Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: stacer on April 29, 2003, 02:55:48 AM
-
I'm trying to flesh out my SF side of my rewritten syllabus for this class that's ending next week. I know, I know, most of you have better things to do than help me with my homework. But if any of you have suggestions on books about mutants and/or gene-manipulation, please let me know.
The only one I've found so far is a collection of short stories edited by Asimov called Young Mutants. It seems that we have a lot more TV shows/movies/comic books about them (the obvious example being X-Men, of course).
Also, does anyone know when Starship Troopers was originally published, and if it was originally written for children? I found a copy of it in the children's section of the library, but I didn't think it was really children's or YA. Maybe it is considered YA now--if it was written before 1970 or so, there was no YA genre for it to fit into. Anyway, the computer catalog entry for the copy I have says this is "highly abridged" but I can't find anywhere in the book that says that.
Aha--just found it on the copyright page: "A much abridged version of this book was published in Fantasy and Science Fiction magazine under the title 'Starship Soldier.'"
The copyright on my version says 1959.
-
The Wild Cards series is well written and insightful (especially the first 3 books)
As for Starship Troopers it was written in 1959. Heinlein always did write on a level that young adults could read, but not one that they always understood.
Troopers is a very complex book about politics war and fighting for what is right. He has been called a fascist, a communist and an elitist by experts so its possible that young adults might find some of the concepts challenging. The book is totally different from the movie so don't judge it on that basis. Suffice it to say that there is no sex, intellectualized violence and a lot of moral ambiguity. Its probably one of my favorite books because each time I read it I take a away another layer.
-
Glad to hear that--I never saw the movie, though it looked interesting, because I heard it was pretty stupid. But I had heard that the book was a pretty seminal SF book, so it's worth reading.
-
Oh definately, It'd have to be among the top ten of Sci-Fi along with Asimov's Foundation, David Brins Startide Rising, Arthur C Clarks 2001 and Rendevous with RAMA and Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy those are seminal books in Sci-fi indeed.
-
I would definitely classify Starship Troopers as YA, more so than almost any of Heinlein's other books. It has nothing to do with mutants, though, as far as I remember.
As for books about mutants, I have no idea. Would you object to putting actual comicbooks on your syllabus?
-
Are we talking about "seminal" or "good?" Rama doesn't have a whole lot of depth to it.
And as for mutants, I'd have to say that X-Men really is the definitive mutant set of characters in speculative fiction. However, if you're looking for mutation/genetic manipulation, you probably should also check out Gattica (yes, it's a movie, not a book).
And it's not really mutant, but Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land is about "evolved" beings and their reaction to society, as well as the reverse relationship. This is also not what I'd call necessarily "young adult." It too is one of those "seminal" novels that isn't necessarily that great, though this time mostly because I think Heinlein was too enthusiastic about a new philosophy he hadn't fully considered. That or drugs, I dunno.
-
Sorry, didn't clarify--that was two different things I was talking about, mutant/genetic evolution/gene manipulation-ish books--not too picky on the specifics, just that sort of thing (one) and Starship Troopers (two).
Actually, I don't know why I couldn't include comic books, since I'm defining the material and the audience for the fictional course I'm creating, and X-Men is really what I had in mind, but how accessible are copies of comic books and graphic novels in libraries?
One part of my rewriting of the syllabus is to expand the SF part of the course, which is all of one week right now, so I'm going for both breadth and depth--history of science fiction for children, and well-written SF for children. I'm much stronger on fantasy than I am on SF, because that just interests me more, especially high fantasy.
I've got books like A Wrinkle in Time, The Giver, Among the Hidden (Margaret Petersen Haddix), The Ear, the Eye, and the Arm (Nancy Farmer), Ender's Game, Dune, and Feed, for starters. (Feed just came out last year, by M.T. Anderson--good book, but it's yet another dystopic view of the future, which seems to be the trend in serious SF for children for the last 10 or 15 years.) I have several stacks of other books I've pulled off library shelves randomly that I'll be trying to skim-read this week (Starship Troopers is one of those).
Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. More are welcome if you have them--but I can't use suggestions for movies. That's my problem--I can think of plenty of movie examples, but this is a literature course, so I have to stick to books, or at least to print.
Oh, and if any of you might be familiar with high fantasy books (for children YA and younger) that are based on something other than the regular British tradition, I'd appreciate those suggestions, too. (An example is Little Sister, by Kara Dalkey, which uses Japanese mythology, culture, and ideas of rank, a nice difference from the regular Western feudal stuff you usually see in children's lit, at least.)
-
Dune, with the whole Messianic plot, is rather heavy going for kids isnt it?
Mind you, i did read it at 12. But i watched Terminator 2 at 9 so... :-/
-
David Brin's Startide Rising and the Uplift War are about a war caused by Humans geneticly uplifting Dolphins and Chimps to sentient races. The other aliens in the universe dont like it.
