Actually, I'd say the the 1940's or so is when the ability to write something good became a transmitted skill rather than something that happened like a Random Encounter.
Fight smart, not fair.If you're studying history. Since english class isn't history class (you can tell because the word "history" isn't in the name), historical significance doesn't make something worthy of inclusion.
Fight smart, not fair.No, seriously, hear me out here.
I think the majority of Tropers here can agree that the series has huge problems; from its lack luster story structure, Mary Sue heroine, and Sociopathic Hero, just as a start. While good books are always an aid to learned, I find I have learned more from bad books.
But then YMMV.
edited 17th Jul '11 6:25:15 AM by TheEmeraldDragon
I am a nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore, I am perfect.![]()
i read Twilight for school and you are right about learning more from bad books
the tropes, that is
though it nearly killed me
Anyway, the thing about culture is that it's hard to extract by neat little categories. A Tale Of Two Cities - just try explaining why Sidney being a slightly lazy alcoholic is such a big deal outside Victorian mores. Death Of A Salesman - counterculture ahoy! So why not incorporate English into a general field of cultural literacy? Heaven knows Americans need it.
(Also, I would love to be in a discussion on why Two Cities never once mentions names like Danton and Robespierre. That always intrigued me.)
Hail Martin Septim!Maybe not Twilight, but I'd be down to studying a book that wasn't all it was cracked up to be, simply so that students can learn, early on, that every book out there isn't incredibly awesome.
Hell, I learned that I could disagree with a book only when I finally got to college, in which we studied the entire book and thought about it heavily, instead of just asking ourselves what the significance of it was.
Even if a book is a classics or historically significant, not a single high school teacher ever questioned why someone may not like a book and thus view it from another perspective. All we ever got was, "Well, you might not like A Tale Of Two Cities, but it's still a powerful book that deserves study." Sure, ok, but why don't more people like it if it's apparently that amazing?
All the college courses I attended only permitted you to naysay a book if you could interpret said book to be espousing some kind of bigotry. Which, for any competent English student, is incredibly easy to do (unless it's The Merchant Of Venice or The Taming Of The Shrew, because humanities professors love to live on Opposite Planet), but still, things like "lack of meaningful plot arc" should be considered valid criticism.
To be clear, I would definitely let my students tell me about any flaws in the books I assigned. For instance, I love Sherlock Holmes, but even I can admit the series is pretty weak in the research and continuity departments.
edited 17th Jul '11 12:46:44 PM by DomaDoma
Hail Martin Septim!
Which leads into what I think is the most important thing to add to the English curriculum: open discussions led by students. Yes, you still need to teach the curriculum and grade students based off of it, and you still need to give lectures and planned lessons for grades and such, but time still needs to be made to explore open thought from students about what they're currently doing in class. I just like the idea of open student reflection on what's being taught and how it's being taught. If it's worthless for some, that's alright, and even better to explore the reasoning behind it to better understand what's being taught for the current generation to better plan for the next.
Seriously, student guided open discussion, corralled lightly by a teacher, is amazing, and particularly liberating for students who go through the doldrums of the day-to-day as much as some teachers do.
Just as long as you make sure that said students are backing up their arguments cogently. Otherwise, you're not actually teaching anything; you're just encouraging teenagers to go with their first gut instinct and logic be damned, which is the precise opposite of what a school should be doing.
Hail Martin Septim!I feel that Chesterton gets a little neglected, but he's extremely important. He was one of the early writers of detective fiction, after all, with the Father Brown stories.
The book's also one of my personal favorites - suspenseful, funny, and beautifully written.
Lord Of The Rings, no doubt. In my estimation, the greatest work of English literature ever. Animal Farm, to demonstrate that history is interresting, and display allegory. Beowulf, origional and in translation, as an example of non-rhyming poetry that isn't pretentious, and to discuss linguistic evolution. And there would be two books with themes that directly contradict each other, and students would be encouraged to discuss which is correct, with the teacher not taking a side.
edited 19th Jul '11 1:07:12 PM by Bergil
I found what little I could stomach from Lord of the Rings to be nothing but walking and creating parts to a universe and world that I would never see or experience again in any manner, unless, of course, the narrative took a turn back to that small corner of the woods, though that would be highly unproductive.
It's not necessarily bad writing, but it's slooooooooooooooooow writing. Dear God, is it ever slow...
I think an interesting pair for the exercise of contrasts would be The Tenant Of Wildfell Hall and Jane Eyre, which were written by sisters who were pretty clearly trying to hash out the implications of All Girls Want Bad Boys. (Okay, we could bring Wuthering Heights into it too, but I just don't like that book as much.)
Wow, somebody's never read Paradise Lost.
I'm going to be generous and count plays (i.e. William Shakespeare ) as theater rather than literature.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

I actually liked the books I got to read for high school.
I would add 1984, but thats already common anyways...
"Man can believe the impossible, but can never believe the improbable.” - Oscar Wilde