rarer, it's a more difficult task.

I think this is close to fluffy world again. So in your opinion it is the role of the science teacher to teach science, the maths teacher to teach maths, but the English teacher has to 'inculcate the joy of reading into students'? How do you grade this inculcation exactly? How much more will you pay these great conductors of literary enthusiasm (often to an ungrateful and hostile crowd) over the other teachers whose only role is to teach? It is an unrealistic view of what teaching means but fairly common in those who have never taught.



Mainly, though, I think that English class should emphasize other forms of literature more, and novels less (for the reasons I enumerated in my first post). In addition, I think high school English classes are BETTER at teaching poetry -- they actually get quite a few students to understand poetry better and like it better. High school English rarely does this with novels. Those students who like to read ALREADY love novels -- they just get turned off by the English class approach to them.

Less novels? Do you know how many novels are on the mainstream English syllabus for GCSE English/English Literature? This is the standard two year English qualification that 99.9% of students take in the UK? How many novels do you think?

Answer: one

I hardly think that one novel (two at the very most in some cases) is excessive novel reading for a two year English course in which students will gain two qualifications: English and English Literature. I don't know what students have to read in other countries in the 14-16 age range, the US for example, but I can give a good guess that the figure is not massively more than that.

If you're talking post 16 then the structure is different, but the list you bought up is more akin to something studied in the 14-16 age range.

[LitNetIsGreat]

As orphan pip said Austen was hardly the first realist.

Also I think you do not get high school kids. I mean

"P & P (while not her best novel in my opinion) has the romantic, Cinderella story plot, which is why it's the most popular. Also, Darcy is so snooty, and Elizabeth so charming that high school kids would love them both, I'd bet. In addition, kids like humor, and Austen is very funny. "

that is just not the way this works. I mean your conception of the high school kid is as one dimensional as his conception of the average 40 year old...

Like I said, the last 50 years in schools have been about making it "fun" and interesting for the children. And that clearly just has not worked. I am more of a traditionalist. Italian Liceo have and German gymnasiums have a virtually unchanged sytsem since the 1950's - any Italian or German who has graduated from a liceo or gymnasium tends to think that his peer english student who has just finished his A levels, is a retard. An Italian student finished Liceo with a broad culture of art and history, and when he realizes how little education his fellow english boy received in his secondary school, it is no wonder that the Italian feels himself so superior to the perceived "idiot".

Honestly I believe, teach children hard stuff, classic stuff, dont care about weather they like it or not, the simple fact that what they are learning challenges them makes it interesting. Unlike schooling in england where children are bored out of their minds as it is so simple are targeted at the lowest common denominator.

rant over.


It's really annoying, actually. You should see some of the stuff my brother used to bring home. How condescending is it to have a non-academic Canadian teenage boy read seven short stories about hockey (and one novel about war, and that was his ENTIRE selection)? I mean really, that's just too glaringly obvious. You can tell what an administration thinks of you by what they force you to read, and apparently they think 16 year old non-academics are all boys and are all idiots who just like to watch hockey. Maybe they think all they're good for is being shot at too.

*edit* Alberta classes are broken up into "academic" groups and "non-academic" groups.

Both great examples of the dumbing down culture so evident in the UK (and US) system.

Did you know that in order to try and improve results some schools in the UK are now paying students (£100) to attend their own revision sessions for their own futures? This is called 'out of the box thinking' I believe, bribe students to attend their own revision sessions in order to try and scrape grade Cs - brilliant! (These are not available to good students who put the effort in of course, only those who don't give a damn about their own futures.)


At 16 in Liceo my cousin was studying The divine Comedy, learning to translate poetry from ancient greek and latin into Italian, and studying the philosophical works Kant.

These are all things which the average english or american student doesn't get to until university, and even then it is much more limited.

Jesus, we are so, so behind it's unreal.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm afraid I'm scratching my head a little here as I am with all of this post. I don't really know where to start. Your first point seems to be suggesting that there is no practical value in teaching literature at all, which is rather a broad assumption and brings the usual debates/defence of art, which I just don't want to dig up again. I can't be bothered to 'defend' the point of literature on a literature forum or anywhere else, so I'll just pass on that for now and leave my objection in the air.



This just sounds like something straight out of Dickens and I enjoyed it, but it shows a fossilized view of what the role of education should be in many respects. It also calls for a 'defence of literature' type response which I don't have the time or inclination for (as above).



I think this is close to fluffy world again. So in your opinion it is the role of the science teacher to teach science, the maths teacher to teach maths, but the English teacher has to 'inculcate the joy of reading into students'? How do you grade this inculcation exactly? How much more will you pay these great conductors of literary enthusiasm (often to an ungrateful and hostile crowd) over the other teachers whose only role is to teach? It is an unrealistic view of what teaching means but fairly common in those who have never taught.




Less novels? Do you know how many novels are on the mainstream English syllabus for GCSE English/English Literature? This is the standard two year English qualification that 99.9% of students take in the UK? How many novels do you think?

Answer: one

I hardly think that one novel (two at the very most in some cases) is excessive novel reading for a two year English course in which students will gain two qualifications: English and English Literature. I don't know what students have to read in other countries in the 14-16 age range, the US for example, but I can give a good guess that the figure is not massively more than that.

If you're talking post 16 then the structure is different, but the list you bought up is more akin to something studied in the 14-16 age range.

I didn't get around to responding to the post this one does, and after this I don't need to, because as The Comedian put it, it's spot on.

[BlackCat]

It seem many other countries are much more advanced than us (US) academically. It's the case also in many Asian countries in regard to mathematics and science.

[OrphanPip]

It seem many other countries are much more advanced than us (US) academically. It's the case also in many Asian countries in regard to mathematics and science.

Well the US (is only below the OECD average in math) does rank above Italy (below OECD average in all categories) in international testing of reading, math, and science skills.

Kant at 16 isn't exactly spectacular either. Wouldn't Americans in the 17-18 range take AP classes that cover that? In Quebec we would be in pre-university colleges at that age, when I was learning organic chemistry and linear algebra alongside philosophy classes covering Existentialism.

The ages students learn things shouldn't really be compared either, as some Scandinavian countries start and finish later, and they have (in comparison to test scores) the best education systems in the West.

[Ecurb]

I talked to an English teacher at a party last night. She told me that in her 11th grade English class concentrating on American Literature, she doesn't teach a single novel. So I guess my complaints are not valid. (Neely's post seems to confirm that, and my own high school career was some decades ago. I remember that in 11th grade English Lit we read (or, in my case, were supposed to read) "Moby Dick", "The Scarlett Letter", "The Great Gatsby" and probably two more novels that I've forgotten.

My acquaintance teaches in L.A., and more than half her students are English-as-a-second language students. She teaches shorter works that are easier for them.

As to the other complaints: Yes, Austen was continuing a "realistic" tradition that had already started, but I maintain she was a seminal figure in the development of the realistic novel. I exaggerated (although not by much) when I called her the "first realist". Northanger Abbey (her first novel) was a satire on gothic romances. It also WAS a gothic romance. General Tilney was almost as villainous as any Gothic villain.

Characters like Captain Benwick and Marianne Dashwood demonstrate the dangers of a romantic sensibility, but they also demonstrate the attractions of it. From Northanger Abbey:


Everything indeed relative to this important journey was done, on the part of the Morlands, with a degree of moderation and composure, which seemed rather consistent with the common feelings of common life, than with the refined susceptibilities, the tender emotions which the first separation of a heroine from her family ought always to excite.

I'll grant that previous authors had led the novel in the direction Austen chose to follow -- the direction "consistent with the common feelings of common life" -- but she was a seminal figure in moving it further in that direction.

For Neely and Mutas-Mutandi: Of course teaching the novel helps kids learn basic reading skills and literacy. So does teaching short stories, biographies, essays or any other English prose. So this particular value of teaching novels is irrelevant, because it would be basically duplicated by teaching whatever took their place. I do think novel reading improves one's speed as a reader (the books are so long, the reader has to learn how to whip through them).

I don't think it is "fluffy" to object to English classes turning students off to novels. Novels are designed as an entertainment, and I stand by my position that reading them as a duty rather than a pleasure is silly -- for adults at least. I'm sure some adults set themselves the arduous (for them) task of reading the Western Cannon novels, because they think they will be better educated once they have read them. However, if the task is "arduous", instead of fun, I think they would better spend their time reading philosophy, or history, or physics, or chemistry. I suppose someone might set himself the task of watching the cannonical TV shows. That's fine, if he likes them. But if he hates watching them, I think he's wasting time. I mean, it IS educational to learn about "I Love Lucy", "The Three Stooges", and "The Dick Van Dyke Show" -- just like it's eductional to learn about Gatsby, Ahab, and Hester Prynne. But since both TV and novels are designed as entertainments, (unlike a great many other academic subjects) if they aren't entertaining, you aren't learning much about their value.

[BlackCat]

I don't think it is "fluffy" to object to English classes turning students off to novels. Novels are designed as an entertainment, and I stand by my position that reading them as a duty rather than a pleasure is silly -- for adults at least. I'm sure some adults set themselves the arduous (for them) task of reading the Western Cannon novels, because they think they will be better educated once they have read them. However, if the task is "arduous", instead of fun, I think they would better spend their time reading philosophy, or history, or physics, or chemistry. I suppose someone might set himself the task of watching the cannonical TV shows. That's fine, if he likes them. But if he hates watching them, I think he's wasting time. I mean, it IS educational to learn about "I Love Lucy", "The Three Stooges", and "The Dick Van Dyke Show" -- just like it's eductional to learn about Gatsby, Ahab, and Hester Prynne. But since both TV and novels are designed as entertainments, (unlike a great many other academic subjects) if they aren't entertaining, you aren't learning much about their value.

We don't always teach students novels. In America unless you're in AP Lit, the teacher probably just teach you those short stories from the textbook, and if she/he feels like it, then maybe 1 novel (or play). You do have a point, novels were written for entertainment, but that does not mean we should only teach them if and only if students do enjoy them. People are different in their tastes, not all might like the same novel, but why conceal such exposure from those who might love it? I'd never know how great F. Scott Fitzgerald and the Great Gatsby if it wasn't for my teacher who introduces it. I'd never have the passion for literature I have today if my class did not introduce and expose me to such works. Granted that many works are boring (poems, plays, autobiography, historical works...), but the work of an educator is not to make it fun for the class but to expose the class to the diversity marketed in literature. After all isn't that's also the point of English classes beside teaching grammar and how to write essays? Isn't the point also to teach tolerance, to indoctrinate students with values and virtues through the act of teaching literature?

Also the works you searched on google, while it is true that they are taught widely, and that most of them are American, it also depends on the taste of the educator (if you're in AP class) and the taste of the government (both in AP and in CP classes). I know for sure the AP lit teacher I have next year will introduces me to great English works simply because she loves Austen.

[Ecurb]

I'd never know how great F. Scott Fitzgerald and the Great Gatsby if it wasn't for my teacher who introduces it. I'd never have the passion for literature I have today if my class did not introduce and expose me to such works. Granted that many works are boring (poems, plays, autobiography, historical works...), but the work of an educator is not to make it fun for the class but to expose the class to the diversity marketed in literature. After all isn't that's also the point of English classes beside teaching grammar and how to write essays? Isn't the point also to teach tolerance, to indoctrinate students with values and virtues through the act of teaching literature?

.

My experience was the opposite of yours. I loved novels. But Moby Dick and The Scarlet Letter bored me when I was 15 (like you, I liked Gatsby right from the start). So high school English class led me to think that a great many cannonical novels were boring. I disabused myself of that notion several years later, but some people may never bother to do so, which is sad.