-
oo! oo! Shelly's Frankenstein. It's not *genetic* manipulation, but it's the same idea.
And for the alternate tradition, try Raymond E Feist and Janny Wurts "Servant of the Empire" series. It has a character from the world of Feist's "Riftwar Saga" which is mostly Euro-tradition, but it takes place on the other side of the rift, which has a more eastern based world. Feist isn't the best writer, and his works tend to smack of influence from whatever fantasy RPG he's playing. However, he's all right, and when he gets away from the same set of characters (as he does in the "Empire" series) his work is much more interesting.
-
With Dune, I would call that upper YA, 15 and above? Still falls under "children" because YA is officially children's literature. Heavy, but no more heavy than Feed, which posits a completely consumerist culture, to the point that people have had an internet feed implanted in their heads so they can buy more quickly. It's also made people really stupid, because they don't have to read and don't have to remember anything because they can look it up immediately. Their vocabulary has disintegrated to the lowest common denominator of teenspeak, as well. It's a good read, but has a lot of language, so it's something I'd place beside Dune as far as age group goes.
-
I've only read one of them, so I can't comment on quality, but Card's Alvin Maker series is colonial American fantasy, set at about 1815. I suppose you could consider it alternate history rather than high fantasy, but it IS a non-medieval fantasy so I thought I'd mention it.
The thing with X-Men is that you'd have to find a specific storyline or graphic novel that deals with the issues you want to bring out. Just telling the kids to go out and read some X-Men would probably be counter-productive, since they're more likely to end up with an action story than a discussion of mutants and human evolution. It would be a lot of fun to do the research, though.
One thing you might want to do is use the dotcomics available on Marvel.com. They've got several issues of Ultimate X-Men, which may or may not be what you're looking for (I haven't read them).
-
Finding graphic novels/comics in the library might be tough, yes. But you could get a copy from a store and put it on reserve. Depends on how much money you can convince the school to spend for you.
Or you could show the class the movie while at school and talk about it from there.
Gen-13 is another comic that talks about gene manipulation. It's a little bit racier and a little more in your face about issues too.
-
As linguist I have to point out that language cannot, by nature, disintigrate. Language can change (in fact it has to change) but to call that change a disintegration is inaccurate.
Sorry, but that's one of my pet subjects. I'm also a descriptive grammarian. Feel free to ignore these comments at your leisure.
-
We are turning into our parents...
For them it was Boss and neat-o Daddy-o, for us radical and Bitch'en or Dope and Mac Daddy and now our kids have come up with a dialect that should be making us proud. But its just making us realize how our parents felt ,and theirs before them.
The fact is language evolves and changes especially in areas where cultures overlap. Give the kids a little credit though. In most cases they know how to speak properly. They cant spell as well as a lot adults, but thats because they no longer have to use their brain to write, what with Spell checkers and Grammar checkers.
But if they read Young Adult books because they are easy and not because they have some intrinsic value (plot, structure, theme) then they might as well be getting an internet or TV feed right to their head. Labels of Young Adult and Teen on books do a lot of harm to readers.
Look at the Narnia Chronicles for example, they are often shelved away in the Young Adult section when they are perfectly good books for adults to be reading. Many older teens may not even want to read the Narnia Chronicles because its baby stuff (after all you can find it by the Sweet Valley High Series). Other young adults get turned off to reading because they never flex their mental muscles and tackle anything harder than Bunnicula. Do I think Junior high kids can read all of the books listed above. Yes, with very little effort anything they dont understand can be explored in greater detail in class. You know learning.
Sorry, I dont mean to rave, but one thing my parents never did was tell me what I could read because of my age.
PS. Because of some slight sexual content you may want to avoid the wildcards books.
-
My comment about language devolution was aimed at the "Feed" description, not YA fiction in general, but you probably knew that.
As for YA fiction, I wouldn't say that the label is dangerous any more than "children's book" is dangerous. Different people read at different levels, and while a kid certainly CAN read adult stuff (I read LotR when I was 10), they can get just as much out of books designed for YA audiences. Saying that all YA books are like Sweet Valley High is like saying that all adult books are like Danielle Steel. Books like the Prydain Chronicles are very firmly in the realm of YA, and obviously never intended for adults, but that doesn't make them fluffy and useless.
-
Just to interject some random comments:
"Young Adult" is more a marketing term than anything else. I read HG Wells War of the Worlds when I was 8. Ditto The Hobbit. I read the whole of Lord of the Rings before I was 10. I don't believe I'm terribly abnormal for this board in that regard.
