.

Options
13

Comments

  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Junior high students should have the Jungle by Upton Sinclair on their reading lists. The history of this country is important, and people need to know what sort of deplorable conditions life presented to the common man before socialistic controls were employed to save capitalism.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,359
    I'm buying TKAMB this week and will report back when I'm done reading.

    Again for Shakespeare, mid summer night sucked, Macbeth, Romeo and Othello I liked.
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    brianlux said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    Shakespeare should be in an advanced high school English class and university elective classes.

    Reference and a small portion of study should be made to him in Social Studies.

    I'm not discrediting his work... I'm saying that outside of English Honours students... his work is challenging at best for kids to appreciate. I'm also not saying we serve them comic books either. I'm saying there are several great pieces of literature that have much more relevance to kids.

    Some familiarization, definitely. Same with performance. Generally not my thing but before it became chick, I saw a troupe do a W.S.play with the original language but punk costumes and black cloth angular sets at the Ashland, Oregon Shakespeare Festival. It was really different at the time and outstanding.

    As much as I'm very much a fan of all the classics offered in most schools, if I went back to teaching I would do what my 9th grade teacher did. She said, "OK, here's the reading list this year but I would encourage any of you to try something outside the norm." I had read most of them (Red Pony, The Pearl, TKAM, Old Man and the Sea, etc,) so she suggest that I might like Truman Capote. I read, Other Voices, Other Rooms. That book completely altered how I saw literature. It was literally like adding another voice, another room to the realm of literature. Reading Brautigan, Hesse, Saroyan and some others in high school did much the same. Today it would be more challenging because kids are more jaded. Catcher in the Rye was radical then, today maybe not so.

    I would hope teachers today are including some contemporary literature by people like Sherman Alexie, Barbara Kingsolver, T. C. Boyle, Annie Proulx, Mark Haddon, Toni Morrison, Haruki Murakami, etc.

    Others?

    geez, Brian...I knew you had a few years on me, and having seen Hendrix and some of the musical greats of years past will always be something to envy....but seeing a Shakespeare performance before he got trendy? THAT is impressive. :tongue:
    HughFreakingDillon said:

    I was a top student in English. Shakespeare I just didn't get. what the hell he was trying to say. I honestly think his works probably belong in a higher learning atmosphere, like University. Most kids my age didn't get it either.

    TKAM is essential reading.

    Funny, I was the exact opposite. I honestly don't even remember if I bothered reading TKAM or if it was part of the curriculum at any point (I'm sure it was and I blew it off)....I was bored stiff by Grapes of Wrath.....maybe I should go back and try reading some of these 'greats' again. Now that I have slightly less of a chip on my shoulder than I did as a teen...
    But Shakespeare? At first I was like 'how the fuck am I going to get through this? (Merchant of Venice was first) What does this even mean?' I swear it took me an hour to read five pages....but at some point something clicked and I was able to 'get it'...and I loved it.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    Drowned Out said:

    brianlux said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    Shakespeare should be in an advanced high school English class and university elective classes.

    Reference and a small portion of study should be made to him in Social Studies.

    I'm not discrediting his work... I'm saying that outside of English Honours students... his work is challenging at best for kids to appreciate. I'm also not saying we serve them comic books either. I'm saying there are several great pieces of literature that have much more relevance to kids.

    Some familiarization, definitely. Same with performance. Generally not my thing but before it became chick, I saw a troupe do a W.S.play with the original language but punk costumes and black cloth angular sets at the Ashland, Oregon Shakespeare Festival. It was really different at the time and outstanding.

    As much as I'm very much a fan of all the classics offered in most schools, if I went back to teaching I would do what my 9th grade teacher did. She said, "OK, here's the reading list this year but I would encourage any of you to try something outside the norm." I had read most of them (Red Pony, The Pearl, TKAM, Old Man and the Sea, etc,) so she suggest that I might like Truman Capote. I read, Other Voices, Other Rooms. That book completely altered how I saw literature. It was literally like adding another voice, another room to the realm of literature. Reading Brautigan, Hesse, Saroyan and some others in high school did much the same. Today it would be more challenging because kids are more jaded. Catcher in the Rye was radical then, today maybe not so.

    I would hope teachers today are including some contemporary literature by people like Sherman Alexie, Barbara Kingsolver, T. C. Boyle, Annie Proulx, Mark Haddon, Toni Morrison, Haruki Murakami, etc.

