Off topic: literature seminars

[JSWolf]

After all is said and done, it's the books that you have fond memories of that are great to each of us. Not that books are not great if we have not read them. But part of the reading problem is that teachers in school force books at us that we tend to no like and then force us to really go into depth with them. I don't see the need to have to memorize "To be or not to be". That is a real turn off for a lot of kids. Shakespear (IMHO) is a bad idea to teach in school. A lot of kids have enough trouble reading as it is. And to force books that they don't understand is just wrong. We need to be learning from works that have to do with today. Ones kids can relate to.

But overall, reading should be fun. I was lucky. I was given books that were fun for me to read before school got me and ruined reading. So I was able to keep reading what I liked. In school I read some pretty awful books. That's a big issue there. Books then are seen as not fun for kids and they decide they'd rather not read. I grew up before video game consoles. When I was 13 the first video game console was pong & breakout. So we didn't have the fancy concoles we have now. I spent a lot of time reading. But kids today have so many distractions from reading that to force books they don't like means they won't find the time to bother to read. Parents need to try to foster an interest in books by helping them find books they may enjoy. The library is a great resource for that until they find what it is they like.

To me, I don't care if a book is called great literature. If I don't like it, it's not great to me. But I do understand that some are great even if you don't like them because of the impact they've had outside of the body of work, like Dickens and Tolkien (for example). They have work that has helped shape a lot of the literature to follow. and that does make them great even if you don't like them.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

When I was 13 the first video game console was pong & breakout.

Heh, sounds like you and I aren't that far apart in age.

I'd disagree with you that books that kids 'don't like' shouldn't be taught to them. The approach you suggest would be great in the elementary years, but by upper Jr High they need to be learning how to do things they don't like (that's part of education too, and a valuable life skill!), and by High-School, I'd say that Shakespeare is well suited to teaching them (though I'd've agreed with you completely at the time ). Basically, though you need a teacher that who understands that Shakespeare is meant to be fun, not boring in the first place. (Romeo and Juliet was popular entertainment at the time, after all -- merely being old doesn't make it unpleasant)

The literature you're referring to is important to study precisely because it's not primarily about today -- a window into where we've come from culturally and historically is vital if we want our civilization to continue to develop, and not just wander off in self indulgence, and collapse under its own weight.

I think the problem is more the way that these works are presented to groups of kids too large to really work with, often by people who don't understand the point in studying them in the first place -- how can kids see the value of these works if all they see is that they're in a cattle car and having books they didn't choose thrown at them?

I would, however, agree with you that they won't value the literature until years later, and never, if they're turned off of reading entirely. So some attention to precisely which works are studied when is certainly in order.



And under no circumstances should Lord of the Flies ever be inflicted upon 9th graders -- they're messed up enough already just being 9th graders, they don't need to have that thing forced on them. I think college might be the earliest point at which kids' personalities start to stabilize enough to handle that one.

[JSWolf]

When I was in high-school LotR was offered as an elective to the seniors. It was by no means an easy course. I did not take it. I had enough going on as is. But still, it gave the kids that took it the choice to take it. And yes I do agree the WAY in which kids are taught literature is a big issue. Memorizing a passage from Shakespeare is WRONG in my opinion. It's a great turn off to most kids.

But parents need to get in the mix. They need to start nurturing the kids so they will like to read. This can easily be done before they get to the point of having books thrust upon then in school that will turn them off. I was reading books I enjoyed before the awful books were thrust upon me. So I was able to keep the love for reading alive even though I hated most books we were made to read for school. I was also quite good at reading as a kid and that helped. Kids that can't read well or do not have the time taken with them to help them learn to read will be turned off to books.

[NatCh]

My experience is pretty similar to what you've described, JSWolf -- my mother read to me from the cradle, so by the time they shoved Lord of the Flies on me, I'd already developed a love of reading that even that beast couldn't slay (yes, it was 9th grade). It just pre-disposed me to hate any book I was told I had to read, at the same time I was polishing off twice or thrice as many of my 'own' books in the same time periods.

I read The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes in 7th grade, on my own initiative. They were a difficult read for me at that age and the culture being so different from what I knew (looked up practically every third word!), but I kept at it until I finished them. So what if I checked it out of the library something like 15 consecutive times?