Yeah, if you think teens really buy into the idea that teenagers are reading what they're told their supposed to read, than "Young Adult" is doing harm. I don't know anyone who does. I think maybe teens don't read the Chronicles of Narnia because they do have a more sophisticated grammar and vocabulary than the Narnia books contain, but most don't have the sophistication of analysis to get out of it what an adult would.
Naturally, these are generalizations. The few people who are not reading Narnia (and like books) because they're comparable to "Sweet Valley High" (which isn't what they'd be next to, they'd be next to the New Jedi Order books) will either realize their mistake as an adult or will never gain the sophistication they need anyway.
All this is to say that I'd rather have my kids reading Sweet Valley High than reading nothing. It may be fluffy and little else, but it's better than turning on "reality" TV.
Amendment: I realize all of that didn't flow, but then, that's why they're "random" comments. Also, I'm doing the same thing as yesterday, and I'm alternately bored or flipping windows. You'll cope.
-
As far as the term Young Adult goes, it's generally used as a term for books that would generally be appealing to teenagers, and it's a term applied by adults, not one that teens really use themselves. But for ease of reference, and to be able to know where to put the books in the library or bookstore, we use the term YA.
Sometimes books are packaged for both children's and YA--the same reasoning behind printing an adult version of Harry Potter, that adults will want a less cartoon-looking book. The Hobbit is a perfect example--you can find it in the children's section, the YA section, and the adult section, usually in three different bindings. I've generally seen the Narnia books in the children's section.
Fell, I didn't realize you were a liguist. At any rate, whatever you call it, you might find the book interesting.
And as far as reading levels go, I don't think kids should be pigeonholed, either--I was constantly reading above what they said was my reading level, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.
I hear stories about some teachers and librarians who use this computer program (Advanced Reader or something?) that determines a student's reading level, and then they use that level and make the students read only on that level. If a child is interested in a book that is above or below that, they don't allow the child to check it out. That's ridiculous.
Teenagers often read up, but they also read books specifically targeted at them, which is the kind of books I was talking about. I won't be dividing them by age group in my project, but I do have to draw the line somewhere, seeing as how the program *is* children's literature. I can include some books generally thought of as "adult" if they have a wide following among teenagers or kids, but in general I have to focus on books for kids/teenagers.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with St. Ehlers.
And I should be doing my homework.
Thanks for all the suggestions, guys.
-
Sorry, I was just remembering kids in my highschool English classes. You see they all could read, and did (which is pretty good considering the literacy rate in the US) when they had too, but many of them did not read for fun. I don't really blame them. I blame English teachers who over analyze books, and crappy cookie cutter best sellers, and a culture that gives us very little time to read.
Once upon a time I had to read Lord of the Flies for school. Its required reading here in Virginia, and I have to say William Goldman wrote a very good book. But Sitting in class hearing our teachers theory's on what it meant made me sick. I actually got into an argument with her because she was convinced the rock that kills Piggy was symbolic because of its reddish hue.
Its a shame that when someone reads a book they come to the conclusion that because they saw it one way that must have been what the writer intended.
I'd have to say most of the kids I knew in school got turned off to reading in highschool. Up untill sixth grade we still liked reading our english books aloud (sanitized classic short stories in Virginia) and just about everyone in my class got a book or two at the scholastic book fair.
It was when people started to hit us with the symbolism genie that people lost it. I mean honestly can a rock be naturally red without symbolizing death and conflict? Especially when the act of crushing Piggy IS death and conflict.
I abhor the marketing labels given to books almost as much as I hate the section in record stores labeled "popular" music.
I understand that YA books are easier to read than some fiction and even that some books can be found in multiple sections. But when Im standing in a bookstore and I see two young teens discussing books (the Narnia Chronicles) and deciding not to buy it because its kids stuff and obviously in the wrong section I get ill.
You don't see a senior citizens section, or a Middle Aged Section. I dont see why books cant be catagorized by a better marketing system. Like subject. Hmm is it non-fiction, a Mystery, a Sci-fi book maybe just fiction?
Yes its a marketing tool, but its a harmful marketing tool. In the same way that Nicklodeon and MTV convince kids that Parents are the enemy. Or that a TV show is "Just for kids". It does the same damage to TV and movies as it does to books. Take animation for example, out of the US its a vibrant art form that people of all ages go to see. Here except for a few diehard fans, animation is only for "kids". I attribute it to marketing and while it assures a ready made market it prevents people from outside of traditional demographics from branching into a new subject, or genre.
Sorry about the rant, I just wish kids could be challenged and not targeted. Its too bad its a pipedream.
..........That being said ;D I wholeheartedly support the marketing of Roleplaying Games to kids in school...
Come comment in the RPG forum.
Jeffe
-
Well, I, um...still disagree. I simply don't think that marketing labels are nearly as harmful as you think they are. (On top of that, the labels you suggest like Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Mystery, etc. are usually innacurate and viewed by most writers and publishers as a necessary evil. There are huge discussions on the topic every year at WFC.)