    Others?

    geez, Brian...I knew you had a few years on me, and having seen Hendrix and some of the musical greats of years past will always be something to envy....but seeing a Shakespeare performance before he got trendy? THAT is impressive. :tongue:
    HughFreakingDillon said:

    I was a top student in English. Shakespeare I just didn't get. what the hell he was trying to say. I honestly think his works probably belong in a higher learning atmosphere, like University. Most kids my age didn't get it either.

    TKAM is essential reading.

    Funny, I was the exact opposite. I honestly don't even remember if I bothered reading TKAM or if it was part of the curriculum at any point (I'm sure it was and I blew it off)....I was bored stiff by Grapes of Wrath.....maybe I should go back and try reading some of these 'greats' again. Now that I have slightly less of a chip on my shoulder than I did as a teen...
    But Shakespeare? At first I was like 'how the fuck am I going to get through this? (Merchant of Venice was first) What does this even mean?' I swear it took me an hour to read five pages....but at some point something clicked and I was able to 'get it'...and I loved it.
    To be or not to be, my friend. I just keep on bein'!
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    I read a ton. Always have. There were many books I loved in high school that had significant meaning: Lord of the Flies for example. Even The Chyrsalids.

    Studying Shakespeare is more out of respect for his work at a time when that type of work was revolutionary. But I'm sorry... as groundbreaking and awesome as it was at the time... it's simply not that fantastic or relevant in my eyes to the average high schooler. Advanced classes, a tribute paid in Social Studies classes and a university elective course for sure. Might be just me. I dunno.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Enkidu
    Enkidu So Cal Posts: 2,996
    The Jungle is a great idea - my husband just read it recently and was blown away.

    My daughter went to a Catholic all girl high school and first semester freshman year she had to read Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, and something else that was just like those three and she ended up hating all of them. A little variety might have been better. Later they read Catcher in the Rye and she was very, very happy.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    Enkidu said:

    The Jungle is a great idea - my husband just read it recently and was blown away.

    My daughter went to a Catholic all girl high school and first semester freshman year she had to read Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, and something else that was just like those three and she ended up hating all of them. A little variety might have been better. Later they read Catcher in the Rye and she was very, very happy.

    Austin, Bronte, du Maurier... their lives were so much more interesting than their works. I've never understood the appeal. Because I'm a guy?
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    brianlux said:

    Enkidu said:

    The Jungle is a great idea - my husband just read it recently and was blown away.

    My daughter went to a Catholic all girl high school and first semester freshman year she had to read Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, and something else that was just like those three and she ended up hating all of them. A little variety might have been better. Later they read Catcher in the Rye and she was very, very happy.

    Austin, Bronte, du Maurier... their lives were so much more interesting than their works. I've never understood the appeal. Because I'm a guy?
    Because that way of life was Bullshit lol
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Who Princess
    Who Princess out here in the fields Posts: 7,305
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    Studying Shakespeare is more out of respect for his work at a time when that type of work was revolutionary. But I'm sorry... as groundbreaking and awesome as it was at the time... it's simply not that fantastic or relevant in my eyes to the average high schooler. Advanced classes, a tribute paid in Social Studies classes and a university elective course for sure. Might be just me. I dunno.

    I wouldn't call old Will revolutionary, even for his time. He was a successful playwright. He was so successful that other people tried to pass off their works as his. As one of my professors liked to say, Shakespeare was in it for the money. He wasn't trying to frustrate future students of English literature.

    But in addition to being successful, much of his writing is brilliant. Not all of it. He got better and better with time. Generally speaking, he first wrote his comedies, then histories, then tragedies. That's why his tragedies are many of his best works. The themes are still timely, especially as they relate to depictions of power and struggles for it.

    I don't think Shakespeare is beyond high school kids. I think it hinges on the choice of plays and how it's taught. I can't emphasize enough how much difference it makes to see or hear the plays.
    "The stars are all connected to the brain."
  • Who Princess
    Who Princess out here in the fields Posts: 7,305
    Enkidu said:

    The Jungle is a great idea - my husband just read it recently and was blown away.

    My daughter went to a Catholic all girl high school and first semester freshman year she had to read Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Rebecca, and something else that was just like those three and she ended up hating all of them. A little variety might have been better. Later they read Catcher in the Rye and she was very, very happy.

