Ewww, fantasy is bad! Won't you think of the Children?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't disagree with you, but why do we choose authors like Dickens or Shakespeare for this exercise? Is it not because the characters and themes in the works of these authors have become a part of our culture?

Because it's what's been done. It's easier to go with what's been done then find something new. New would be more work for the teachers. But, new would be better for the students.

[JSWolf]

One problem with schools not reading more modern works is that it tells kids that more modern works aren't good enough to be read in class. That's a load of nonsense and that needs to stop so kids can get into reading modern books.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

One problem with schools not reading more modern works is that it tells kids that more modern works aren't good enough to be read in class. That's a load of nonsense and that needs to stop so kids can get into reading modern books.

So which books published in the last 10 years do you think children should be reading in school, Jon?

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not at all. The purpose of teaching literature is to instil in children at least a portion of our cultural heritage. Modern novels have not been around long enough for time to decide whether or not they will become a part of that heritage.

I know when I studied the 'classics' in high school, they were studied as independent works. I think it would be helpful to study them in context with other literature. Maybe read some modern works after the classics with an eye towards how the classics influenced the modern. Help the students understand WHY the classics are considered such.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So which books published in the last 10 years do you think children should be reading in school, Jon?

I figure Jon will try to avoid answering the question at all costs. It really doesn't matter which book you pick if all you are teaching is dissecting the text and analyse the meaning between the lines. But I can tell you that a couple years back in my highschool (not me, the highschool in my town ) they been reading fist book of Hunger Games. The students mostly liked it, but, of course, I have no idea what all was involved. It is quite possible that all they did was read it, watch the movie, and discuss differences between book and movie.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I figure Jon will try to avoid answering the question at all costs. It really doesn't matter which book you pick if all you are teaching is dissecting the text and analyse the meaning between the lines. But I can tell you that a couple years back in my highschool (not me, the highschool in my town ) they been reading fist book of Hunger Games. The students mostly liked it, but, of course, I have no idea what all was involved. It is quite possible that all they did was read it, watch the movie, and discuss differences between book and movie.

I was thinking of The Hunger Games. Another is The Fault in Our Stars.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I was thinking of The Hunger Games. Another is The Fault in Our Stars.

Harry Potter.


Expanding the scope to books published in living memory, more or less:

- DUNE
- THE HOBBIT
- NARNIA (pick one)
- Kurt Busiek's SECRET IDENTITY
- Neil Gaiman's STARDUST (or anything else by him)
- Terry Pratchett MORT, BAD OMENS
- Piers Anthony A SPELL FOR CHAMELEON
- Heinlein's THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS OR HAVE SPACESUIT WILL TRAVEL for younger readers.
- Doris Piserchia's SPACELING
- Patricia McKillip's ALPHABET OF THORNS, RIDDLEMASTER TRILOGY or OMBRIA IN SHADOW
- Niven and Pournelle's MOTE IN GOD'S EYE

Yes, they're all SF&F because that's my area of expertise and because any of the above will resoundingly give the lie to the headmaster from the OP. There's brilliance in modern fiction.

If I had to cut it to three I'd go with Pratchett, McKilip, and Busiek.
(Persepolis is worthy, too, but it's already been mentioned.)

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Harry Potter.


Expanding the scope to books published in living memory, more or less:

- DUNE
- THE HOBBIT
- NARNIA (pick one)
- Kurt Busiek's SECRET IDENTITY
- Neil Gaiman's STARDUST (or anything else by him)
- Terry Pratchett MORT, BAD OMENS
- Piers Anthony A SPELL FOR CHAMELEON
- Heinlein's THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS OR HAVE SPACESUIT WILL TRAVEL for younger readers.
- Doris Piserchia's SPACELING
- Patricia McKillip's ALPHABET OF THORNS, RIDDLEMASTER TRILOGY or OMBRIA IN SHADOW
- Niven and Pournelle's MOTE IN GOD'S EYE

Yes, they're all SF&F because that's my area of expertise and because any of the above will resoundingly give the lie to the headmaster from the OP. There's brilliance in modern fiction.

If I had to cut it to three I'd go with Pratchett, McKilip, and Busiek.
(Persepolis is worthy, too, but it's already been mentioned.)

When you are picking books for school, you have to take size into account and if a book is too large, it won't do no matter how good. So that means Dune, Mote in God's Eye, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress have to go. Also, you cannot start in the middle of a series, so Mort is out.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

When you are picking books for school, you have to take size into account and if a book is too large, it won't do no matter how good. So that means Dune, Mote in God's Eye, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress have to go. Also, you cannot start in the middle of a series, so Mort is out.

Diskworld isn't a straight series and MORT stands alone on its own.
And length is just a number. Reader engagement is more important. Relevance to the times is more important.