Look at it this way: my daughter is just under two years old. There are books she can read and books she wouldn't get anything out of. Children's literature is a fact that I don't think any of us can deny (unless you were three years old the first time you read Crime and Punishment). So where are you going to draw the line? When does age-appropriate literature give way to the vast collection of human thought? Does a person go straight from Goodnight Moon to unabridged Les Miserables? Obviously, limiting a young person to YA fiction is a stupid thing to do--no one's going to argue with that--but giving them some extra guidance about what they may or may not like can only help them.
The things you say about symbolism killing the joy of reading have a strong element of truth, I believe, but beyond that I would suggest that High School english classes are many kids' first introduction to "adult" literature rather than YA. I think a lot of people learn to hate reading because english classes force them to stop reading the stuff they like--the more accessible YA books that they're accustomed to.
-
I don't want to get off topic, as I'm enjoying the discussion - I just wanted to point out to ElJeffe that the US's literacy rate is 97% (according to the CIA World Fact Book). It's no 100% Lichtenstein, but it's certainly no 14% Niger either.
Okay, now back to the show!
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Having said that, I don't ever want to hear the "over anaylyzed" argument ever again. 75% of the time it's an excuse some teenager who couldn't see what the teacher was talking about came up with to explain why he didn't see it before the teacher mentioned it. Teenager ARE always smarter than someone who studied a subject for 4-5 years at an institution of higher learning in order to be qualified to teach that subject. English teachers in public schools have many faults, but with fewer exceptions than accuracies, this is not one of them.
Yes, the red rock represented violence and death. Get over it. The very fact that it was USED as an instrument of violence and death sets it apart from every other red rock on the island and asks to wonder WHY he even bothered to describe the color instead of just saying that a rock was used.
I think basically we rebel against the books we had to read in school because the books are a symbol of authority, and high schoolers are notorious for rebelling against authority. Not because some teacher didn't do a good job.
I also think teenagers don't read because, frankly, it's not "cool." Going out to play ball is cool. Skateboarding is cool. Reading and role playing... sorry to destroy your illusions, but not cool to the average adolesant
Ok, aggression out of my system now. But I do want to mention that sometimes things are there, and often the whether the writer intends it or not is largely irrelevant.
Oh, and I've never been at a book store and seen someone not buy a book they were looking at because it was in the YA section. In fact, more often, I see books like Narnia and Harry Potter firmly in the "Science Fiction" section. Which again points out Fell's argument that the whole nomenclature of genre is at least slightly off if not totally broken. However, even at that, it's still not entirely unuseful.
I more often see adults panning movies or books because they didn't understand it than kids not reading something because it was too easy to read.
I would like to finally add that I don't feel targeting a show at kids, or playing on their natural but only surface tension with adult/authority figures is doing a whole lot of damage. After all, that is essentially what Dahl (I think I have that right, author of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Witches, and James and the Giant Peach) wrote about, almost exclusively. And he's another example of children's lit worth an adult's perusal. There ARE things that adults don't necessarily remember about childhood, and if you want to write meaningful lit/tv/movies for kids, you SHOULD address those issues.
-
Where do I draw the line? Well that the trick isn't it. I don't. If a book is too hard a kid knows it pretty much right away. Personally I think English teachers and Parents do their kids a big disservice by not reading to them (mainly because if they participated in the book they could know what their kid is having trouble with.
I disagree with your assertation that kids stop reading the books they like in high school, but only to a point. Our society is so afraid of controversy that books are sanitized and excerpted to the point of insanity. In Virginia we have readers, or compilations of literature that are so editied it would make you sick. Take Beowulf or Edger Allen Poe out of context and what do you get unorganized trash. The few books that we do get to read are seriously over analyzed by teachers with minors in English and majors in BullS$#& . Image also if the only literature you were ever exposed to were hundreds of years old... take Shakespeare for example, or Emily Bronte (both great writers by the way) and no one ever introduced you to Kerouac and Dylan Thomas.
Or all you english teacher could focus on was if Ernest Hemingway was gay or not. You get caught up in all the meaningless details and forget that each book has a simple personal message to each of us.
I also disagree that classing things by genre is worse than classing them by reading ability. Classing something by reading ability is eliteist and snobbish and only takes into account general standards of reading ability as recommended by someone else. At least when I buy a mystery I know what it will be. Or a sci-fi for that matter. Even though all mysteries are not the same and all science fiction books are not the same. If I had my way I'd just have two catagorys Fiction and Non-fiction arranged alphabetically by title. But thats just me.