And no, I don't think the point of either novels or English class is to "indoctrinate students with values and virtues...." My high school English classes led me to think (as you apparently do) that one key value of the cannonical novels their moral lessons -- so I found them preachy and dull.

[kensington]

My experience was the opposite of yours. I loved novels. But Moby Dick and The Scarlet Letter bored me when I was 15 (like you, I liked Gatsby right from the start). So high school English class led me to think that a great many cannonical novels were boring. I disabused myself of that notion several years later, but some people may never bother to do so, which is sad.

And no, I don't think the point of either novels or English class is to "indoctrinate students with values and virtues...." My high school English classes led me to think (as you apparently do) that one key value of the cannonical novels their moral lessons -- so I found them preachy and dull.


Most kids today reject anything that they suspect could teach them any virtues. Virtues are not cool. They see something negative in improving themselves. Kids' values are formed wrong from birth. They believe that they know it all, that they know better. They don't appreciate books because books were written by "older, stupid" people. They think the world is improving and that they will improve it by thinking for themselves.

The other thing is they can't think because they are saturated with mass entertainment. When I was a kid, I wasn't read to too much, some, but not a lot. But I didn't have other forms of entertainment. I was "deprived" in that area. All I had was my own imagination. We had some books in our house that no one read, and one was Alice in Wonderland. As a little girl, I used to look at that book with fascination and wonder what was between those covers. From age 4 or 5, I remember wishing that I could read that book myself and discover what was in it, and I imagined what might be in it, I created my own story. And I think I coveted that book and fantasized about it because my life was barren. And then, I remember when I started first grade and learned how to read, how exciting it was.

[Aylinn]

This is the standard two year English qualification that 99.9% of students take in the UK? How many novels do you think?

Answer: one

SERIOUSLY? Just one novel? Just one novel? :eek6:

It has been some time since I was in school. I'm form Poland, by the way. I didn't like that I was forced to read certain novels in which I had no interest whatsoever, but it introduced me to a lot of great books that I ended up liking. Sure, both Hemingway and Chekhov bored me to death, but there were books that moved me like The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. I quite liked works written by Sophocles - Oedipus the King, Antigone and Shakespeare's tragedy, Macbeth. I liked bad endings back then. :) And I loved The Master and Margarita, Crime and Punishment, Goethe's Faust (the first part) I liked Mephistopheles. (Surely, it has nothing to with my fascination with evil characters :devil:) And Greek and Roman mythology was also interesting, ok It is not a book, but there was one book (around 300 pages) that collected all the important myths and I had to read it when I was eleven, but it was quite interesting to learn how ancient Greeks imagined hell etc. I remember that the study of Greek and Roman mythology converted me into a Pagan for a while and I often imagined that I'm a Roman emperor who threw Christians to the lions. :devil: (I was pretty childish when I was eleven)

There were more books that I liked, but there is no point in listing them all.

With the benefit of hindsight, I think that the fact that I was forced to plough through some boring books was not that bad, especially since there were also books that I did like.

[kensington]

SERIOUSLY? Just one novel? Just one novel? :eek6:

It has been some time since I was in school. I'm form Poland, by the way. I didn't like that I was forced to read certain novels in which I had no interest whatsoever, but it introduced me to a lot of great books that I ended up liking. Sure, both Hemingway and Chekhov bored me to death, but there were books that moved me like The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. I quite liked works written by Sophocles - Oedipus the King, Antigone and Shakespeare's tragedy, Macbeth. I liked bad endings back then. :) And I loved The Master and Margarita, Crime and Punishment, Goethe's Faust (the first part) I liked Mephistopheles. (Surely, it has nothing to with my fascination with evil characters :devil:) And Greek's mythology was also interesting, ok It is not a book, but there was one book (around 300 pages) that collected all the important myths and I had to read it when I was eleven, but it was quite interesting to learn how ancient Greeks imagined hell etc. I remember that the study of Greek's mythology converted me into a Pagan for a while and I often imagined that I'm a Roman emperor who threw Christians to the lions. :devil: (I was pretty childish when I was eleven)

There were more books that I liked, but there is no point in listing them all.

With the benefit of hindsight, I think that the fact that I was forced to plough through some boring books was not that bad, especially since there were also books that I did like.

It is worth a try because there is probably one out of a thousand that will learn to love books after being forced to read them.

But I think for the most part, if children have an aversion to books, or think they can satisfy their need for thrills in a passive, easy way, through entertainment that is designed especially with them in mind, it's just a way for teachers to end up with ulcers.

[BlackCat]

My experience was the opposite of yours. I loved novels. But Moby Dick and The Scarlet Letter bored me when I was 15 (like you, I liked Gatsby right from the start). So high school English class led me to think that a great many cannonical novels were boring. I disabused myself of that notion several years later, but some people may never bother to do so, which is sad.

And no, I don't think the point of either novels or English class is to "indoctrinate students with values and virtues...." My high school English classes led me to think (as you apparently do) that one key value of the cannonical novels their moral lessons -- so I found them preachy and dull.

It makes almost no difference if you are bored by the story in class or out, fact was you were bored. But it is much better for you to be bored but exposed to the works than to be excited but ignorant of their existence.

[Ecurb]

It makes almost no difference if you are bored by the story in class or out, fact was you were bored. But it is much better for you to be bored but exposed to the works than to be excited but ignorant of their existence.

That's where I disagree. You could equally say, "I was bored to tears watching every single episode of "I Love Lucy", but it's better to be bored but exposed to classic TV shows than to be excited but ignorant of their existance." The GOAL of novels is not to educate, nor is it to inculcate values. It is to entertain -- specifically to elicit an emotional response.

[LitNetIsGreat]

For Neely and Mutas-Mutandi: Of course teaching the novel helps kids learn basic reading skills and literacy. So does teaching short stories, biographies, essays or any other English prose. So this particular value of teaching novels is irrelevant, because it would be basically duplicated by teaching whatever took their place. I do think novel reading improves one's speed as a reader (the books are so long, the reader has to learn how to whip through them).

I don't think it is "fluffy" to object to English classes turning students off to novels. Novels are designed as an entertainment, and I stand by my position that reading them as a duty rather than a pleasure is silly -- for adults at least

I don't think it is too taxing to expect literature students to read at least one novel over the course of two years, do you? We are talking about a basic literature qualification true, but it can hardly get more basic than that and I don't think it is pushing them too hard to read a short and easy novel like Of Mice and Men or something similar, we are not taking War and Peace here or Moby Dick.

The debate about what the purpose of a novel is or isn't is totally irrelevant in my view in this situation. They are being awarded a certificate in literature and therefore need to study literature of which the novel is an integral form. Students studying maths need, and deserve, to study what is integral to maths, as with science, as with every subject, I can't for the life of me see why literature should be treated any differently. This is the bottom line for me.

To take the novel out of a two year literature class because it might upset/bore students is a ridiculous suggestion, though no doubt that will creep in shortly. The texts that are being used are getting shorter and shorter each year and 'extracts' of texts are becoming more and more common, especially with Shakespeare where a scene from Romeo and Juliet can now be read instead of the full play - the rest can be substituted by watching the film version.

I think that you might be basing too much on your own experiences of having to plow through large texts one after the other. Mainstream 'literary' education is just not like this at all in most places.

[Ecurb]

As I said previously, Neely, I think one novel a year is about right, while the 5 or 6 a year I read in high school constituted an overemphasis on the novel, and a neglect of other forms of literature.

Based on what I've learned since starting this thread, that is no longer the case in American public high schools.

[kensington]

The word "bore" should be taken out of the vocabulary. It's so tiresome to hear about people being bored. Why do people have to have loads of excitement? There is something more interesting and satisfying than excitement.

In our society excitement is always the goal, and anything "boring" is so uncool, to be avoided like the plague.

The only time I'm bored is when I have to be around boring people, and those are the people who don't read "boring" books.

And for god's sake Ecurb, people should read more than one book a year! There's no such thing as overemphasis on the novel.

It's funny that you read those 5 or 6 books a year, and now you can read!

[Aylinn]

The GOAL of novels is not to educate, nor is it to inculcate values. It is to entertain -- specifically to elicit an emotional response.
Isn't the point of reading novels and other forms of writings, especially classical texts to avoid cultural and spiritual poverty? To avoid the sort of life Goethe spoke of "He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth."

[LitNetIsGreat]

The word "bore" should be taken out of the vocabulary. It's so tiresome to hear about people being bored. Why do people have to have loads of excitement? There is something more interesting and satisfying than excitement.

In our society excitement is always the goal, and anything "boring" is so uncool, to be avoided like the plague.

The only time I'm bored is when I have to be around boring people, and those are the people who don't read "boring" books.

And for god's sake Ecurb, people should read more than one book a year! There's no such thing as overemphasis on the novel.

It's funny that you read those 5 or 6 books a year, and now you can read!

I agree. This should absolutely be removed. I detest this attitude to life almost as much as I detest the 'oh isn't it good to be back at work after a holiday?' crowd, horrendous people.

[Drkshadow03]

As I said previously, Neely, I think one novel a year is about right, while the 5 or 6 a year I read in high school constituted an overemphasis on the novel, and a neglect of other forms of literature.

Based on what I've learned since starting this thread, that is no longer the case in American public high schools.

We read one novel during the year and usually had one assigned for summer reading when I was in high school, which is why I think a lot of us who are more recent graduates of the American school system are scratching our heads about why you're picking on the poor novel.



I agree. This should absolutely be removed. I detest this attitude to life almost as much as I detest the 'oh isn't it good to be back at work after a holiday?' crowd, horrendous people.

That's just what a boring person would say!

[BlackCat]

but most people read about 1 novel per year in America, unless you're in AP lit

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think we agree more than we disagree on things when it comes to teaching English, Ecurb. Everyone's experience is different, and I do think there should be more emphasis on poetry. 5 or 6 novels in a school year does seem too much; I'd prefer doing two; one "classic," and something more contemporary. I think 5 or 6 could be reasonable for a higher level class that may focus more on reading than writing.

[LitNetIsGreat]

That's just what a boring person would say!

Ha, I'm spending my Christmas reading chess books for about 9 hours a day. I know how to party!


but most people read about 1 novel per year in America, unless you're in AP lit

Ha, ha yes, you'd probably read more novels not studying lit.

I would also like to see the job interview where the prospective employer asks what novels they have been reading in literature (just one of those settling questions) where the reply is "none". I can see the blush. "Well, er, how about the year before?"

"None, but, but, we did watch a video. I like the bit where Romeo and Juliet meet through a fish tank".

From which point the employer wonders just how valuable the list of qualifications in front of him are...

[OrphanPip]

My secondary school French class involved more novels than my English class, probably to excess. But that probably had do with the ease of teaching prose to a second-language French class (advanced level though it may have been) over teaching poetry. In my final year of French in secondary school we did 3 novels, and my final year of English we did 1 novel.

In English class in secondary school we did A Separate Peace (American), The Chrysalids (British), Brave New World (British), Lord of the Flies (British).

In French class we did: Bonheur D'Occasion (Canadian), L'étranger (French), Le Rouge et le Noir (French), Une Vie (French), Les Trois Mousquetaire (French), and there was also a detective novel I've forgotten.

Apparently, from what I was able to find online the Quebec French curriculum requires that 50% of the text taught in the class be French Canadian, only one novel managed to make its way into my education though. Canlit tends to be taught primarily as poetry and short fiction in most Canadian schools for some reason.