    My prince and I were both English majors and I was telling him about this thread last night. Since we're both so old, we were wondering what works kids read in school now. I've read the 3 above and they all have their merits to me, especially Jane Eyre. But that's a little heavy on the chick lit for the first semester of high school. :lol:
    "The stars are all connected to the brain."
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,255
    I think people are wired differently. Some like math, some like science, some like literature, etc.... Something like Shakespeare is good exercise for the brain, but not something that is very important overall. That is me talking as I am a math person though!
  • Who Princess
    Who Princess out here in the fields Posts: 7,305
    bootlegger10 said:

    I think people are wired differently. Some like math, some like science, some like literature, etc.... Something like Shakespeare is good exercise for the brain, but not something that is very important overall. That is me talking as I am a math person though!

    I used to have a tee that said "English major--you do the math." :lol:
    "The stars are all connected to the brain."
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,663
    edited February 2016
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    I read a ton. Always have. There were many books I loved in high school that had significant meaning: Lord of the Flies for example. Even The Chyrsalids.

    Studying Shakespeare is more out of respect for his work at a time when that type of work was revolutionary. But I'm sorry... as groundbreaking and awesome as it was at the time... it's simply not that fantastic or relevant in my eyes to the average high schooler. Advanced classes, a tribute paid in Social Studies classes and a university elective course for sure. Might be just me. I dunno.

    But Shakespeare teaches all kind of lessons as far as the study of English Lit goes. Having to decipher the language and figure out all the metaphors and how they reflect the political and social circumstances of the day, learning how Shakespeare's words have grown into common vernacular in present day, how words are put together to have double meanings, etc etc etc etc - it's all a training exercise for high school students. It's meant to teach them the nuances of how language is used. I don't actually feel like the stories themselves are the point at all. It's training for critical thinking and the uses of language IMO (as well as an artistic history lesson), and I think that's the main point of having it in high schools. Yes, it is challenging - very much so, for some. And having to go through it like a puzzle is the main point.

    PS - you read the Chrysalids in high school? We read that in grade 5. Great book, but I'm surprised it would be on the high school reading list.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    PJ_Soul said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    I read a ton. Always have. There were many books I loved in high school that had significant meaning: Lord of the Flies for example. Even The Chyrsalids.

    Studying Shakespeare is more out of respect for his work at a time when that type of work was revolutionary. But I'm sorry... as groundbreaking and awesome as it was at the time... it's simply not that fantastic or relevant in my eyes to the average high schooler. Advanced classes, a tribute paid in Social Studies classes and a university elective course for sure. Might be just me. I dunno.

    But Shakespeare teaches all kind of lessons as far as the study of English Lit goes. Having to decipher the language and figure out all the metaphors and how they reflect the political and social circumstances of the day, learning how Shakespeare's words have grown into common vernacular in present day, how words are put together to have double meanings, etc etc etc etc - it's all a training exercise for high school students. It's meant to teach them the nuances of how language is used. I don't actually feel like the stories themselves are the point at all. It's training for critical thinking and the uses of language IMO (as well as an artistic history lesson), and I think that's the main point of having it in high schools. Yes, it is challenging - very much so, for some. And having to go through it like a puzzle is the main point.

    PS - you read the Chrysalids in high school? We read that in grade 5. Great book, but I'm surprised it would be on the high school reading list.
    Grade 9 for Chrysalids (you probably went to one of those hoity toity private schools your professor mom and dad sent you to!).

    Like I say... The Canterbury Tales... Tess of the D'Urbervilles... Uncle Tom... etc... all have their place in history; however, there have been books written under the modern context that offer the ability to teach the items you mentioned.

    But we split hairs. All is good. I just hated Shakespeare. And Milton. And Chaucer. I respected all of them... but couldn't dig the work. I did like Timothy Findley (The Wars).
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,663
    edited February 2016
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    I read a ton. Always have. There were many books I loved in high school that had significant meaning: Lord of the Flies for example. Even The Chyrsalids.

    Studying Shakespeare is more out of respect for his work at a time when that type of work was revolutionary. But I'm sorry... as groundbreaking and awesome as it was at the time... it's simply not that fantastic or relevant in my eyes to the average high schooler. Advanced classes, a tribute paid in Social Studies classes and a university elective course for sure. Might be just me. I dunno.