-
I really don't think it's elitest. It's practical. All it does is identify the average age at which one has the vocabulary and grammar sophistication to understand a book. Kids (and parents) know if they're above that sophistication. In my mind, most parents OVER estimate a child's ability. I find such a system immensely practical and useful. Just keep in mind it's a guideline, not a law (and no one ever DID say it was a law).
I think your description of NoVAs educational system woefully unfair, as well. I read Les Mis as required reading in high school. the unedited version. See my previous rant about "over analysis." I won't blow my top about that again, especially since you probably posted before you saw it. On the one hand, you complain about "over analysis." on the other, you complain about teachers not being able to explore deep enough. Which is it?
Not every book has a "simple" message. And not every book applies to every one. This applies to "great books" as well as any other literatures.
-
Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17013-2003Apr22.html) is a fun article by Gene Weingarten tangentally about this subject.
-
Nonfiction=anything that isn't fiction. That's a lot, according to the Library of Congress, including folklore, poetry, drama, etc. We've been discussing this issue in class, and I think the classification of fiction/nonfiction is too broad--and I think that there's plenty of drama, poetry, and folklore that's fictional! :-)
I do like being able to go into the bookstore and differentiate between gardening books and Shakespeare. I think the biggest problem in my local B&N is that the "adult" section is divided and subdivided, but the children's and teen sections are only divided by fiction and nonfiction most of the time, and the nonfiction is woefully inadequate, especially for someone in a nonfiction class. But oh well.
-
Eric maybe I am being hard on VA, but we didn't read that many books in my classes and I had to read all the books in our anthologies on my own. Now I did transfer to a Catholic School for my last 2 years, but I worked my butt off there and read like crazy and didn't see the same things going on there that I did in public school.
But the over analysis thing isn't something to be discounted by waving ones hands and saying it doesn't happen. It does because its easier to tell someone what to think about a book than to take the time to get them to develop an opinion. Gatsby is always about regret, Lord of the Flies is always about a Christ figure. But it wasn't true to me then and it isn't now. Gatsby (which I have read about a hundred times) has a different and personal meaning to me every time. And the only similarity to Christ I see in Simon is that he is killed in a brutal way. Authors include things that sound good, and flow and that make their book more interesting. We could all just write like Gibbons Decline and Fall but then most readers would be asleep. Im sure Gibson took great pains to choose the word red for his rock but I have to say that I belive rock is red because he describes many things on the island by color, yellow fruit, green foliage. It makes the rock more interesting than if it were just "the rock". He chose red (which is a pretty common natural color on a vocanic island) for an unknown reason. I could say I looked at the blue lamp without meaning that the lamp is sad and depressing.
You can explore themes and meanings without say that something is always something else. Why not study the structure of the book grammatically and make Grammar accessible to kids. Think thats too hard study the feelings it evoked or the broad themes it touches on without overcomplicating the read. Hell I'd like it if they didn't discount that some writing is done because a writer needs to eat and it becomes literature because it has a certain mass appeal. Like Victor hugo who wrote almost entirely for pulp journals (like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)
Look I wont deny that teenagers do want to rebel. But sometimes the analysis of a book can come off as awfully snotty and arrogent. Often times if a student offers a different theory or idea about a subject they are simply told "No your wrong" without any debate or explaination. Its the constant Im in charge and you will listen to me mentality that reinforces the whole authority figure response.
-
Oh and Eric I just have one thing to say to you...
"Kill the Pig, Bash his head, Spill his Blood!!!" ;D
-
I'm not "just waving my hand" and saying it doesn't exist. But the fact is over analysis is more often ascribed to HS English Teachers than ADD is over proscribed.
What I don't get is why you think these people didn't use symbolism. Even if they're writing for the masses. Isn't that what Shakespeare did? (answer, yes. He wrote plays so any idiot with a penny could come in and throw vegetables at the audience). The symbolism in his plays is so strong that you'd have to be retarded, deaf, and blind to not notice it. Teachers point these symbols out so you'll learn to see them. Of course they're heavy handed, especially at first. But if they're not, the kids are likely not to notice. And no, I've never had a teacher tell me that it HAS TO BE that way. But I have heard a lot of students without a single idea in their vacuous skulls tell me that the teacher is bad because he'll only accept a regurgitation that he gave originally. These student, on the other hand, don't really have any other interpretation, so apparently they're just built to whine.
Studying only the structure of the grammar defeats the purpose of studying literature. Sure the grammar is part of it, but that's going to leave us without an understanding of what's happening there. A work of literature is a work of aesthetic production, and as such uses symbols, allusion, and other devices. They're there. Ignoring their presence (and as a side note, I want you to enjoy both my alliteration and use of all homonyms of "there" in the last two sentences) is foolish and willfully ignorant. No one has said you can't have a different interpretation. But if you refuse to see that the red rock is a potential symbol, than it's you, not the teacher who has a problem. You can ignore it as not meaningful once you've explored it's potential significance, but if you ignore it before than, well, who's doing the "hand waving" now? Goldman's language calls our attention to the color for a reason. Why is it such a problem if a teacher calls your attention to it and gives you a potential meaning?