[Ecurb]

When I was in high school I read hundreds of novels, but I can't really claim I always read the particular 5 or 6 I was assigned each year in school. I doubt I made it through most of them. Considering that I was a fast and accurate reader (from all those 100s, maybe 1000s of novels I'd read), and that I have a natural love for novels, I can't imagine that most other kids read them either. Surely everyone can agree that it's better to assign novels students read than novels the students don't read.

My tastes back then ran to Lord of the Rings, Kidnapped, The Count of Monte Cristo, The Jungle Books, Huckleberry Finn, Norse and Greek Mythology, the legends of King Arthur, and Lancelot, and Roland, and Ogier the Dane, King Solomon’s Diamond Mines, the Baseball Almanac, and My Family and Other Animals.

I will not concede that I had bad taste in literature – every one of those books is great. Like those tens of thousands of 7-year-olds who will eat nothing but Peanut Butter or Spaghetti, I had chosen well, but had yet to broaden my horizons and enjoy the more subtle pleasures of aged and rotten cheese or fermented grapes. I’m not suggesting that high schools should teach genre novels and adventure novels – I think they should introduce students to literary novels. But how about literary novels that are fun, romantic, or adventurous?

In addition, I think kids love non-fiction, especially adventurous and romantic non-fiction. Tales of exploration, Shackleton marooned with all his men, while the pack ice crushes “The Endurance”, “Dr. Livingstone, I presume”, The Diary of Anne Frank (which is often taught), The Perfect Storm, Touching the Void. Revive the notion that history is not a science, but a form of literature. That would be my vote. But I’m no expert, and if the teachers and educators on this board think these are bad ideas, I’m glad to listen to more expert opinions.

If youthful, uneducated pallettes prefer grape juice and roast beef to wine and pate de foie gross, we must tempt them with small sips before encouraging them to down an entire bottle.

[kensington]

When I was in high school I read hundreds of novels, but I can't really claim I always read the particular 5 or 6 I was assigned each year in school. I doubt I made it through most of them. Considering that I was a fast and accurate reader (from all those 100s, maybe 1000s of novels I'd read), and that I have a natural love for novels, I can't imagine that most other kids read them either. Surely everyone can agree that it's better to assign novels students read than novels the students don't read.

True, because you can't force anyone to read, especially when no punishment is allowed. Wealthy people can probably pay their kids enough to read. But there needs to be some realization that there's something worthwhile in the reading. On some level they need to value the literature, or it's pointless.

And it needs to start when kids are little with Alice and Wonderland. Actually before that with nursery rhymes.

[Ecurb]

Isn't the point of reading novels and other forms of writings, especially classical texts to avoid cultural and spiritual poverty? To avoid the sort of life Goethe spoke of "He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth."

No, it isn't.

Many cultures (including our own until about 300 years ago) don't even HAVE novels. Yet (I fancy) The Sioux Warrior, or the Chinese monk, or the Inca Prince avoided the clutches of "cultural and spiritual poverty" just as well as those of us who have read hundreds of novels. Let's not pat ourselves on the backs too hard -- people who have never read a novel can lead full, useful, and spiritually unimpoverished lives.

On the other hand, blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. So maybe spiritual poverty isn't so very bad, after all.

[kensington]

No, it isn't.

Many cultures (including our own until about 300 years ago) don't even HAVE novels. Yet (I fancy) The Sioux Warrior, or the Chinese monk, or the Inca Prince avoided the clutches of "cultural and spiritual poverty" just as well as those of us who have read hundreds of novels. Let's not pat ourselves on the backs too hard -- people who have never read a novel can lead full, useful, and spiritually unimpoverished lives.

On the other hand, blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. So maybe spiritual poverty isn't so very bad, after all.

These other people had oral traditions.

[Ecurb]

These other people had oral traditions.

Well, yes, if people have no language whatsoever I'm glad to call them "culturally impoverished". But I still don't buy Aylinn's notion ("Isn't the point of reading novels and other forms of writings, especially classical texts to avoid cultural and spiritual poverty?")

It seems so negative, as if reading novels were a painful duty. We labor all day in the coal mine to avoid economic poverty, and then read novels all night to avoid cultural and spiritual poverty? "I dig sixteen tons, and what do I get....." All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy! When does the labor cease, and the party begin?

(I'd say the party begins, among other places, with novel reading. Reading novels can be culturally and spiritually enriching, but failing to read them does not sink us into the despond of cultural and spiritual poverty.)

[BlackCat]

So you're opinion is that since we might be in danger of boring students with "Of Mice and Men" or "Scarlet Letter", we should avoid teaching them all together? But how do we make books appealing to such wide arrange of people? You suggests we teach more poems, essays... I don't know what country you lives in, but in the US teaching short stories, essays, and poems holds ascendance than teaching novels (like I said, unless you're in AP Lit or some advance placement classes). You keep on insisting novels must be about entertainment, but so is poetry, plays, and anything fiction, are designed to entertain and to express.

The problem of teaching something only enjoyable to students is that one book might not appeal to everybody. You suggest some works that might appeal to your vision of teenagers, but remember everyone each has a different taste. I mean I hate Twilight with a passion, and I know a handful of folks love it. Can you imagine they teach it because they think it might be enjoyable to students as well?

Yes, one part of teaching literature is that not everyone might like it, but it's like teaching music or art. In orchestra we are given one piece of music to play, doesn't matter you like it or not, but we all know playing it will benefits us in various ways. Isn't music also solely for he purpose of entertainment?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Isn't the point of reading novels and other forms of writings, especially classical texts to avoid cultural and spiritual poverty? To avoid the sort of life Goethe spoke of "He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth."


No, it isn't.

Many cultures (including our own until about 300 years ago) don't even HAVE novels. Yet (I fancy) The Sioux Warrior, or the Chinese monk, or the Inca Prince avoided the clutches of "cultural and spiritual poverty" just as well as those of us who have read hundreds of novels. Let's not pat ourselves on the backs too hard -- people who have never read a novel can lead full, useful, and spiritually unimpoverished lives.

On the other hand, blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. So maybe spiritual poverty isn't so very bad, after all.

You can't just say "No, it isn't." People are going to read novels for different reasons, and not everyone is going to have pleasure as their main goal, no matter what the supposed intention of the novel is.

[kensington]

Well, yes, if people have no language whatsoever I'm glad to call them "culturally impoverished". But I still don't buy Aylinn's notion ("Isn't the point of reading novels and other forms of writings, especially classical texts to avoid cultural and spiritual poverty?")

It seems so negative, as if reading novels were a painful duty. We labor all day in the coal mine to avoid economic poverty, and then read novels all night to avoid cultural and spiritual poverty? "I dig sixteen tons, and what do I get....." All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy! When does the labor cease, and the party begin?

(I'd say the party begins, among other places, with novel reading. Reading novels can be culturally and spiritually enriching, but failing to read them does not sink us into the despond of cultural and spiritual poverty.)

I think most people can learn to value literature. That's more important than finding it fun. If a person sees its value they will want to read it, or if they don't read it, they will want to find out about it from someone else who has read it.

Humans must have stories and myths. They must have it, either in writing or orally. You must have a society that reads. Not every person in a society needs to read to keep from cultural and spiritual poverty, because if they're around others who read, they will absorb the sentiments of it from those around them. If you have a society in which people don't read and are not part of an oral tradition, then society is going to crumble.

Without stories and myths, people can't make sense of their experiences and they will become mentally ill. And people need to share these in order to bond with each other.

And also, if you're working in a coal mine, you need something in your head besides a jingle from an advertisement.

[stlukesguild]

Jeez, Neely... I had no idea just how far the requirements in reading had fallen. Back when I was in high-school (which wasn't quite the Jurassic age) I took one course entitled The Novel which involved reading at least 20 novels over the course of the year: a minimum 4 each quarter as part of in-class discussion, and one each quarter as part of a small group report to the class. For each of the 4 novels read every quarter the teacher presented a brief synopsis of 4 to 6 novels within a similar genre or dealing with a similar theme and the class voted upon which books to read. The choice of the novel to be read in the small group was left up to the group with teacher OK. We read an array of novels from classics, modern "classics" to science fiction, to fantasy, etc... I remember reading The Count of Monte Cristo, The Man in the Iron Mask, Dune, 1984, Animal Farm, Of Mice and Men, As I lay Dying, Clockwork Orange, Stranger in a Strange Land, Watership Down, A Spell for Chameleon, To Your Scattered Bodies Go, Cannery Row, The Scarlet Letter, The Lord of the Flies, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Oliver Twist, A Tale of Two Cities, The Hobbit, The Fellowship of the Ring, etc... This class was considered less "reading intensive" than the Brit Lit course I took the next year or the Mythology course I took at the same time which involved reading The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Metamorphoses, Oedipus Rex, Marlowe's Dr. Faustus, the entire Lord of the Rings and a pretty sizable textbook laden with tales from various mythologies from Greece, Rome, India, Egypt, Northern Europe, Asia, and the Americas.

Now granted I may be somewhat of an exception with regard to reading, but I found that rather than put me off reading, my experience in school rekindled my passion for reading which had waned for some years. I remember engaging in heated discussions over Heinlein, Tolkein, Xanth, Dumas, etc... and looked forward to meeting after school with my small reading group to discuss our novel of choice.

If I have any agreement with some of the comments raised, I do agree that my own reading experience promoted the novel and short story to the exclusion of classic non-fiction and poetry. It was not until I began to read more upon my own that I developed a love for language that led to a greater understanding and eventual passion for poetry... and a grasp of the idea that non-fiction... the essay... could be just as profoundly creative a reading experience as the novel. Poetry is something embraced in the earlier years if one thinks of Dr. Seuss and all the rhyming children's books... but it was sadly abandoned later... and unfortunately for many teens pop music lyrics were their only real link to poetry... something we even come across here on a frequent basis.

[kensington]

I was cheated. I knew I should have been born earlier in history.

[LitNetIsGreat]

When I was in high school I read hundreds of novels, but I can't really claim I always read the particular 5 or 6 I was assigned each year in school. I doubt I made it through most of them. Considering that I was a fast and accurate reader (from all those 100s, maybe 1000s of novels I'd read), and that I have a natural love for novels, I can't imagine that most other kids read them either. Surely everyone can agree that it's better to assign novels students read than novels the students don't read.

My tastes back then ran to Lord of the Rings, Kidnapped, The Count of Monte Cristo, The Jungle Books, Huckleberry Finn, Norse and Greek Mythology, the legends of King Arthur, and Lancelot, and Roland, and Ogier the Dane, King Solomon’s Diamond Mines, the Baseball Almanac, and My Family and Other Animals.

I will not concede that I had bad taste in literature – every one of those books is great. Like those tens of thousands of 7-year-olds who will eat nothing but Peanut Butter or Spaghetti, I had chosen well, but had yet to broaden my horizons and enjoy the more subtle pleasures of aged and rotten cheese or fermented grapes. I’m not suggesting that high schools should teach genre novels and adventure novels – I think they should introduce students to literary novels. But how about literary novels that are fun, romantic, or adventurous?

In addition, I think kids love non-fiction, especially adventurous and romantic non-fiction. Tales of exploration, Shackleton marooned with all his men, while the pack ice crushes “The Endurance”, “Dr. Livingstone, I presume”, The Diary of Anne Frank (which is often taught), The Perfect Storm, Touching the Void. Revive the notion that history is not a science, but a form of literature. That would be my vote. But I’m no expert, and if the teachers and educators on this board think these are bad ideas, I’m glad to listen to more expert opinions.

If youthful, uneducated pallettes prefer grape juice and roast beef to wine and pate de foie gross, we must tempt them with small sips before encouraging them to down an entire bottle.

