From: mattb@ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare? also Am Lit
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:26:26 GMT
Reply-To: mattb@olympus.ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Organization: Cabletron Systems INc.

(Tom Maddox) writes:

>	I have never understood the predeliction of American junior and
>high school teachers for the dreary precincts of early-to-mid 20th century
>American writers such as Steinbeck, Dreiser, O'Hara, Wilder . . . ah, Christ,
>I can't go on--

This is another case where it is better to go for a dip than a wallow. Again,
take them to see a Wilder play, or show a Steinbeck work on film, read one
book or some short stories, and by God, move on. Be selective, don't choke
the reader. I could go into a harangue about the different ways people learn,
but I won't. Suffice to say that burying Middle/Junior/High school kids in
any era is an educational felony.

>	At any rate, my son two years ago was in a senior honors literature
>class taught by a rather nice older man who dragged out the same books
>(he even made them read a Thornton Wilder novel I say incredulously), and
>when I disingenuously asked him how he had constructed this reading list, 
>he said that he just liked these books.

I had a nice older man as an English teacher, and managed to get out of
an oral book report by telling him I had mistakenly chosen _Lolita_ from
the high school library shelves and was too embarrassed to speak to the
class about it. After turning rather red, sputtering for a few minutes,
and muttering about "That woman and the things she allows on her shelves!"
he let me off the hook, excused himself from the class, and went off the
chastise the librarian.  Not a bad book, either.

>	I've since concluded that high school literature teachers haven't 
>read anything else themselves and so keep these pseudo-great lit assignments 
>going around like gerbils on treadmills.

On the other hand, I took an advanced moderm lit class as a sophomore,
had a radical young lady that all us boys fell for, and while we drowned
in _Portrait of the Artist_, _Soul on Ice_, _Manchild in the Promised Land_,
and _Waiting for Godot_, many of us were kindled (for books that is), and
of course, had more sense than to say a word to our parents (this was in
the '60s at/around the Bobby Seale/Panther's trial in neighboring New Haven).

>	No wonder the little fuckers don't read--they think Lit is all a bunch
>of tedious codswallop.  Give them Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne, Herrick . . .
>and _Neuromancer_ and rock videos as well.  Give them something difficult and
>sexy and disturbing and above all *worth their effort* and don't be a 
>dipshit--i.e., above all do no harm as the medical folks are told in equally 
>important matters.

What an assault on family values! On behalf of Real American Parents, I am
outraged (mock).  Seriously, a mix of good books written for G7-12, and
meaningful older works in context is the best way to go.  These days,
perhaps a survey of infidelity through the ages would be appropriate (Miller's
Tale, Othello, Scarlet Letter, Gennifer Flowers, etc.). Or State v religion,
liberty v responsibility; there are lots of interesting possibilities. 
Tieing things together helps kids make sense of it, and is also a good excuse
for dragging out the dusty stuff (better than "Read it! I did, and it's good
for you. Look how good I turned out." <sound of gagging students>).

Matt
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books