I obviously had a different school experience. No, I wasn't seriously challenged by my standard English classes in high school, but that's because frankly, I'm much smarter than the average bear. Many people were challenged. I did take literature classes for electives that did challenge me, however. You're making generalizations about an educational system that a) you didn't graduate from, even though you did spend some time in it, and that b) has been consistantly rated as one of the 10 best in the country. FCPS is a MUCH better system by nearly ANY reckoning than you're making out to be. Yes, I had some bad teachers, but not a single one of those was due to over-analysis or forcing me to think like they do. without an exception, every bad teacher I had in public school was due to the teacher not explaining what the expectations were.
Remember that in public school you are, by and large, dealing with students who, for whatever reason, do not have the sophistication to do a solid analysis of a book. Yes, there are exceptions, but you can't educate your public by building your core system by the exceptional cases. You have to build it on the general level of understanding. You introduce them sometimes by giving an extreme version, which they (the students) are obviously going to tone down when they put it into practice. So in the few cases of overanalysis, it still serves a purpose, and I'm not convinced that the damage you say it is doing is even remotely the case.
-
I'm really sorry that you had crappy teachers and lame edited books in High School, ElJeffe, but that doesn't mean that a YA label is evil or that literature should not be studied. Honestly, I haven't heard these arguments of yours since I threw them at my teacher in 7th grade. We were studying "To Kill a Mockingbird," she tried to show us that books can have layered meaning, and we told her everything you're telling us, pretty much word for word. And then we read the book and studied it and realized that she was right and that our understanding of themes and archetypes actually improved our ability to understand and, yes, enjoy the book.
Obviously there are bad teachers out there, and obviously the attitude of "this is the only way to interpret things" is a bad one, but I was fortunate and never had any teachers like that (well, not until my Shakespeare class in college--I hated that class).
I suppose you could argue that I've been suckered in by the illusion of literary analysis and that I see things that aren't there. I suppose you could also argue that I am an esoteric exception to the rule, and that most kids don't want or need to find meaning in literature. But if you say that, aren't you just saying that kids aren't mature enough to read heavy literature? And wasn't that your initial argument here?
-
I never said they didn't use symbolism, not once Eric or Fell, I said that people try to find symbolism in everything. There is a huge difference. And I have seen plenty of students with something to contribute smacked down because someone had a theory or an idea about a book that differed than what the person teaching the class said. In fact it was only when I went to RC that I had teachers who really encouraged me to think about books in lots of different ways. Fran and Murry Arndt are perfect examples.
Going back to the rock again, its not that I refuse to see its color as a potential symbol, its that I refuse to be told that that is the only reason it is Red. As if nature and aestetics don't play into it at all. Have you ever seen the Annotated Great Gatsby? They had access to Fitzgeralds research and notebooks for Gatsby. It made a huge difference in my liking the book because I realized that many of the things he wrote about in that novel were not merely allegory. These people places and things weren't ephermal but real, or at least real adaptations in the novel. It certainly brought meaning to the symbolism that the teachers droned on about. I guess its not the symbolism that I hate so much as the lack of evidence given to support it.
I did get told to shut up about Lord of the Flies, because we wern't doing anything with it. Our teachers method of teaching was talking about how she though the book was for an hour. Geez Eric she thought that because they were rescued by a rocket ship from the British Navy that it was kind of a science fiction book too. The rock may have been red because of violent intent, or it could have been piggys blood, or a ferrous piece of ejecta from a volcano. But to be told to shut up because I had an opinion that differed was much more ignorent than having an opinion in the first place.
I don't think that the label of over analyzing teachers is untrue. I think it has a lot more to do with how teachers are taught to teach and what they expect form their students.
-
btw, we're arguing with ElJeffe, not Slant, fell.
And again I agree! (one more today and you win a prize!) But while I wholeheartedly agree with what I've been saying, and looking at it objectively as I can I still concur, I have to point out that Fell studied English (which involves literary study) and I studied Comparative Literature (which is nothing else) in college, that might color our statements.
However, that doesn't change how right we are :D
-
Or does it? I have just discovered that Eric has been possessed by an evil spirit. by the ancient laws of the commonwealth of Virginia he has a choice, confess to being a witch (and suffer a hanging) deny his evil and be drowned or stay silent and be pressed down by stones!!! What say ye! Go ye the Giles Cory route?
-
I'm going to go with the hanging bit. Since I have magical witch powers, I should be able to survive it.
-
too bad its hanging over a pit of flame!!!! ;D
-
I'm in league of the Lord of Fire and Brimstone, and you think *that* is going to hurt me?