[HarryT]

I think very often schools do children a grave disservice by "force feeding" them unsuitable books, which can put them off those authors for life. I was forced to read Dickens in school, and regarded him as appaling. It was only in my 30s that I rediscovered, entirely by accident, just what a wonderful author he really is, and how I understand WHY he is regarded as one of the greatest authors in the English language. He is definitely not a children's author, and I think that forcing young teenagers to read him benefits nobody.

I've never read another William Golding book, by the way. "Lord of the Flies" (yes, we got it too!) really has put me off him for life.

[astra]

Different countries, different languages, different times but all of us have the same experience with forced reading in schools I had the same problems. Moreover, I had a similar problem at home. My father belived that reading books is VERY important. So, he forced me to read books of his choice. Sometimes we discovered that he forced me to read books 1 year ahead of school curiculum. If you add to this that I went to school 1 year younger than the rest of the kids...it was terrible :behead: On any holidays I was not allowed to leave house or watch TV unless I have finished to read a certain amount of pages
Eventually, I started to come across interesting books and develope my own taste but my dad and school have put me off many writers probably for the rest of my life (at least Russian classics ).

P.S. HarryT & NatCh
I agree more or less with yuor replies to my "long" post. Especially I liked an example of art/artists because I have had a similar discussion (about "impressionist" art)with my wife who is an artists and she attepmpted to explain to me a history behind it and why it is important. Although, I am pretty sure my father would never consider The Lord of the Rings a great literature because it is not serious and it is fiction! Yes he did like fiction when he was very young but for him it was never anything too important. Speaking about him I speak about a certain type of people I have met who have a very similar point of view.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I've never read another William Golding book, by the way. "Lord of the Flies" (yes, we got it too!) really has put me off him for life.

You mean he wrote other books?

Originally Posted by astra_lestat

Although, I am pretty sure my father would never consider The Lord of the Rings a great literature because it is not serious and it is fiction!

That's really interesting, astra_lestat. Most folks consider non-fiction books to be history rather than literature. Your father must be a very interesting fellow ... not someone I'd want to take a Lit class from, but an interesting fellow indeed.

[astra]

Originally Posted by NatCh

a very interesting fellow ... not someone I'd want to take a Lit class from, but an interesting fellow indeed.

No worries!
He is an ex-coal mine engineer and pensioner now, so you are safe from him
Nowdays he mostly reads grim political books about former USSR, jews, difficult times...and happy that he is not there anymore

P.S. yes, he likes Hemmingway (The Old Man and the Sea)

[Andanzas]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Dickens changed the whole concept of the novel - the novel "post-Dickens" was not the same as the novel "pre-Dickens". Dickens invented the idea of a novel with a large number of characters and multiple, interconnecting stories.

Not trying to be fussy here, but I don't think Dickens introduced any of the innovations you mention. There are writers like Balzac or even Cervantes who used those devices before Dickens. Dickens is great, I agree, but I don't think of him as an innovator. (Maybe you are saying that he was an innovator in the context of the English novel?)

Originally Posted by HarryT

Dickens CHANGED society; I don't think anyone would claim that, say, J.K.Rowling has done so. That's why Dickens is "great literature" and Harry Potter is not.

I would claim that. I think Rowling has had more impact in our society that Dickens had in his. I find it fascinating that in this era of videogames and the Internet there are millions of kids eagerly waiting for the continuation of her stories... in different countries on all the continents! And you know what? I am pretty sure that Harry Potter will be considered "classic literature" in the future. Why? Because the kids who are enjoying it now are the ones who are going to write the history of literature in the future.

Sure, Harry Potter is just children's books, nothing serious... Well, Don Quixote, Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, or War and Peace were not considered "great literature" when they were first published, they were just entertaining.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Andanzas

I am pretty sure that Harry Potter will be considered "classic literature" in the future.

I'd agree that it'll probably make the list of great young adult literature, which is increasingly recognized amongst scholars as an area worthy of attention (my step-mother's PhD is in Library Sciences, with her emphasis being on young adult lit.).

I think it'll probably, eventually find a place of honor alongside the likes of the Peters Rabbit and Pan.