    But Shakespeare teaches all kind of lessons as far as the study of English Lit goes. Having to decipher the language and figure out all the metaphors and how they reflect the political and social circumstances of the day, learning how Shakespeare's words have grown into common vernacular in present day, how words are put together to have double meanings, etc etc etc etc - it's all a training exercise for high school students. It's meant to teach them the nuances of how language is used. I don't actually feel like the stories themselves are the point at all. It's training for critical thinking and the uses of language IMO (as well as an artistic history lesson), and I think that's the main point of having it in high schools. Yes, it is challenging - very much so, for some. And having to go through it like a puzzle is the main point.

    PS - you read the Chrysalids in high school? We read that in grade 5. Great book, but I'm surprised it would be on the high school reading list.
    Grade 9 for Chrysalids (you probably went to one of those hoity toity private schools your professor mom and dad sent you to!).

    Like I say... The Canterbury Tales... Tess of the D'Urbervilles... Uncle Tom... etc... all have their place in history; however, there have been books written under the modern context that offer the ability to teach the items you mentioned.

    But we split hairs. All is good. I just hated Shakespeare. And Milton. And Chaucer. I respected all of them... but couldn't dig the work. I did like Timothy Findley (The Wars).
    :lol: No way man, I'm a product of the public school system (those bastards, hahaha).
    Fair enough - I also love Milton and Chaucer, lol, so there you go. ;) Not like I kick back with a nice thick volume of Shakespeare's tragedies or a hard cover edition of Paradise Lost or the Canterbury Tales, lmao, but I enjoyed studying them and have a deep appreciation for them.
    But I do argue that you actually can't get the same kind of thing out of modern books that you can out of Shakespeare or Chaucer, etc. The way that language is used in Shakespeare, for one, has no modern comparison as a teaching tool. Not even close.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Enkidu
    Enkidu So Cal Posts: 2,996
    I read Shakespeare now that I understand it better. And I agree with PJ Soul about having to learn and try to figure out the language, even though it's hard. I'm also a public school kid and the same fabulous teacher (junior year) who taught us Macbeth taught us Canterbury Tales and she made them entertaining and hilarious. There was farting!

    We had to memorize the opening and I can still do some of it - at a high school reunion a bunch of us did it together (we were probably drunk). "Whon that Aprille with his shure sote, the draught of March hath pierced through the roote..." (I did that without looking at Google, I swear.)

    I hated Beowulf. I think we read that senior year. Years later I read Gilgamesh (that's where Enkidu's from, btw) and thought it was beautiful. Way better than Beowulf.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,663
    edited February 2016
    I'm with you - I hated Beowulf! It just didn't do anything for me at all as a story. So boring. Although it did still aid in my "training", which is, again, the point I guess... and it has actually aided me when watching Jeopardy. ;)
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Who Princess
    Who Princess out here in the fields Posts: 7,305
    Enkidu said:

    I read Shakespeare now that I understand it better. And I agree with PJ Soul about having to learn and try to figure out the language, even though it's hard. I'm also a public school kid and the same fabulous teacher (junior year) who taught us Macbeth taught us Canterbury Tales and she made them entertaining and hilarious. There was farting!

    We had to memorize the opening and I can still do some of it - at a high school reunion a bunch of us did it together (we were probably drunk). "Whon that Aprille with his shure sote, the draught of March hath pierced through the roote..." (I did that without looking at Google, I swear.)

    I hated Beowulf. I think we read that senior year. Years later I read Gilgamesh (that's where Enkidu's from, btw) and thought it was beautiful. Way better than Beowulf.

    Sacrilege! Beowulf is awesome! Battling Grendel and Grendel's dam! Love it! :lol:

    And I can still recite the prologue to the Canterbury Tales, and several other passages. :tongue: But my specialty in grad school was medieval literature.
    "The stars are all connected to the brain."
  • Malroth
    Malroth broken down chevrolet Posts: 2,556
    I think when kids are young, the most important thing is to let them read stuff they want to read. Get a kid interested in reading first, then they will eventually read books with a little more substance.
    Required reading of any kind kinda stinks to me.
    The worst of times..they don't phase me,
    even if I look and act really crazy.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    Malroth said:

    I think when kids are young, the most important thing is to let them read stuff they want to read. Get a kid interested in reading first, then they will eventually read books with a little more substance.
    Required reading of any kind kinda stinks to me.

    That's a good idea. Years ago, I took a class on developing reading curriculum and the prof told us about a kid he tried to get interested in reading and nothing seemed to work. Then one day the kid mentioned being a Doors fan so the teacher gave him a copy of No One Here Gets Out Alive and all of the sudden the kid was hooked on books.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

Categories