-
Ummm, its holy cleansing flame made by Boy Scouts (and we all know they are pure as the driven snow)
-
Feh . Boyscouts. I eat them for snacks while talking to customers.
Oh wait, no, that's "gold fish"
-
So why are you so high and might today? Is it just that its Thursday?
-
I'm not high and mighty, I just think you're wrong. ;D
-
Well and I think your wrong....
-
Hey, if anyone's burning Saint I want to be involved, even if only at the concession level.
-
Hey, if anyone's burning Saint I want to be involved, even if only at the concession level.
Ah. Will you look at that? Fellfrosch loves SE like a brother. He has expressed similar sentiments about HoM in the past. What a good Christian he is.
-
Hey, Christianity is all about burning people at the stake--in fact, if you include both the Roman Empire and Puritan witch hunts, Christians are involved with both sides of the stake.
After all, what do you think a stake fireside is?
(Apologies to non-Mormons, who won't get the joke).
-
Now look, this is MY execution, and while I'm flattered at all the attention, I'd like to make it a private affair between me and a few close friends.
Oh, and my apparently unholy master.
-
I don't think that the label of over analyzing teachers is untrue. I think it has a lot more to do with how teachers are taught to teach and what they expect form their students.
I do. I think it's an unfair over-generalization of all teachers based on one (admittedly really terrible) experience you've had. I agree she was out of line, but that doesn't mean they're all that way. Not all my teachers were great either, but they weren't that bad. I've seen public school from both side, my mom is a public school teacher. I don't think they're taught that way, but even in FCPS where they're paid comparatively very well, they're underpaid for a critical and stressful job. Some don't perform as well in the long run. I can assure you that teachers aren't trained to be dogmatic. Some people are just that way. But most of them are very interested in learning how to teach people in a way that will make them productive and interested learners.
-
I don't want to change the subject, and I'm happy to move to a different thread if necessary, but I just wanted to make a point about how teachers are taught to teach. I'm graduating today (Hallefrickinlujah!) with a polisci degree and a history minor. Realizing that I have few prospects for work I looked into becoming a history teacher.
The requirement to get a History Teaching Certificate would be almost two years of teaching classes, but only 5 history courses (less than it took for me to get a minor in the subject!) I don't see how we can expect to have good teachers in high school if we only require them to have one semesters worth of experience on their subject of "expertise."
A friend who went through the program said that the professors stressed that "it was more important to be the student's friends than to be an expert in your field."
And we wonder why our education system is crap...
-
Actually, I don't know about "friend" but I think your teaching SKILLS are more important than your knowledge of the field when teaching children. I've written all the factual information for 2 nonfiction books now. And neither one of which do I have any formal training in. You can do the research as you go because you don't need to go that deep. It's more important in public school that you teach them how to learn than teach them facts (most of which they'll get wrong or the veracity of which will be debated by the time those kids get to college anyway).
-
But that implies that you're not supposed to actually learn anything in high school - that's it merely a training ground to prepare for a college education. But what about the 50% of high school graduates that never go to college? Shouldn't we be attempting to educate them, rather than treating every student as though they're headed straight to college?
Here's a real world example: As a senior I took IB Math Studies, an uppery-upper level math class. (Fell also took this thing and he can back me up on this). No one in the school was qualified to teach it. In class the teacher would put a problem up on the board and then read through the textbook for the rest of the class session to try to figure it out.
For junior high and the first couple of years of high school I can accept the argument that you're there to learn how to learn. But for the last couple of years it would certainly be nice to learn a little bit - if you're going to college then it's a good start, and if you're not then it would be nice to leave school with at least a little factual knowledge.
-
First of all, I don't think we'er thinking of the same math class. IB Math Studies was just a retread of the simple things we learned in earlier classes--why do think I took it?
My personal opinion about high school is the same as Saint's: you're supposed to learn how to learn, rather than gain any specific information. Sure, pick up some stuff--I know that there was a teapot dome scandal, and the Monroe Doctrine, and stuff like that--but I don't consider that to be very important, especially for someone who's not going on to higher education.
My wife, who is a high school teacher, has this to say: "If you don't know how to teach, you'll spend 98% of your time dealing with behavioral problems and never get the chance to teach your subject. Get someone who really knows how to teach, give them a quality textbook, and they can teach almost any subject better than most professionals."
-
My grandfather was an amazing math teacher. Rated one of the best of his time back in the day. He studied History in college. If you have a college education and are reasonably literate, you can learn the "facts" that you need to communicate faster than the kids you're teaching (with some exceptions, nothing's absolute). So really the knowledge you need is knowing how to teach.
And I never even MEANT to imply that you weren't supposed to learn anything in high school. I just meant to say that learning how to learn was more important than those facts.
