Harry Potter - Popular, but never to be a Classic

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by issybird

So much for shared culture and reference points! Obviously I’m old school, but I think kids should be reading in school books they wouldn’t necessarily read on their own, for the reasons of shared culture and learning how to approach and appreciate more difficult texts. School is not for fun, nor for giving kids what they want. They can read carp on their own time.

I agree. After having to trudge through Shakespear myself, and having had kids go through that phase, I do think he has a place in literature, and kids should be introduced to his works.

Not just the themes, but the fact that so many of them are universal, and ongoing, in humanity. One of the things that so many of the other kids in my class in high school were surprised by was the fact that those who lived all those years ago weren't all that different from them. That hundreds of years haven't changed people that much, when it comes to a lot of life.

(I saw Romeo and Juliet as a play during that time, put on by high school students in a professional setting. There were tweaks, and I can still remember the intake of breath and the quiet hush in the huge theater when the opposing groups faced off at the start, and the leader on one side flipped off the leader on the other side. Everyone GOT it. Shit was going to go down, and the words took on a more meaning in that context.)

And the language changes caused a lot of questions. When did it change so much? Why? How? Which led to a lot of questions about how languages do change, and context can completely flip the meaning of dialog and described actions. Which brought on conversations about how modern language grows and changes, and how important context is even now.

Nothing brings that up and throws it in your face as having to try to translate olde English into modern English.

And that idea that languages change, drastically over time, is one I think is valuable, and a good thing to be introduced to students. It really drives it home when you have to struggle with translating it. Especially when so many historical stories *don't* present the language realistically, for our reading pleasure. I think it's good to, at least once, to see the real use of period-correct language. Even if we avoid it later.

[DiapDealer]

I think I had to read a couple of Shakespeare sonnets and one play, or some such, in school. It's not as if we were subjected to an entire Shakespeare semester or anything like that.

Why is everyone always so quick to jump on the "No More Shakespeare in School" band-wagon while the pain induced by the likes of Bartleby the Scrivener, or Waiting for Godot seem to be easier for everyone to forgive/forget.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DuskyRose

And that idea that languages change, drastically over time, is one I think is valuable, and a good thing to be introduced to students. It really drives it home when you have to struggle with translating it. Especially when so many historical stories *don't* present the language realistically, for our reading pleasure. I think it's good to, at least once, to see the real use of period-correct language. Even if we avoid it later.

I agree with your entire post, but I’ve trimmed it for readability. I’ll add one more thing: kids should be introduced to things they wouldn’t chose on their own. Sometimes, a fire is lit. It’s like vegetables - what kid is going to eat a Brussels sprout if they don’t appear on his plate occasionally?

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I think I had to read a couple of Shakespeare sonnets and one play, or some such, in school. It's not as if we were subjected to an entire Shakespeare semester or anything like that.

Why is everyone always so quick to jump on the "No More Shakespeare in School" band-wagon while the pain induced by the likes of Bartleby the Scrivener, or Waiting for Godot seem to be easier for everyone to forgive/forget.

What I don’t get is why literature seems to be the one area where people say, “Let them read what they want!” It doesn’t seem to apply to math, or science, or history, or whatever. On being told he’s got to learn algebra, does the kid get to say, “I would prefer not to,” and get the response, “Alrighty, then, you don’t have to”?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by issybird

On being told he’s got to learn algebra, does the kid get to say, “I would prefer not to,” and get the response, “Alrighty, then, you don’t have to”?

Why don't kids get to choose which periods they want to study in World History? Do they get a say in what's on the cafeteria menu? Why can't they study only the U.S. portions of geography?

Spoiler:

And don't think I missed that Bartleby reference, either. Nice!

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by issybird

I agree with your entire post, but I’ve trimmed it for readability. I’ll add one more thing: kids should be introduced to things they wouldn’t chose on their own. Sometimes, a fire is lit. It’s like vegetables - what kid is going to eat a Brussels sprout if they don’t appear on his plate occasionally?



What I don’t get is why literature seems to be the one area where people say, “Let them read what they want!” It doesn’t seem to apply to math, or science, or history, or whatever. On being told he’s got to learn algebra, does the kid get to say, “I would prefer not to,” and get the response, “Alrighty, then, you don’t have to”?

This.

How would you know you whether you do or don't enjoy reading the works of (insert author name here) if you don't try one?