Any of those things sound great, any reading, anything! When I see a student with a book (one of those freaky 1-3% of students) I think 'oh my god there is a student with a book, Jesus Christ brilliant, praise the lord'. For the remaining 97% (of the hundreds of students I work with) do not read anything, nothing, zil (aside from text messages/emails etc). This is the norm. Again the image of school forcing students to read piles of lengthy classics while the teacher preaches symbolism is just not accurate.

The required reading for GCSE English and English Literature (two year course, 14-16, two qualifications) in the school I teach in is:

* Of Mice and Men
* An Inspector Calls
* Extracts from Romeo and Juliet
* Some poetry (two poems in the first year) a few more in the second

All of these texts are read to the students in class and nothing is required outside of that. On top of this students have to do a range non-fiction extracts for the exam and a spoken language study looking at the impact of text messages. They also have three 5 minute oral tests to do, individual or in groups.

My point, which I hope I am making clear, is that students are not forced to read anything actually at all, as they can just listen or follow the reading, but certainly your image of bad teachers putting students off of reading by forcing them to read Moby Dick, War and Peace, Anna Karenina or similar lengthy texts is so far from reality (in mainstream UK schools, possibly same in the US etc) it is unreal, it is a different planet.

Personally, as a student of the above style of education myself, as a student well and truly let down by the system, I certainly echo Kensington's "I was cheated" comment, more than that I am outraged by it - or was, it's all history now. I left school with a very poor standard of education (average education that is) and having hardly read anything (normal). It was only by chance really that I stumbled into reading when I was 17 having found a copy of Lord of the Rings in a cardboard box my dad was throwing out. From there I read hundreds of books, probably a couple of thousand and self-taught myself A-Level English/English literature and the things I should have been given in a normal schooling, before enrolling on a degree programme in my mid-twenties.

As a parent, I ensured that we had plenty of kids books in the house and as a result, both my kids were hooked on reading from a young age. This is not difficult as I find that most children are naturally attracted to reading, even from under the age of 1, even if it is just looking at the pictures, feeling the soft covers etc and it doesn't take a genius to see the benefits of this. Both my kids are years ahead, literally, of everyone else in their class. My nine year old has a standard of reading and writing that is equal or greater than a typical 13/14 year old and my six year old is equally ahead by standard. I don't say this to boast, they're bright but just typical children, merely my point is the difference is that they have been given books from a young age and the results are plainly obvious, as do those 1-3% of freaky students at school, as they are also streets ahead.

In terms of what to give them. I am all for giving students/children a free reign as this is what I do with my own kids. I get them books and allow them to choose whatever they want. My nine year old is currently reading A Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night, a text which was too hard for a set two English GCSE group incidentally, which she saw and wanted (I've read it too, it's a fun book). I think this is all fine up to the point of more serious study, which should start with GCSE. Here the real world practicalities of teaching set texts and exams, not to mention some form of literary heritage, has to take over in some way. This goes back to my earlier points about being awarded a certificate in literature and actually studying literature.

[JuniperWoolf]

From what I've seen in this thread, it looks like Canadian schools aren't doing too bad. Like I said, in Alberta we're clumped into the "academic" and "non-academic" groups, and the non-academics are also called "diploma students." They're those who have absolutely no intention of going into university, and the classes are very soft (which I don't have a problem with - it's the obvious stereotyping in the reading selection which gets to me). We didn't have AP classes. The academic courses aren't bad, and our teacher was damn good. Over the span of three years our readings included:

-Lord of the Flies (of course)
-To Kill a Mockingbird (of course)
-The Grapes of Wrath
-Some war novel, it wasn't A Farewell to Arms now that I think of it. It was some non-fiction prose. I remember it being about WWI, because they used the ol' "urinate on the bandana and hold it over your mouth and nose to avoid being killed by poisonous gas" trick.
-Wuthering Heights
-The Chrysalids (sucked)
-Of Mice and Men
-Night
-Animal Farm
-Romeo and Juliet (which we read aloud - I was the Prince of Cats, the Courageous Captain of Compliments)
-Macbeth (I was one of the three witches)
-Hamlet (and I was Hamlet's mom)
-A Doll's House
-The Glass Menagerie
-Death of a Salesman
-dozens of poems, we dedicated about three weeks out of each semester to poetry.
-dozens of short stories to which we dedicated about two weeks, focusing on one story per day, although the only ones that I can remember are The Lottery, The Destructors and The Yellow Wallpaper.
-Probably about six boring essays

So that's not bad and I know I've forgotten a few (which has been seriously bothering me all morning). There's not just novels at least - we read plays extensively because they were Mrs. Wright's favorite, as well as poetry, essays and short stories. We did films and music too, and although I usually skipped film days I remember watching Amadeus and Pleasantville.

Oh yeah, also, the fantastic thing about making kids read Shakespeare out loud is that they don't want to look stupid by stumbling over their lines in front of the entire class so they read and re-read their lines several times beforehand. Most people in my year were very familiar with which scenes we were doing before class began, and those who didn't practice beforehand were easy to spot. Shakespearean English is a bit of a mouthfull if you're not prepared, and the ones who annoyed everyone else with their stuttering and slowness were very much scoffed at. Social pressure is a great motivator.

[Aylinn]

Ecurb we have definitely different attitude towards reading books. Basically, in Poland the primary goal of reading in high school is not to entertain students, who are almost adults. If students are entertained by the classical tragedies, poems of Ovid, Virgil, and Horace etc., or the novels, then that's good for them, but the point is to make them acquainted with cultural heritage, with the works that once influenced or still influence the culture they live in, to expand their horizons and to avoid cultural and spiritual poverty.

Besides, if students are exposed to a variety of books, then the greater chance that more students will start reading. One person will not find every book interesting, but the greater variety to choose from (of course there shouldn't be too many books), the greater chance that students find something for themselves. For example: student A will find books A,B,C, and D interesting. Student B may find books C, D, and E interesting. Student C may find F, G, and H interesting etc.

Pupils in primary school read books to be entertained, books like: Harry Potter, the Hobbit, and The Adventures of Pinocchio etc., but once they enter the higher level of education, entertainment is not the main goal.


I think most people can learn to value literature. That's more important than finding it fun. If a person sees its value they will want to read it, or if they don't read it, they will want to find out about it from someone else who has read it.
That's true. I have met 10 or 15 years older than me people who said similar things. They didn't like to read in high school, but after many years, they started to value literature. Some reread the books that they had found to be boring in their high school years.

[Alexander III]

Well the US (is only below the OECD average in math) does rank above Italy (below OECD average in all categories) in international testing of reading, math, and science skills.

Kant at 16 isn't exactly spectacular either. Wouldn't Americans in the 17-18 range take AP classes that cover that? In Quebec we would be in pre-university colleges at that age, when I was learning organic chemistry and linear algebra alongside philosophy classes covering Existentialism.

The ages students learn things shouldn't really be compared either, as some Scandinavian countries start and finish later, and they have (in comparison to test scores) the best education systems in the West.

At the beginning of the 20th century when America was experiencing an huge influx of immigration, they decided to carry out intelligence tests on all immigrants to identify which were the smartest races.

The results where that the Irish were of similar intellect to the Americans, and that the Italians and the Jews were the stupidest of races. Naturally all intelligence tests were written in english.

It took them a while to realize that it was not in fact true that the Italians and Jews were stupider, it was simply that most of them did not speak english and thus failed at tests which were given in english.

I am talking about the U.S.A, when I say America by the way.

But nonetheless, statistics can be warped to fit anything much like religious books can be warped to support anything. Everyday a sucker is born after all.

As to the nordic's being the most well-educated of europe, I can't vouch for all of them but the ones at my university, are rather slow compared to the french Italians, Germans and English.

But then again I wont make assumptions on entire countries based off of 12 Swedish guys from university.



I was cheated. I knew I should have been born earlier in history.

http://www.gutenberg.org/

That link is a adequate compendium of the last 3000 years of human literature, available in the comfort of your home and at the whim of your finger.

I say you have it far better than all of the generations before you, when it comes to culture.

And I don't need to mention the availability of music and art on the internet which at any other point of human history would have been inaccessible to you unless you were amongst the 30% elite of the wester population and even then available in rather restrained amounts, and none of it from the comfort of your home at the whim of your finger.

[B. Laumness]

I wouldn’t care too much if students don’t read novels between 15 and 18. I myself didn’t read any at lycée, except Dorian Gray. I read many novels between 11 and 15: Verne, Dumas, Maupassant, Zola, Stendhal, Balzac, Hugo… But afterwards I began to love poetry, I read only poets, then philosophers in my final year at lycée. Novels would have been boring. And I had no time to read long texts, no time to learn my lessons either. At this age, I wanted to live… But I loved my literature class, listening to the teacher who was giving relevant explanations upon extracts. These were not grammatical considerations: at lycée, we were supposed to know well the French language. So, he often spent two or three hours on a single passage. The goal was to teach us how to make a solid commentary, to explain how form and meaning are associated, to become careful readers, to improve our understanding and critical thinking; and it's better to work all that with extracts, not with entire books. Reading for the sake of reading or just for the story was not the goal at all. As a teacher, I was planning to study one book a month. I had no illusion: I knew that many students did not read the works; or, if they read them, it was because they were studious, but they did not really enjoy them. I also saw that, at lycée, many could not write nor read well French… How could they appreciate great poets if their understanding of the language is bad? But I was pleased to learn that some students, after having worked in class on extracts of a book they had to read, after the exams, eventually started to read it.

[kensington]

http://www.gutenberg.org/

That link is a adequate compendium of the last 3000 years of human literature, available in the comfort of your home and at the whim of your finger.

I say you have it far better than all of the generations before you, when it comes to culture.

And I don't need to mention the availability of music and art on the internet which at any other point of human history would have been inaccessible to you unless you were amongst the 30% elite of the wester population and even then available in rather restrained amounts, and none of it from the comfort of your home at the whim of your finger.


As I grew up it was said that idle hands are the devil's playground. My hands were in dish water a lot. If there was no more work for me to do, my mother would say that I hadn't washed the dishes properly, and I'd have to wash them again.

I also didn't really go to high school, so I'm not sure what they taught. My mother didn't like what was going on there, and she didn't like the fact that I cut classes, so she withdrew me for many months at a time.

The voices were very bad as I grew up, so it disrupted my mental functioning making it difficult for me to concentrate. If you've not lived with those angry voices and sounds, then you don't know the affect it has on a mind.

And I wasn't allowed to have music, or certainly not any of my choice.

This problem has followed me right into adulthood, as I've had trouble shaking it.

My mother was recently silenced however, so I plan to make up for lost time now. :)

And I have the comfort of my own home now... ahhhh.

[cafolini]

I am somewhat amazed by the question of this thread in terms of relevancy. This is an age where literature has proliferated to the Nth power, with a lot more diversity than ever before and far more quality than ever before. What are the hidden agendas in this question? I think they spring from prejudices. I see so much more relevancy than ever before, in all fields, and what's to come is indeed even more relevant.

[B. Laumness]

http://www.gutenberg.org/

That link is a adequate compendium of the last 3000 years of human literature, available in the comfort of your home and at the whim of your finger.

I say you have it far better than all of the generations before you, when it comes to culture.

And I don't need to mention the availability of music and art on the internet which at any other point of human history would have been inaccessible to you unless you were amongst the 30% elite of the wester population and even then available in rather restrained amounts, and none of it from the comfort of your home at the whim of your finger.

Even though all the treasures are available, do the people enjoy them? How many people prefer reading to mass entertainments? And among the readers, who likes the classics? Very few.