DUNE is a challenging read, maybe a bit too challenging, but the others work on multiple levels, starting with wordsmithing but going well beyond it.

Beyond that, we agree there is no shortage of worthy modern fiction, right?
Both within FS&F and outside it.
Classics are great but they aren't the only answer.

[Red Falcon]

Originally Posted by darryl

Have a think about your own family, friends and acquaintances. How many truly love to read? Very few in my own circle. My mother enjoyed reading very much. My father too enjoyed a good book but rarely got the free time. None of my siblings read. I have only two friends who are big readers. Two of my friends who are amongst the brightest and best educated people I know never read for pleasure.

Assuming my experience is fairly typical, we must face the fact that those who read for enjoyment are very much in a minority. OF those who don't read for enjoyment, there is, I think, a large group who who will never be readers. And also a large group who don't read because of their unpleasant experiences at school. I agree with Harry that a good teacher could make a lot of difference, But once again based on my own experience in my dim distant schooldays I don't think there are very many teachers who can inspire a love of reading.with the curricula which is served up. Shakespeare and Chaucer require effort to understand, not only because of the now archaic language but also the background and context. I'm not saying that Shakespeare should not be part of school curricula at all. Just that for far too many children he is as torturous as gym class to the poorly co-ordinated child. And making that Child read and dissect the classics is almost guaranteed to kill any possibility of that Child reading for enjoyment in the future.

I think curricula first and foremost should aim to foster a love of reading. I am not a teacher and would not want to be, but too many times I have seen a possible love of reading killed by soulless English curricula. Who knows, if we foster the love of reading we may well see many who come to and enjoy the classics later in life.

I loved to read as a kid and was blessed with many adults in my life who fostered my reading bug. When I got to High School the way the English Classes were structured turned me off of reading into I was well into my second year of college when a professor who was as deep into world mythology as anybody can be reignited my passion for reading with of all things the Brothers Grimm and the like. I firmly believe as an English teacher that we must first and foremost show the kids we teach that reading can be enjoyable not just a chore. Unfortunately there is a core curriculum thanks to mandates by my state, I live in the USA, that take up most of the class time and leaves little time for anything. I have seen more then one student struggle with the likes of Charles Dickens, Ernest Hemingway, and John Steinbeck as there personal experience and world view is so far removed from these authors that they cannot grasp what they are reading and just end up hating reading. This is not what I became a teacher for. I did it to instill the same passion and love I have for literature in the next generation of readers. Instead I am forced to teach in a way that is turning the majority off from reading. After my contract is up next year I am walking away from teaching as I do not want to be part of a system that is damaging kids instead of helping them become productive and happy adults as I feel the education process should be about.

[darryl]

@Red Falcon. Thank you for your post. It is nice to hear from someone actually teaching today. It is also saddening to hear your comments but not unexpected. I would settle for curricula which don't seek to foster a love of reading so long as they don't tend to kill the same in many students!

[rkomar]

I didn't like analyzing those novels in school, but it did deepen my love of reading for pleasure afterwards, and I don't begrudge the effort it took. Can I have learned it without the drudgery? I don't know, that's not my department. Education is a mystery. There is the saying "Education is what remains after you have forgotten everything you learned in school." I have to imagine that you don't want the forgetting to occur too soon, though, for anything to remain.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Krazykiwi

Really, only Persepolis out of those is something I wouldn't have studied at school or at least in college, but that's only because it wasn't written yet.

Thanks for your post. Very interesting how interests change with location. And yet some things never change.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Beyond that, we agree there is no shortage of worthy modern fiction, right?
Both within FS&F and outside it.
Classics are great but they aren't the only answer.

With the exception of The Fault in Our Stars and Persepolis no one has provided "modern works than kids can relate to." And Persepolis would be a stretch for the average American teenager.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because it seems to me that relatively few people leave school with a love of mathematics, and carry on studying the subject for pleasure, and yet it's rare to see remarks that this indicates that maths teaching is failing. For some reason, though, many more people seem to believe that a goal of English Lit teaching should be to instil a love of reading, rather than simply a knowledge of English literature. I find it a slightly curious dichotomy.

Perhaps because an understanding of mathematics is unquestionably useful in later life, whether or not you like it, whereas knowing a few Shakespeare quotes is of debatable value if the process has put you off reading more widely.

Having said that, I do think it is a shame that more kids don't come out of school with more enjoyment of maths. That's not solely the fault of the way it's taught, however - at least here in the UK there's a widespread feeling (in some circles) that while not knowing the aforementioned Shakespeare quotes bars you from a claim to be educated, "I can't do maths" is somehow a badge of honour and is no such bar.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not at all. The purpose of teaching literature is to instil in children at least a portion of our cultural heritage.

If that was really the case wouldn't a wider cultural exposure be achieved by covering a wider range of books with a bit less depth, rather than micro-analysing three or four?

/JB