If we only had to study subjects we liked in school, a lot of people would probably skip whole areas, whether it be literature, math, history, or whatever. I did not like some subjects in school but I wouldn't say I should never have had to be exposed to them.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Spoiler:

And don't think I missed that Bartleby reference, either. Nice!

That shared culture thingamajigger rears its head!

[shalym]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Find other books that tackles such themes. Making kids read such outdated/obsolete language has no bearing on anything relevant. Other then Shakespeare, I have never read any book that uses such old English. I can see this being the case for most students and if it wasn't for school, they would never have to read it.

I had to read (and Memorize parts of) the Beowulf saga in the original Old English when I was in High school. Shakespeare was easy after that. It also gave me a much better understanding of the evolution of language. It definitely didn't make me want to stop reading...Ethan Frome and The Red Badge of Courage did that. (they didn't make me want to stop reading all together, but they did make me want to stop reading those two books!)

Shari

[mrscoach]

It would be hard to study literature in class if you didn't force at least some of the students to read something they "hate". Teachers have to teach ONE story/book to the entire class, so the chances of everyone being happy are approximately zero.

[Thasaidon]

There is a lot in what the above postings say.

A few more points

1, Shakespeare was not meant to be Read he was meant to be performed, If you must go through the text at least do it After havibg seen the play. "The play's the thing..."

2. My class had Dickens and Thomas Hardy forced on us at school and it resulted in the class being turned off both authors, In my case at least, for life. And we had an excellent English teacher.

3. There are a lot of classic books out there, why is it usually that the same handful are forced on children in each country?

4. Any mix of books provided for children SHOULD contain a few classics. The point being that children should not be Forced to read a specific book. They should however be expected and encouraged to read and usually they will find the classics for themselves.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

3. There are a lot of classic books out there, why is it usually that the same handful are forced on children in each country?

They're not, in my opinion. I think there's actually quite a wide array of classics that are forced on children in school. I know people are always mentioning things they had to read in school that I didn't. Even today. I do think we tend to latch onto the handful of people we meet in life that disliked the same few books we did and mistake that for some sort of universal majority, though.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

...

2. My class had Dickens and Thomas Hardy forced on us at school and it resulted in the class being turned off both authors, In my case at least, for life. And we had an excellent English teacher.

...

I had an (maybe more than one) English class that read Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cities. I don't recall the class being turned off. I know I enjoyed them and others enjoyed them. I would guess it is more a matter of how the material is taught, the teacher, and the students.

I read other Dickens novels after school; I believe one of them was for the MR book club.

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

4. Any mix of books provided for children SHOULD contain a few classics. The point being that children should not be Forced to read a specific book. They should however be expected and encouraged to read and usually they will find the classics for themselves.

Given a limited list to read from, with just the classics, they might feel better about making choices.

But I don't think most children will find the classics for themselves. They'll find what their peers are reading now. They'll find what their parents suggest. They'll find something in the 'new' section at their library. They'll find a book from advertisements, or movie/tie ins...

And the classics are hardly in view for them to find. They're usually long gone from any shelves unless they're being sold/loaned for a school project. That's really the only time we ever ran across any when at the bookstore with my kids. Some, even the used bookstores wouldn't take anymore. Everyone had moved on long ago.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

So much for shared culture and reference points! Obviously I’m old school, but I think kids should be reading in school books they wouldn’t necessarily read on their own, for the reasons of shared culture and learning how to approach and appreciate more difficult texts. School is not for fun, nor for giving kids what they want. They can read carp on their own time.

I'm not saying kids should not read difficult books, but they should read books that use current English and are more relevant to their lives.

[Thasaidon]

The only thing I can add is that my experience and that of the people I know in the UK has been different.

And yes children can and do find the classics by themselves or they see a dramatisation of a classic (Usually on the BBC) and get reading copies because they like the dramatisation.

[pwalker8]

Back in the old days, when we read from tablets made of stone rather than plastic, we had the summer reading list, a list of books you were suppose to read over the summer and do a report on. That strikes me as a way to do the shared culture thing.

With regards to Shakespeare, there are so many good adaptions of the various Shakespeare plays that it seem pretty easy to assign a play, let them watch it at the start of the semester, study the play itself, then let them watch it again (or even a different adaption of it) at the end. In high school, I think we did a different play each year. I took a quarter of Shakespeare in college. That was a great class.