I am somewhat amazed by the question of this thread in terms of relevancy. This is an age where literature has proliferated to the Nth power, with a lot more diversity than ever before and far more quality than ever before. What are the hidden agendas in this question? I think they spring from prejudices. I see so much more relevancy than ever before, in all fields, and what's to come is indeed even more relevant.

Tell us more please. Who are the great contemporary writers as relevant as Shakespeare?

[OrphanPip]

At the beginning of the 20th century when America was experiencing an huge influx of immigration, they decided to carry out intelligence tests on all immigrants to identify which were the smartest races.

The results where that the Irish were of similar intellect to the Americans, and that the Italians and the Jews were the stupidest of races. Naturally all intelligence tests were written in english.

It took them a while to realize that it was not in fact true that the Italians and Jews were stupider, it was simply that most of them did not speak english and thus failed at tests which were given in english.

I am talking about the U.S.A, when I say America by the way.

But nonetheless, statistics can be warped to fit anything much like religious books can be warped to support anything. Everyday a sucker is born after all.

As to the nordic's being the most well-educated of europe, I can't vouch for all of them but the ones at my university, are rather slow compared to the french Italians, Germans and English.

But then again I wont make assumptions on entire countries based off of 12 Swedish guys from university.



PISA has pretty sound methodology for comparing countries. Perhaps reading skill testing can be questioned, but it's hard to argue that Italians doing worse on a math test is a result of some hidden bias in the methodology. And why would the Finish, Norwegians, South Koreans, Japanese and Canadians do better, when they mostly have different cultures and languages.

[kensington]

And why would the Finish, Norwegians, South Koreans, Japanese and Canadians do better, when they mostly have different cultures and languages.

These people must be doing something different in terms of early childhood development.

[JuniperWoolf]

At the beginning of the 20th century when America was experiencing an huge influx of immigration, they decided to carry out intelligence tests on all immigrants to identify which were the smartest races.

The results where that the Irish were of similar intellect to the Americans, and that the Italians and the Jews were the stupidest of races. Naturally all intelligence tests were written in english.

It took them a while to realize that it was not in fact true that the Italians and Jews were stupider, it was simply that most of them did not speak english and thus failed at tests which were given in english.

I am talking about the U.S.A, when I say America by the way.

Yeah, but that was a huge mistake that happened a long time ago to test immigrants to see if they were "good enough" to be Americans. It was an immigration test and not a large-scale grade comparison. Also, that happened way before there was an international system in place to determine cross-country education quality, nowadays Italians are tested in Italy and the tests are written in Italian, Chinese are tested in China and the tests are written in Chinese, &c.

[kiki1982]

Any of those things sound great, any reading, anything! When I see a student with a book (one of those freaky 1-3% of students) I think 'oh my god there is a student with a book, Jesus Christ brilliant, praise the lord'. For the remaining 97% (of the hundreds of students I work with) do not read anything, nothing, zil (aside from text messages/emails etc). This is the norm. Again the image of school forcing students to read piles of lengthy classics while the teacher preaches symbolism is just not accurate.

The required reading for GCSE English and English Literature (two year course, 14-16, two qualifications) in the school I teach in is:

* Of Mice and Men
* An Inspector Calls
* Extracts from Romeo and Juliet
* Some poetry (two poems in the first year) a few more in the second

All of these texts are read to the students in class and nothing is required outside of that. On top of this students have to do a range non-fiction extracts for the exam and a spoken language study looking at the impact of text messages. They also have three 5 minute oral tests to do, individual or in groups.

My point, which I hope I am making clear, is that students are not forced to read anything actually at all, as they can just listen or follow the reading, but certainly your image of bad teachers putting students off of reading by forcing them to read Moby Dick, War and Peace, Anna Karenina or similar lengthy texts is so far from reality (in mainstream UK schools, possibly same in the US etc) it is unreal, it is a different planet.

It doesn't seem that Belgian schools are doing too bad either, actually...

But, pray, what do they then actually do in class? Surely those two years can't be all taken up by those four measly things to read? Then they either turn everything over and up-side down for weeks on end or they do stuff in between. In the former case that would be enough to repell half the class from ever reading again, in the latter it would be a waste of time.

From about 13 we were supposed to read two books per year (afterwards maybe three) in Dutch (MT), from age 15 first one book in French, afterwards two per year, ages 17-18 two in English (I think) per year as well and we finished our German course in the last year of secondary school with one book in that language (negligeable though).

This was all outside of class though. Age 17 we covered Dutch poetry through excerpts, age 18 we covered the whole of lit history, from the Greeks (Antigone to magic realism etc. also through excerpts. At 16 we got story analysis (symbols, themes, motives, figures of speech, kinds of stories [legends, sagas,...] etc. and practiced through short stories). That was drawn upon in the later years. Before that everything was really a little centred on grammar and spelling. We did do historical novels at 13 which didn't interest me because I always found a detail which wasn't right historically.:D

However, we did do good analysis in the later years, but the booklist of the French was always lacking. No Dumas, no Hugo, no Zola, no Molière, no nothing of that sort. To this day I have been wondering at that. It almost killed any effort for me in that language. Had they made me aware of Dumas at that age, there would have been no stopping me.
The German teacher was kind of saddled with a group which didn't do extremely well at German apart from my friend and I who used to correct our classmates' homework. I didn't even study for my exam really, and still got the best mark. So I just didn't read the book she assigned and started on Goethe's Werther instead. She didn't even blame me for it. But, we did do Die Lorelei in class and did something about Böll and Grass.

I don't know if it is wise to subject kids in school to too big classics (in size). I was always a very slow reader and I used to determine the amount of days I had to read that book in and then work out how many pages a day I had to read in order to be ready in time. The fact that I was a very slow reader got me into real trouble in uni. I could just not keep up (ten books in one academic year, excluding course books double that size, I think). But I do think that there are enough short things to find so that you can have a good reading list. A play is never that long because otherwise it can't be put on stage. Poetry isn't that long either. That you don't assign War and Peace, fine, and not Crime and Punishment either, but why not something shorter? Pushkin for example, or Turgeniev, or even something shorter by Dostoevsky. That you do not assign Kafka's The Castle, also fine, but then do one of his short stories (not the Metamorphosis if you want to be original).

I think the problem is that they spend too long digging everything out of something. In the words of Blackadder kicking Shakespeare in his Christmas special from the late 90s, 'This is for all those school boys in centuries to come having to find a joke in Much Ado about Nothing.' The art of reading will not be learned by doing one thing, but showing the same thing (theme, motif, symbol, etc.) in a range of different shapes so you can recognise it when you are reading on your own. That is satisfaction. Therefore I am so grateful that I got that theory first at 16. It took about 2 years to master the art of discerning the concept 'theme'. It finally clicked when I was doing my oral English exam in the very last year of secondary school while I was putting something together on The Picture of Dorian Gray: I said it was about 'idleness' thinking that idle meant the same as vain because in Dutch it sounds the same :rolleyes:. My teacher smiled. Though the 'theme' was quite naïve and cut out any Faust as well as used the wrong word, I think my teacher was quite satisfied.

Reading is important as it enlarges your vocab, teaches you how to write and it makes you think in a more general way. A book/novel is not about that figure there, it is about humanity and therefore people should be taught reading in school. It is a major problem that people are no longer reading because it makes them unaware of humanity itself, so to say. Societal make-up may have changed, but man has not, how he relates to people, how he deals with anguish, what makes him sad or happy, his need for love,.. Thus I don't think non-fiction should have a place in lit class as it can only reach the level of informing people on fiction in a pleasant and well-written way. Nothing more. Lit has a higher purpose.

I know Wilde said art for art's sake, but he can't deny that even he had a message.

[Emil Miller]

Some interesting points of view expressed in this thread but this guy has the drop on everyone:

“One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.”
George W. Bush .

Nobody says it like George.

[BlackCat]

I am somewhat amazed by the question of this thread in terms of relevancy. This is an age where literature has proliferated to the Nth power, with a lot more diversity than ever before and far more quality than ever before. What are the hidden agendas in this question? I think they spring from prejudices. I see so much more relevancy than ever before, in all fields, and what's to come is indeed even more relevant.

Most literature these days are subjected to commercial reasons (not that it wasn't that way before, just happens more frequently), therefore it is hard to find literature these days that could be as relevant.

There is indeed diversity, but diversity does not define beauty, nor does it prove that literature this day and age is better, it just prove that there is a better ground for the seed to germinate. Whether or not the seed will be sowed, or if there are even seeds is another question.

No sir, what agendas could possibly be? This is a question on bring literature to people who might ask the question: "what relevancy is literature?". This is a real question I've heard replayed over and over again at times, especially by youth. There is no prejudice, nor any mean sentiments involved, just a question of a book lover to other book lovers about the Gospel of Literature.

[cafolini]

Regarding beauty, you must admit that beautiful women are a big part of it. Have you even seen a bigger number of beautiful women than there are today?
Also relevancy and quality are established by what sells. There is no other way to measure it except through cultural prejudices. That's stupid, a mongering proposition, elitist and absolutely innappropriate.

[BlackCat]

Regarding beauty, you must admit that beautiful women are a big part of it. Have you even seen a bigger number of beautiful women than there are today?
Also relevancy and quality are established by what sells. There is no other way to measure it except through cultural prejudices. That's stupid, a mongering proposition, elitist and absolutely innappropriate.

There are 2 problems with your arguments:
_ Beauty is subjective, people viewed beauty differently than we are now. I can only concur that there are beautiful women in my life time, but I can't assure there are more beautiful women in my life time than my grandfather life time, or that of Alexander the Great.
_ Women are not made of paper, nor created our of imagination or will. A woman is created through biological processes, her beauty is either endowed or aided by make ups, regardless she is still intrinsically beautiful. Literature on the other hand is not the same as biology, it can either evolve or devolve.

Also I never suggested that relevancy and quality is established through sells. I suggest for the sake of clarity you should always read carefully your opponent arguments. I argued that it is hard for today because the most of our writers write commercially, and it's hard to find people still write for the purpose of beauty. The argument is nicely laid out in an essay called "We need a revolution in literature" in the general writing section.

That being said I see that you make many ad hominem arguments toward your opponents, and your points are often incoherent and badly glued, I sincerely hope better coming from you.

:coolgleamA:

[LitNetIsGreat]

But, pray, what do they then actually do in class? Surely those two years can't be all taken up by those four measly things to read? Then they either turn everything over and up-side down for weeks on end or they do stuff in between. In the former case that would be enough to repell half the class from ever reading again, in the latter it would be a waste of time.

Neither of those things really. The first year is taken up with trying to grind out 5 essays, the second is mainly English exam preparation, then literature exam preparation. The texts that are read are quickly whipped through so that more time is available to get the essays in. Any analysis goes no deeper than basic plot or character, not even both, only what fits each essay question and a tiny bit of social context say. It can take anywhere up to 10 hours to get a typical student to finish a 550 word essay, which is in most cases completely structured for them, some parts they just have to copy large segments - this is the level I'm working with a lot of the time which is quite a normal standard, middle or top group material, I don't work with bottom sets.

Often I end up dictating to 7 or 8 students at the same time what to put next because many of them just don't have a clue, despite it being more than adequately covered, as we are all under pressure to 'get the essays in'. This is a bad habit as it doesn't help students to think for themselves, but so many students are so completely reliant that they can't form a sentence without such dictation. A typical conversation might go as follows:


Student A: Sir, I don't know what to put.
Neely: What does it say on your sheet?
Student A: What sheet?
Neely: The one where it tells you what to put next.
Student A: Which sheet? I never had a sheet?
Neely: Yes you did, you was working with it yesterday.
Student A: I never had a sheet.
Neely: Look in your folder. Go on, open your folder and see if you can find it.