-
I don't mind implying that you're not supposed to learn anything in High School. I didn't.
-
I agree wholeheartedly that a teacher that doesn't know history can teach a kid what the Bill of Rights is, or what year the Berlin wall fell. I don't agree, however, that a teacher can be really effective at teaching the social implications of those things simply by reading a textbook before the kids do.
Here's two examples:
In the Everything Else forum, we're talking about racism and segregation. I think most people agree that one of the best ways to combat that is through education. While an teacher that is not trained in history could flip through the book and find the sections on Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr, and be able to recite the facts, a teacher trained in history would have the knowledge and background to explain the race issue in detail.
That's not the best example, but maybe this next one will illustrate my point better:
I was in a world history class when 9/11 happened. The professor immediately bagged the lesson plans and gave us a month long series on middle eastern history and an explanation of Islam. It was extremely enlightening in a time where everyone was searching for answers.
Going back to the first example, imagine that there is a US history class at a school where big racial conflicts are coming up. A student raises his hand and asks "Why is there this conflict? Where did it all come from?" More importantly, another student asks "What does the law say? What can we do about it?" What would it tell the students when the teacher responds "Well, let me turn to the textbook and read to you what it says."
When 9/11 happened, were the history teachers, with their five classes worth of knowledge, able to say "This is why it's happened." Were they able to calm the fears of students by shedding light on an unknown enemy? Or, instead, did they say "Well, I saw on 60 minutes last night that..." and then go back to the regularly scheduled lesson plans.
History is not about memorizing facts and figures. It is about linking the past to the present in an attempt to explain why the world is the way that it is. Teenagers are naturally angry and rebellious - wouldn't a better understanding of the world, locally and internationally, be beneficial?
I'm not saying that teachers shouldn't have to know how to teach. I'm simply saying that teachers really ought to know what they're talking about also.
And Fell, I didn't learn much in high school either, although thinking back, I learned a lot from teachers that knew what they were talking about. You can't tell me that you didn't learn from Eckberg or Fowler.
-
You can't tell me that you didn't learn from Eckberg or Fowler.
I can! Because I don't know who you're talking about! *giggle*
Anyway, yes, I can see what you're saying, ideally yes, we'd want both. I haven't ever disagreed. I merely prioritized. And until you can make public school teaching salaries high enough to pay off grad school bills, we'll have to recognize that this is a priority we'll have to choose between.
And yes, if the person truly *is* interested in history, he'll be qualified to comment on the current events as necessary. Because he'll have read up. Not just the news, but history books. We have too much insistance on degrees and we ignore other relevant factors. Now, before you get froggy, I'm not saying degrees are worthless. Far from it. But independent study and education will teach you a lot, esp. when you get a bad teacher. ESP. if you learned how to learn.
-
if the person truly *is* interested in history
You're right, and, sadly, I never had good high school teachers for history (or anything to do with social science). Yes, ideally teachers ought to do a little independent study. Ideally, history teachers should not also be basketball coaches and drivers ed teachers.
I just wish that a little more background in the subject would be required - not necessarily a full major, but more than a semesters worth.
Getting onto another subject - here's something I've wondered about for a long time in regards to the poor state of our education system. Why don't schools get corporate sponsors? What if we let Nike subsidize textbooks - they pay half the cost and the schools slap a big "swoosh" sticker on the front.
-
I'm ignoring what this thread has become. I only did "find" on the pages to see if my book titles were mentioned.
1. Slan by A. E. van Vogt. A classic of science fiction. Saying used to be "Fans are Slans." About a next step in humanity's evolution. My favorite book. A great bildungsroman.
2. Children of the Atom by... dunno. About hyperintelligent kids in a special school...sorta like Xavier's school, eh? Don't really remember much in the way of special powers or whatnot but they were born to parents exposed to radiation or something like that. Also written in the 60s or before.
3. The Girl with Silver Eyes. Dunno who by. This is a more modern book, probably from the 80s. Seems to copy #2 in a lot of ways. ;) Kids whose parents took a fertility drug...born with silver eyes and special abilities.
4. Odd John by Olaf Stapledon. Classic. Another "next evolutionary step" thing. With smart kids...John is born knowing how to talk. Hate the end of the book but the rest is good.
5. ok I only checked to see if the first 2 were mentioned and keep thinking of these as I write. Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress. And its sequels. About genetic manipulation. Some of these books won Nebula/Hugo whatnot. Starts off promising but I didn't enjoy the later books so much, or the end. It's annoying when main characters die.
[EDIT: Now that's I've read the thread--I wholeheartedly agree with Jeff. But you probably knew that.]
-
I read Girl with the Silver Eyes in 5th grade. I remember liking it, but I don't remember finishing it. I guess I've had that bad habit longer than I thought.