If you could design the English Curriculum..

...what books would you put on it?

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Little Shop Of Horrors (script), Howard Ashman, 1982

I'm feeling strangely happy now, contented and serene. Oh don't you see, finally I'll be, somewhere that's green...

Discworld. Probably Reaper Man specifically. Maybe Lords And Ladies

edited 22nd Jan '11 11:43:16 AM by LuckyRevenant

"I can't imagine what Hell will have in store, but I know when I'm there, I won't wander anymore."

Discworld especially because I'm American and in high school. Its so hard to find people who like it. Probably Small Gods and Jingo. For middle school kids Tiffany Aching.

Watchmen, just because. The Master and Margarita. The Crying of Lot 49.

Curriculum as in, stuff for a class to read?

Well, give me some time to think this over... I'd want to start off, in like fourth grade (for nine and ten year olds) with really good stuff, but stuff that's enjoyable first and foremost. I want these kids to love reading. And I'll have a nice melange: I'll mix in some fantasy like A Wrinkle In Time and Harry Potter And The Philosophers Stone along with the more standard, non-fantasy stories - and plenty of short stories along the way.

We'd read a Harry Potter book every year, and we would open on The Giver. This would also be a good time to work in some Agatha Christie, and historical fiction, paired of course with studying the corresponding period in history. Kids'll get to choose their own books for over the summer, such as Anne Of Green Gables, The Egypt Game, etc. And what better time than now to start on Shakespeare? Twelfth Night for everyone!

Sixth grade we'd read Into The Woods, and maybe watch a production, as a discussion about postmodernism (stories within stories, characters aware of their stories, and deliberately combining known formulae and subverting them.) We'd combine it with a unit on poetry - a lot of poetry. Now we would start in on Tiffany Aching's A Hat Full Of Sky, from the Discworld books. Good place to start. And next up, Fahrenheit451...

In short, choosing stuff with high literary quality, while keeping the works enjoyable and relatable - fun, in short, but smart fun.

F-451 is a must on my list, as is Flowers For Algernon. I'd love to have Enders Game and Speaker in there too, with a disclaimer about the author's stances on certain issues.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Why the disclaimer? It's not like his views are as obvious in those two books as they are in many of his other works.

"I can't imagine what Hell will have in store, but I know when I'm there, I won't wander anymore."

True, but I think that after reading a book one should look at the author. Which is ass-backwards of the way they do it now.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

And what makes that system better, precisely?

Note that I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm wondering what your own reasons are.

edited 22nd Jan '11 4:33:43 PM by LuckyRevenant

"I can't imagine what Hell will have in store, but I know when I'm there, I won't wander anymore."

I think that a book should be expierenced as its own entity, with only the minimum amount of background, so that a reader's own impressions form un-influenced by introductions and forewards as well.

However, to understand all of the nuances and the author's meaning, the context is important. So by doing this after reading the student is more able to understand the text within its cultural framework while also getting to form opinions uninfluenced by it.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

I mostly agree, though I also hold with Death of the Author.

"I can't imagine what Hell will have in store, but I know when I'm there, I won't wander anymore."

So basically you're saying "I like this book, but I hate the author's political opinions, so if we let other people read the book let's warn them that they should hate it because the author is a big fat meanie face head pants"?

I'm feeling strangely happy now, contented and serene. Oh don't you see, finally I'll be, somewhere that's green...

Homophobia is a bad thing.

I write pretty good fanfiction, sometimes.

No, they read the book first and than learn about him. In that order. I think he's only a weird guy besides the rabid anti-gay stuff.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Bigots are people too.

I'm feeling strangely happy now, contented and serene. Oh don't you see, finally I'll be, somewhere that's green...

Yes, but their bigotry should be noted.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Probably leave it up to teachers for the most part, but focus on varied genres and writing styles to try and get them interested in reading. But no Shakespeare. Putting Shakespeare on the curriculum results in a lost teaching license and the suspension of all funding of the school.

Also, the authors should never be mentioned except in passing as a reference for finding other books.

edited 23rd Jan '11 5:31:09 AM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.

Actually, rhetoric like that is why I would emphasize Shakespeare early and make him accessible and likable - not tout him as the greatest writer of all time, the be-all and end-all, but include him, working up to the meatier stuff. The kids should see Mr. Shakespeare as a friendly writer, not as a fearsome, untouchable force of literary nature.

Also, Classical Mythology, probably in eighth grade. A good base in that can really help with studying the old classics.

Shakespeare was the most unpleasant work I've ever been exposed to. I've seen most of Uwe Bol and Seltzer Burger work, and I'm including it in that statement. Part of the unpleasantness comes from the idea that it's impossible to dislike it, and the answer is greater exposure to Shakespeare. The sooner the works of Shakespeare are forgotten, the better. Given the power, I'd make teaching it a capitol offense.

Also, the entirety of literature classes for a twelve year schooling curriculum would be completed within one year.

edited 23rd Jan '11 6:15:10 AM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.

You would kill people for teaching Shakespeare?

Okay, look, there's a difference between personally disliking something for yourself, choosing to exclude it from your life, and thinking that it should be banned for everyone, ever. That's not fair. And Shakespeare fulfills many educational points - he's probably the best showcase of style in the Elizabethan era, he's got an incredibly important place in the literary tradition - practically everyone English refers to him in some way - and in addition to literature, he's a cornerstone of English theater.

All setting aside how good his plays are in the first place, in my humble opinion.

And as for short stories, I would teach The Most Dangerous Game and A Rose For Emily in eighth grade. And, ooh, Ursula K. Le Guin's A Wizard of Earthsea as a look at the Hero's Cycle.

edited 23rd Jan '11 9:26:36 AM by vifetoile

Dude, I loved Shakespeare at school. A decent teacher, an annotated version of the plays, and getting to see them acted out - as they were originally intended - is all you really need to make them workable to teenagers.

And for the record, I start my Masters in Teaching next month.

The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.

I don't think you should pay too much heed to De Boss here, if he had his way we'd only learn Math and Science.

If I remember correctly you said you petitioned the school board to cut funding for art and music classes.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

I would expose the students to some other mythologies than just Greek and a hint of Norse. I'd add some Egyptian, Hindu, Shinto...

Swordplay and writing blog. Purveyor of weeaboo fightin' magic.

Funny, my education never got any Norse and DID get Egyptian.

I'm feeling strangely happy now, contented and serene. Oh don't you see, finally I'll be, somewhere that's green...

That's assuming I got mad dictator powers.

The mandatory component for English is both too large and too focused on "classics". Any literature that has to be required to get readership, isn't a book worthy of being read. I honestly can't think of any exceptions.

History of literature would also be cut from any class that doesn't have "history" in the name, and none of them would be required. There's nothing worth learning there unless someone is already interested.

Modified for my purposes.

Also, no state funded field trips to go see plays. They're a form of art that will hopefully die soon anyway.

As for individual writers, I'd recommend Douglas Adams for comedy, Timothy Zahn for Sci-Fi or possibly mystery, David Eddings for fantasy, and there's probably a few others, but I can't think of them right now.

Fight smart, not fair.