Neely leaves it 5 minutes to check on students B-G with similar issues

Neely: Have you found your sheet?

Student A has not opened his folder

Neely: Why haven't you opened your folder to look for your sheet?
Student A: I can't find my sheet, I've never had a sheet.
Neely: Yes you have.

Neely takes out his sheet from his folder within 2 seconds

Neely: This one.
Student A: Oh.

Student A looks at it blankly

Neely: Here, have a look, what does it say you have to cover next?
Student A: I don't know. I don't know what I have done already.
Neely: Well have a look over your work and see where you are. I think you were up to the bit on chapter 2 where George and Lennie go to the ranch. [There are no chapters in the original Of Mice and Men but we have to have the edition with chapters to make it easier for the students to follow.]

Neely leaves student A because by this time there are four or five students shouting that they don't know what to do and one of them is hiding under the table. Neely deals with this and then comes back to student A five/ten minutes later.

Neely: Have you found where you are up to?
Student A: No, I am stuck.
Neely: But you haven't even looked in your book.

Student A looks puzzled. Neely picks up student A's book

Neely: (In a paitent and encouraging tone) Look you are at the part where George and Lennie turn up at the ranch, remember?

Student A: Oh yes, the bit where Lennie says "like a bull"
Neely: (Excitedly) yes, yes, that's it, well done. Now what does it say on your sheet, let's look together?

Neely knows full well what it says on the sheet as the whole thing has been memorised due to 4 weeks of the same thing with different students, besides, Neely wrote the sheet! The sheet covers every point the student has to make and even shows students which page to find a quote on, although many quotes are already given on the sheet.

Neely: It says you need to write something about how Lennie is uncomfortable in new social situations and relies on George for help. Social situations means new places.

Student A: I don't get it.

Neely: Well, let's look at the what it says to put next. "Lennie is uncomfortable in new social situations for example...(find a quote from page 22". Copy that sentence down and fill in the blank. Remember what you said earlier, you can even remember the quote.

Student A: So do I put "Lennie is uncomfortable in new social situations like a bull"?

Neely: No, that's your quote. Put something like "Lennie is uncomfortable in new social situations, for example in the meeting with the boss at the ranch" and then put your quote in later.

Student A: OK.

Student A starts writing. Neely is pulled in another direction and returns after sorting out similar situations, as well as chasing off a student who has wandered into the class throwing things and/or swearing etc.

10 minutes pass and Neely comes back to check on student A

Neely: So how have you got on?

Student A: I've put that line in, but I don't know how to put quotes in.

Neely spends 5 minutes with student A showing him how to use quotations, as he did last lesson, before continuing with the fiasco until the bell goes (or more accurately, he gets them to pack up 5 minutes before the bell as it takes this long to get them to put their books in their folders and hand back the borrowed pens...etc, etc).

After doing a survey of their books, Neely finds that one student has managed a full page in the 100 minute lesson! Two have wrote about 150 words each, not bad at all, two/three have wrote about a 50 word paragraph, two have done nothing and one student is still hid under the table! About an average effort. There is another session tomorrow of exactly the same thing.


Sorry to go on, but this is free therapy! It hopefully also highlights the sort of standards I am trying to express here and in my previous points. Sure, not all things are this bad, but I'm not exaggerating either; the lack of general understanding, reading and writing ability is shocking.

I don't blame the individual student, just somewhere, something has gone seriously wrong, that much is obvious.

The second year exam preparation is a bind too. Here we end up having to cover basic literacy. Many students need reminding about full-stops and capital letters and things of that nature so there is never enough time to cover everything, let alone symbolism in War and Peace or allegory in Moby Dick.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Jeez, Neely... I had no idea just how far the requirements in reading had fallen. Back when I was in high-school (which wasn't quite the Jurassic age) I took one course entitled The Novel which involved reading at least 20 novels over the course of the year: a minimum 4 each quarter as part of in-class discussion, and one each quarter as part of a small group report to the class. For each of the 4 novels read every quarter the teacher presented a brief synopsis of 4 to 6 novels within a similar genre or dealing with a similar theme and the class voted upon which books to read. The choice of the novel to be read in the small group was left up to the group with teacher OK. We read an array of novels from classics, modern "classics" to science fiction, to fantasy, etc... I remember reading The Count of Monte Cristo, The Man in the Iron Mask, Dune, 1984, Animal Farm, Of Mice and Men, As I lay Dying, Clockwork Orange, Stranger in a Strange Land, Watership Down, A Spell for Chameleon, To Your Scattered Bodies Go, Cannery Row, The Scarlet Letter, The Lord of the Flies, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Oliver Twist, A Tale of Two Cities, The Hobbit, The Fellowship of the Ring, etc... This class was considered less "reading intensive" than the Brit Lit course I took the next year or the Mythology course I took at the same time which involved reading The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Metamorphoses, Oedipus Rex, Marlowe's Dr. Faustus, the entire Lord of the Rings and a pretty sizable textbook laden with tales from various mythologies from Greece, Rome, India, Egypt, Northern Europe, Asia, and the Americas.

I want to take those classes now. :nod:

[Aylinn]

I don't blame the individual student, just somewhere, something has gone seriously wrong, that much is obvious.
From what I gather form your post, the overemphasis on writing essays and horrendous underemphasis on reading is the problem.

When I was in high school my teacher often said that we (the people in my class) should read a lot of books to become better writers. It's a common belief in Poland, supported by famous quote by one of the Polish writers, that reading a lot improves writing skills. Bad writers are often advised to read, read, read, and then they can try writing again.

I will compare read/writing to a building. Children are on the first floor, writing is the second floor and reading is like a staircase. It seems to me that children in Britain are asked to get on the second floor, but since most of them read very little, they are in a building either without any staircase or the staircase is only half done.

[LitNetIsGreat]

From what I gather form your post, the overemphasis on writing essays and horrendous underemphasis on reading is the problem.

When I was in high school my teacher used to say to our class that we should read a lot of books to become better writers. It's a common belief in Poland, supported by famous words by one of the Polish writers, that reading a lot improves writing skills. The bad writers are often advised to read, read, read, and then try writing again.

I will compare read/writing to a building. Children are on the first floor, writing is the second floor and reading skills are like a staircase. It seems to me that children in Britain are asked to get on the second floor, but since most of them read very little, they are in a building either without any staircase or the staircase are only half done.

Yes I agree, interesting points and quote. As I posted previously, my daughters are streets ahead, years ahead, and I put this down almost solely to reading.

From there grows pretty much everything. It is also obvious that the students that do read at my work are also well above their class mates. I can tell you if a student is a reader within about 5 seconds of glancing at their work; it's just so plainly obvious.

There is a push to get the younger students into reading at work, but I fear this is too little, too late, but at least it is better than nothing, time will tell, but I'm not too optimistic.

I do work in a bottom end school though so there is perhaps more hope than my posts might express (though I have been to many other schools too and found things not much better). However, the reading lists I gave before are from the main exam board in the country which applies nationally.

Of course the public schools (private schools) which cost anywhere up to £30,000 a year in this country represent some of the best schooling in the world. Students studying in schools such as these represent a tiny fraction of the attending population in the UK though of course, (even though this minority end up running the country and filtering into in every major position of importance, no shock why).

Even so, some students despite this advantage are still struggling. I've personally had to reject a couple of tutees from schools such as these due to time constraints and having spoken to a chief examiner for the likes of Prince Harry and co (shameful name dropping crimes here!) I know that even some things here are not as satisfying as they appear to be on the surface. It is true though that many students in schools such as these are very good/gifted - mind blowing, though they are given that advantage of course. For the average student in the average school though, things are pretty poor indeed in the 14-16 age.

It is true that I have little experience of post 16 age range or A-levels, 16-18, though I know this represents a huge jump up from GCSE. Many of our 'gifted' or hard working students (the 1-3%) struggle massively when they get there. Little wonder.

[cafolini]

There are 2 problems with your arguments:
_ Beauty is subjective, people viewed beauty differently than we are now. I can only concur that there are beautiful women in my life time, but I can't assure there are more beautiful women in my life time than my grandfather life time, or that of Alexander the Great.
_ Women are not made of paper, nor created our of imagination or will. A woman is created through biological processes, her beauty is either endowed or aided by make ups, regardless she is still intrinsically beautiful. Literature on the other hand is not the same as biology, it can either evolve or devolve.

Also I never suggested that relevancy and quality is established through sells. I suggest for the sake of clarity you should always read carefully your opponent arguments. I argued that it is hard for today because the most of our writers write commercially, and it's hard to find people still write for the purpose of beauty. The argument is nicely laid out in an essay called "We need a revolution in literature" in the general writing section.

That being said I see that you make many ad hominem arguments toward your opponents, and your points are often incoherent and badly glued, I sincerely hope better coming from you.

:coolgleamA:

I have never seen more subjective beauty than that of the ugly.
I agree, you never suggested sales as the measurement. I did.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Does cafolini remind anyone else of G L Wilson?

[Darcy88]

Does cafolini remind anyone else of G L Wilson?

Most definitely. At first I thought it was ol G L under a new name. Cafolini appeared right around the time that G L was banned. Now I don't think so. Cafolini actually elaborates some, actually condescends to speak on the same level as us mere mortals.

G L annoyed me when he was around and then when he vanished I missed him a little.

[JuniperWoolf]

Damn Neely, that's depressing. It sounds like those kids lack discipline. You should put the psychological beat-down on them. Put them in awkward social situations where the focus of the entire class is on them. Don't be afraid to yell at them, too. My bio teacher yelled at us often when we first entered highschool to get us in the right frame of mind, "This isn't a free ride! 1/4 of you will statistically not make it to graduation! YOUR! MARKS! WERE! DISGUSTING!" and our grades improved as a result. School is supposed to be high-pressure.


G L annoyed me when he was around and then when he vanished I missed him a little.

Haha, same here.

[kiki1982]

From what I gather form your post, the overemphasis on writing essays and horrendous underemphasis on reading is the problem.

When I was in high school my teacher often said that we (the people in my class) should read a lot of books to become better writers. It's a common belief in Poland, supported by famous quote by one of the Polish writers, that reading a lot improves writing skills. Bad writers are often advised to read, read, read, and then they can try writing again.

I will compare read/writing to a building. Children are on the first floor, writing is the second floor and reading is like a staircase. It seems to me that children in Britain are asked to get on the second floor, but since most of them read very little, they are in a building either without any staircase or the staircase is only half done.

I will have to agree too.

It is not only that reading improves your writing skills, but also how to read a question and how to answer it. I.e. 'what does the question say?' If you can't get that, then you're really f*cked for life, aren't you?

I think too that prior to any secondary education in the UK there is not enough emphasis on drilling. Capital letters, apostrophes, grammar, sentence structure and all linguistic basics should not be taught in secondary school. That is basic so it is elementary. If you don't know when to put a full stop, comma, capital letter you can't write a good text either.

I think we got taught the basics of paragraphs and texts at age 14: when to start one, how to start one = basic statement of what the par. is about, how to end one = basic summary of what the paragraph was about, what should be in the middle = your argument without introducing another point different to sentence one. We practiced (separating texts etc.) and then covered this again at age 17 somewhat, but more directed at writing whole texts: introduction and end of text should contain a short summing up of all points (to be) made. Then we elaborated on how to sumarise.

We never ever had to write an essay for school. Only occasionally for an exam or for homework, mainly in other classes like religion (what is your opinion on abortion). Another type of hidden 'practice' was probably the essay question in the history exam: 'what do you think about the reign of terror during the French revolution? Was it necessary or not?' And you got a whole page to answer that question. Those tasks are hidden and make you practice without realising it. You still use the knowledge you have because you want it to be good, but you don't get the idea that it matters. Personal pride, maybe...

As you get older, you start to write longer things for everything: book reviews, exam questions, stories you have to write up, little things about art for the art education class etc. As you start to think more widely, you start to write longer and just in time, the Belgian system introduces certain ideas that are right to use then. At age 14 you get acquainted with the paragraph idea because that's as far as you will go. You can spell, put a sentence together and then they teach you how to write a text with diferent paragraphs. They start to ask you to put proper book reviews together. By the time you get to age 17, you are starting to put longer things than a few paragraphs together. So they tell you how to make a nice text. And the knowledge you have gained in the Dutch class (because all this is given in the Dutch class in small modules in between the serious stuff) blends in with what other subjects need.

I think the over-emphasis (as far as I can see though) on skills in the UK education system is scary. Fine, people have to be able to look things up, but knowing them by heart will be much much faster any time. People don't learn basic skills like spelling and they can't look those up. It makes people ignorant of everything that is important (even the mere fact of being able to read a question is a victory in some cases). People can't learn another language because they don't know what a verb direct object, etc. is, but they know how to use quotes... If they don't know how to put a proper text together in theory, they won't ever use any quotes...

And doing everything in class is going to dumb people down as it allows them to just wait for the answer to be given (although then you need people who still regard it as shameful not to do their homework, which will be another issue).

I feel for you...

[B. Laumness]

Poor Neely. There's something rotten in the Kingdom.

[Emil Miller]

Poor Neely. There's something rotten in the Kingdom.

There is indeed but it predates Neely by about 30 years.

[cafolini]

An awful lot of mere mortals refusing to conclude the mereness.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

An awful lot of mere mortals refusing to conclude the mereness.

That's soooooo something G L Wilson would say. :D

[Calidore]

That's soooooo something G L Wilson would say. :D

Dunno, G L's sentences usually scanned more cleanly. He also took a while and a lot of abuse for his style before he started returning insults; cafolini doesn't wait at all and is happy to pull the trigger first.

You and I always disagreed about G L. I always believed, and still do, that his posts did have deeper meanings buried in them, but people only took what was on the surface. He just didn't express himself well, which he admitted.

[cafolini]

Dunno, G L's sentences usually scanned more cleanly. He also took a while and a lot of abuse for his style before he started returning insults; cafolini doesn't wait at all and is happy to pull the trigger first.

You and I always disagreed about G L. I always believed, and still do, that his posts did have deeper meanings buried in them, but people only took what was on the surface. He just didn't express himself well, which he admitted.

Whenever came to triggers, he who laughed first laughed last.

[Emil Miller]

Whenever came to triggers, he who laughed first laughed last.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent G L Wilson?"

Beware Wilson, the knights have already left Saltwood castle and are on their way.

[Calidore]

Whenever came to triggers, he who laughed first laughed last.

Maybe in a duel, but not usually in a social setting.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Dunno, G L's sentences usually scanned more cleanly. He also took a while and a lot of abuse for his style before he started returning insults; cafolini doesn't wait at all and is happy to pull the trigger first.

You and I always disagreed about G L. I always believed, and still do, that his posts did have deeper meanings buried in them, but people only took what was on the surface. He just didn't express himself well, which he admitted.

Contrary to what some others thought, I believed G L to be a clever poster. I wouldn't put it past him to change his style.

[Darcy88]

Gl was British, Cafolini is American. If I am not mistaken.

I don't think G L was stupid by any means, but his cryptic style did seem to me like a conscious attempt to come off as much more profound than he really was.

It is a strange coincidence that one prolific cryptic poster leaves and another arrives the exact same time. Could be him. I'm not sure.

[Alexander III]

Maybe the whole cryptic style is just what is fashionable nowadays, maybe GL Wilson spawned a whole endless series of funny imitators much like the whole Vampire thing after twilight.

[BlackCat]

You teach Junior High Neely?:confused::confused:

[cafolini]

Maybe in a duel, but not usually in a social setting.

Well, triggers are not for plain social settings. Obviously.

[LitNetIsGreat]

You teach Junior High Neely?:confused::confused:

It feels like it. :cryin:

[BlackCat]

It feels like it. :cryin:

I don't know because what I experience is slightly different. Students are more willing to try and less willing to ask (though sometimes it takes teachers great pains to convince them about the power of questioning). May I ask what country are you?

[BlackCat]

An awful lot of mere mortals refusing to conclude the mereness.

oh for the love of God none of us was born of a virgin or resurrected from dead, we're all mortals, including you.

This is a literature forum, we have differences in opinions. Rights and wrongs don't make us mortals or divine, being wrong is a human quality

[stlukesguild]

G.L. Wilson was Australian.

[JuniperWoolf]

I agree that cafolini's vocab isn't as inventive and his posts are too insubstantial for him to be GL. But, maybe he is clever enough to change his style. Ooooh, this is like a detective story.

[cyberbob]

I would love to read a cryptic novel written by GL Wilson in his trademark cryptic prose.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don't know because what I experience is slightly different. Students are more willing to try and less willing to ask (though sometimes it takes teachers great pains to convince them about the power of questioning). May I ask what country are you?

I'm from England or as one 15 year old student wrote the other day "Ingland" - seriously, that was a new low to join a 13 year old who once asked me how to spell "is".

As I say though there are some talented students, as there are in every school, but the lack of basic reading and writing skills across the board is pretty poor. I agree with the comments posted before that there should be more emphasis on reading, this is clear, but this needs to come from lower down the system and parents need to encourage/provide books for, their own kids to read - heaven forbid!

[BlackCat]

I'm from England or as one 15 year old student wrote the other day "Ingland" - seriously, that was a new low to join a 13 year old who once asked me how to spell "is".

As I say though there are some talented students, as there are in every school, but the lack of basic reading and writing skills across the board is pretty poor. I agree with the comments posted before that there should be more emphasis on reading, this is clear, but this needs to come from lower down the system and parents need to encourage/provide books for, their own kids to read - heaven forbid!

Good God, that sounds like those we have in America who can't point to the country on the map :ack2:.

In my school people love to read, and I guess the writing skills are relatively better than what you're have to deal with. Our school is one of those "ghetto" schools with a large number of blacks and Hispanics (many are English learners), yet books have always been part of the fashion. It is trendy for a kid to read book, to carry books around, may it be A Tale of Two Cities or Twilight, but at least they read, and many of the posters above are right, reading somehow improve writing.

That being said maybe you could introduce some out of syllabus readings to your students, maybe give them some opportunities to read something that might have the same theme as the classics they're reading but more contemporary and upbeat?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Good God, that sounds like those we have in America who can't point to the country on the map :ack2:.

In my school people love to read, and I guess the writing skills are relatively better than what you're have to deal with. Our school is one of those "ghetto" schools with a large number of blacks and Hispanics (many are English learners), yet books have always been part of the fashion. It is trendy for a kid to read book, to carry books around, may it be A Tale of Two Cities or Twilight, but at least they read, and many of the posters above are right, reading somehow improve writing.

That being said maybe you could introduce some out of syllabus readings to your students, maybe give them some opportunities to read something that might have the same theme as the classics they're reading but more contemporary and upbeat?

Oh I've had some fun with maps before too -"where's Italy, is it in France?" was one of my favourites...

I don't know. It's good that books are a fashion where you are - in the ghetto! - that's not the case here though, apart from small crowds interested in manga and the odd few others.

It's a good idea to slot a few other books in yes, but there's little time within lessons and 95% of students in the school do absolutely no homework at all, nothing and wouldn't pick a book up let alone read it, so there's little hope out of class. It's just one of those things.

[BlackCat]

Oh I've had some fun with maps before too -"where's Italy, is it in France?" was one of my favourites...

I don't know. It's good that books are a fashion where you are - in the ghetto! - that's not the case here though, apart from small crowds interested in manga and the odd few others.

It's a good idea to slot a few other books in yes, but there's little time within lessons and 95% of students in the school do absolutely no homework at all, nothing and wouldn't pick a book up let alone read it, so there's little hope out of class. It's just one of those things.

I'm so disappointed in Western civilization

[LitNetIsGreat]

Knowledge of history and general knowledge is even worse, shocking. One student responded in all seriousness to the 'fun' question of "what is the name
of the Queen?" with... :idea: ...Victoria??!!

With this one answer the head brought in current event lessons as compulsory...

[kiki1982]

Oh, yes, I have seen teens point to Manchester to indicate London (on a blind map). That was on TV though, so probably there are others, but still, if there is anyone who doesn't know more or less where his/her capital is... I do have to admit that I get lost in England, but not really in Belgium though... I should make a point of trying to learn the counties, because then I at least know where the books I read are playing ;).

Why don't they do any homework? Beause it is cool not to do it (as my English husband says was already the case in his day) or because it is not given?

Not doing or giving homework is worrying as it makes people unable to do anything by themselves and take decisions (how will I answer the question?).

That said, though, I think the German education system is very good. A little stressy towards the end -they have to do one exam at the end of secondary school comprising everything from year one to year six, although this is only for the general branch of it that goes on to uni -, but from the other side, in Trier there are at least five bookshops I know of, one of which an amazing three storeys and audio books too, in large quantities. Much English to find as well and a little French. Most youngsters speak an adequate level of English although some grammar faults are somewhat 'taught' by German teachers because they can't get the proper rules explained. The present perfect is a problem: 'I have gone to the shop yesterday.' But I suppose that is the same in every education system the same, though.

Already Mrs Mortimer knew that '[German women] are not fond of reading useful books. When they read it is novels about people who have never lived. It would be better to read nothing than these books.' (1849) Though that is a puritanical Victorian speaking, it is evident that still many Germans are great readers and that shows. Bookshops also have book goodies: page markers in all shapes and sizes, bags for your books to take them in, the Leselotte (a cushion to put your book on so you can read it without holding it if it's cold), special reading blankets, reading calendars. Whether all the stuff is good is another question (a lot of crime stories, as Germans are mad about that, and historical novels/chick lit I think, translated from English. But at least they read.

And German kids are so well behaved! They invite their classmates to their place for tea after school :rolleyes:.

They get home early in the afternoon, but it is a small minority that does bad things. The rest just keeps quiet. In fact I have not seen any real malicious vandalism for four years. The tyres of my bike were let off twice for carneval and my saddle was once taken off my bike and put a few paces further... The keys I once dropped when locking it were still lying there under my bike after half a day... and this was at the local station... During the summer, if we see any kids misbehave, we always joke that they must be foreigners :svengo:.

This is not Cologne though.

[Emil Miller]

It's amusing to read some of the examples given here ( I gave up being sorry about it long ago) but on the subject of homework, I spent yesterday visiting some friends. They are Chinese and have daughter of 12 years and while I was talking to her parents about various things, including education, she was sitting in a corner doing homework in which she had to answer questions concerning Orwell's 'Animal Farm'. Admittedly she goes to a very good school but I've seen her doing homework on previous occasions and her parents make sure that she does it. This is a characteristic of other orientals I have known and explains why, in England at any rate, they are among the top performers in their respective grades. The instilling of self-discipline is a major factor in promoting obedience to the idea of education in itself and that is what is clearly missing in much of western society and particularly in England where the: "I know my rights, give me another beer," attitude appears to be the response.

[Alexander III]

It's amusing to read some of the examples given here ( I gave up being sorry about it long ago) but on the subject of homework, I spent yesterday visiting some friends. They are Chinese and have daughter of 12 years and while I was talking to her parents about various things, including education, she was sitting in a corner doing homework in which she had to answer questions concerning Orwell's 'Animal Farm'. Admittedly she goes to a very good school but I've seen her doing homework on previous occasions and her parents make sure that she does it. This is a characteristic of other orientals I have known and explains why, in England at any rate, they are among the top performers in their respective grades. The instilling of self-discipline is a major factor in promoting obedience to the idea of education in itself and that is what is clearly missing in much of western society and particularly in England where the: "I know my rights, give me another beer," attitude appears to be the response.


Yea I agree with Emil, this type of thing needs to come from the parents. When I was little I knew that if my teacher called my mum to complain that I had been misbehaving or not doing my homework, **** would get very real for me.

And due to that I was an exemplary student until the end of middle-school.

But there is a positive to the english system though. You children don't smoke. In Liceo in Italy 8/10 kids smoke cigarettes, and they start really early to like at 13, 14. In england very few kids smoke in comparison. So at least you have that.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Why don't they do any homework? Beause it is cool not to do it (as my English husband says was already the case in his day) or because it is not given?

Oh they get given it they just don't do it. The younger ones are a little more enthusiastic I think, I don't know for sure as I don't work them them, but the bottom line is that they just do not do homework - hell many of them don't do classwork properly let alone homework!

I was once working intensively with 13 or 14 students who were on the C/D borderline, many of them desperately needed the C grade for college. Of those, none of them, not one, did any homework, ever. I remember that for this group I once prepared a collection of exam resources tailored specifically to their needs and offered full feedback on this as well as free tuition directly after school hours (at school as part of my contract). How many took advantage of this? Yep, none. I charge for this when doing it privately but offered this free, but still no takers. Of the 13/14 of them none of them bought this resource pack back to me and, as far as I could tell, even bothered to take it home, several just left the resource pack (which took my hours to make) laying right there on the table. This sort of thing is the norm. I could go on about this but there is little point.

It is not fair to assume that this is representative of all the UK though, nor do I make that claim, but it is safe to say that in the Frank Chalk sort of schools (which is a lot of them 30-40%?) it is.

In regards to my experience of Eastern/oriential students it is very much the same as Emil highlights - a totally different attitude. Some of them come with absolutely no knowledge of English and after two years or so, are equal to, or ahead of, most home students. Their behaviour is also exemplary.

[B. Laumness]

On one hand, experts in pedagogy who work for the governments tell the teachers that they have to put in practice methods that are centered upon the learner, not primarily upon the knowledge; that even make the children kings, and that do not require from them strong efforts of learning, for the children are so fragile that learning by heart would be not only dumb but also prejudicial for their sound understanding. On the other hand, the people and especially the children are constantly distracted by mass entertainments, so that they spend in average 3 hours per day in front of the TV, 2 hours by day behind the computer, 1 hour per day with their phone, and 45 min per week reading a book at home. What time is left for homework? The teachers and the experts know it: many do not give homework anymore. What energy is left for cultural activities when one consumes most of the free time lazily and stupidly? Whereas the children are the most apt to learn, their time is wasted, their future too. They will have to pay the price, for the wasted time is lost for ever; and what they have not learned early, most of them will never learn it later. But, in some places, other children will have been well educated, and the distance between the people will be increasing.

Among the multiple deeds of my students, I’d cite the 15 year-old girl who has never heard of Jesus Christ and who doesn’t know what A.D and P.D. mean, and the 17 year-old who has never been able to see the most obvious irony in the texts and who always made misinterpretations in his commentaries. I could cite the teenagers who can’t spell the most elementary words, but it’s quite common now.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I can't say it better than F. Scott Fitzgerald - "That is part of the beauty of all literature. You discover that your longings are universal longings, that you're not lonely and isolated from anyone. You belong."

I'm very interested in what other people have to say on the matter. I'll be starting back in school next year, and I'm going into the field of psychology. I'm trying to think of ways to incorporate my passion for literature into a psychological practice.

What a superb and apt quotation. It had to be from the genius behind Gatsby.

I think literature is one of the few mediums that provoke thought. People do not liberate their minds, they don't 'question' things and seek answers for themselves. The human race is degenerating into a state of inertia and apathy. Literature is the only way to combat that. The greatest civilisations flourished not with mechanisation or television but via the written word.

[osho]

Literature is one of the greatest gifts man has and I just imagine the world without literature. I enjoy so many things but yet the way literature engages me is a different experience and I find almost no comparison.

[stlukesguild]

Among the multiple deeds of my students, I’d cite... the 17 year-old who has never been able to see the most obvious irony in the texts...

And surely you have witnessed more than a few examples of such in online discussions. I cannot tell you how many times I have posted something that I thought would clearly be recognized as sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, or ironic only to have someone take my comment fully at face value. It is sad that we often need to employ the emoticons to clarify our intentions... even at a site where one would assume everyone had a degree of familiarity with how to read.

[Darcy88]

I can only recall having been forced to read two novels all through my three years of high school. And I was in the supposedly "hard" english courses. My friends in the slacker english courses didn't read anything.

In elementary school my father wrote a letter to my teacher complaining that I wasn't being given enough homework.

The K-12 system in my province is in a deplorable state. For me it was essentially a day care/prison. There were kids who didn't want to be there, didn't benefit from being there, only managing by their presence to disrupt the learning of other students.

I don't know what the answer is. I only hope for the sake of my future children that an answer is somehow found.

[JuniperWoolf]

The K-12 system in my province is in a deplorable state. For me it was essentially a day care/prison. There were kids who didn't want to be there, didn't benefit from being there, only managing by their presence to disrupt the learning of other students.

I had the same problem in middle school (idiots yelling and trying to physically fight the teacher and complaining "waaah! I'm never gonna get this!"), but highschool was great. In my province they seperate the highschool kids with academic aspirations from those with none by making one class significantly more difficult and allowing the kids to choose which class they take (the easy one or the hard one). You can get into college with non-academics but you need academics to get into university. The kids who are willing to put in the extra work all decided that they wanted to be in the academic class, so there aren't many disruptions. The extra work is self-imposed and the teachers outright say "if you've got a problem with my rules or my expectations you can drop to the non academic classes." If a student's grades drop below 60% they're forced into non-academics so we've got to work to be there which means that we value it more. I think it's a great system.

I'm told that the non-academic classes are complete zoos so I guess it sucks for them, but most of the REAL problem students drop out by grade ten anyway.

[Darcy88]

I had the same problem in middle school (idiots yelling and trying to physically fight the teacher and complaining "waaah! I'm never gonna get this!"), but highschool was great. In my province they seperate the highschool kids with academic aspirations from those with none by making one class significantly more difficult and allowing the kids to choose which class they take (the easy one or the hard one). You can get into college with non-academics but you need academics to get into university. The kids who are willing to put in the extra work all decided that they wanted to be in the academic class, so there aren't many disruptions. The extra work is self-imposed and the teachers outright say "if you've got a problem with my rules or my expectations you can drop to the non academic classes." If a student's grades drop below 60% they're forced into non-academics so we've got to work to be there which means that we value it more. I think it's a great system.

I'm told that the non-academic classes are complete zoos so I guess it sucks for them, but most of the REAL problem students drop out by grade ten anyway.

I'm sure much of my grudge with the school system has to do with the crowd of rednecks and stoners I hung out with in high school. Also middle school was so bad I kind of lost interest then. Every class I was put in with these two kids who both had severe ADD and would never stop stalling the class. When I think of it now it actually was pretty serious and on-task in the hard classes I took. The counselor actually strongly disadvised me from enrolling in the "hard" math 12 and english 12 classes, given my abysmal academic and attendance record. A couple years ago I earned my university's top academic award and sent him a photocopy in the mail.

Anyway. Enough with my auto-biography. The system in Alberta sounds better than the one in BC. Like I said - two novels.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm sure much of my grudge with the school system has to do with the crowd of rednecks and stoners I hung out with in high school. Also middle school was so bad I kind of lost interest then. Every class I was put in with these two kids who both had severe ADD and would never stop stalling the class. When I think of it now it actually was pretty serious and on-task in the hard classes I took. The counselor actually strongly disadvised me from enrolling in the "hard" math 12 and english 12 classes, given my abysmal academic and attendance record. A couple years ago I earned my university's top academic award and sent him a photocopy in the mail.

Anyway. Enough with my auto-biography. The system in Alberta sounds better than the one in BC. Like I said - two novels.

I can more than sympathise with your situation. I also agree that a two tier system like the one Juniper mentions is the preferable option over the one size doesn't fit all we have now. We used to have that in the UK up until around the end of the 70s but it was dropped. Students would take a series of exams as 11 year olds and be divided between academic and non-academic schools. I'm no doubt that this wasn't perfect but it had to be far better than the current set-up which is chaos and unfair on everybody.

[kiki1982]

In Belgium they've got a kind of three tier system + 1. ASO for the clever ones, leading to uni; TSO for the slightly less intelligent ones leading to jobs like carpenter, plumber, tailor (everything that needs some more background); BSO for the really not clever ones, leading to jobs like hairdresser, beautician, child carer (people in child day care and Kindergarten) etc. And then KSO for the arty ones. Though the latter also offers adequate ASO level stuff like history, French, English and everything you need to be a well-rounded person and not clueless.

Before the 60s they had a system where everyone was free to go anywhere, but most working class went to technical or professional and most middle class went to do Latin and Greek which was the only way to go. There was no education leading to uni which excluded Latin at least. Greek probably, not sure though.

They tried to change it in the sixties/seventies by integrating everything, as in the UK, but that produced a bunch of people in the late 70s/80s who had learned nothing by the end and consequently totally failed to find a job because they were not clever enough to go higher or they had not specialised enough.

So now they've got a tier system again, but within it, you gradually specialise as time goes on (as you realise what our strong points are and what you like), although you can still happily change direction in the grammar school type (ASO) until about 15. After that, direction diverges and so you have to do some work if you want to change (more hours in English = more material. Not so until 15. More hours English = just more practice).

I think the problem in the UK is that no-one really wants to disappoint parents or children. There is this awful notion that disappointment is no good for children. Disappointment is an inherent part of life. You better learn to deal with it as early as possible in life. However, they seem to think that everyone should be a winner, because otherwise some may feel stupid and we don't want that.
Conversely, parents should not be disappointed by their child not being clever. I read an opinion piece in a Flemish newspaper about a year ago that parenting these days is like a mathematical manual. 'If I don't drink alcohol during my pregnancy, my child will be clever. If I do not feed it broccoli, it will be strong at maths.' What such prents do not understand is that intelligence is not even hereditary, so you don't get upset when your child is not clever, you just find an appropriate course for it. A hairdresser can be a happy and good at his job as a professor at Oxford, only don't try to change them around and it would be better for both of them not being put in the same class up until they are 16, because both will be held back by the other.

Why do they want to keep ruining generation upon generation?

My parents were once told by my English teacher at a parents' evening, that '[I] was not suited to the modern lanuages section, because I was no good at it.' Only she hadn't looked at my French grades... She then swallowed her words. However, her respect for me took a U-turn after a wonderful book review. I so desire to once turn up at a reunion with my husband... :D

[JuniperWoolf]

^My only problem with that is that it is difficult for the kids to change directions. No one knows what they want to be when they're sixteen so they don't have any motivation to apply themselves. A lot of people don't even try in school until they reach post-secondary, if you had to choose early on then people like Darcy might not have gotten into university in the first place. In Alberta it doesn't matter what grade you're in, if you're getting +90% in non-academics you can choose to be bumped up to academics the following semester. Also if you're over eighteen you can challenge the grade twelve final exams and you'll be credited for it as though you had taken the class (and really you deserve it if you manage to get a good score on the finals without ever having attended a lesson). I like that, the material is difficult but the bureaucracy isn't.