May 31, 2004
-
Topic: Books and Reading
On the plane from Madrid to NY, I began reading Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury. The book tells the story of a futuristic world, where the government has banned books, and the new job of firefighters is to burn down any house with books. The intent is actually to bring about good. Since books cause stress and confusion, elminating them and encouraging people to live life simply for pleasure, to watch tv, and to not think about anything intelligent, will create a happy society.
While there is no ban on books in real life like descirbed in the book, it seems to me that there is an unintended consequence (maybe it is intended) that college students, and subsequently people in there 20′s and older, are not reading books, nor are they able to critically read the books that they do read.
Anyways…the question. It seems there are no books that are widely read anymore. What are books you read in school that you consider must reads for people to understand the world they live in? What effect did the grind of school have on your ability to read books that you could relate to? Do you think there should be preference given to certain books inside the classroom than others? Should the curriculum of schools be current with the popular writings of the day? Should Michael Moore’s books, (ones I love to talk about, but in the end have not questioned as all books should be) be critically examined in school? I haven’t really grasped this concept that i’m writing about…but maybe you guys can get a feel for wht i’m getting at.
Comments (6)
Eating cereal, eh?
Quite a talent. (is not sarcastic)
I really need to reread Farenheit. Bradbury so often horrifies me with his truths! He’s a visionary, a profit. What do we have now, but a society that avoids any real thought in order to be happy? As if intelligent thought cannot bring joy! It brings a lot of pain, too, but joy and pain are two sides of the same coin.
Anyway, as for books, I don’t believe in requiring any to be read, no matter how much I have loved a particular book. For one, we cannot presume that anyone else will get out of a book what we get out of it, nor that they *should* get the same thing out of it.
When we teach books in classes, with many of the questions and answers planned in advance by the teacher, this is exactly what we do; we require others to see what we see. So many kids dislike reading precisely because it is required of them, and because they are not allowed to read and think freely. They are supposed to take from books what we believe they should take from them, and they are punished by poor grades when they don’t. Of course they rebel.
The best school is a library, where everyone is free to read whatever he (or she) wants to read, free to discover on his own what will change his life and give him hope. Even the worst trash can change someone’s life for the better. We cannot judge what will touch another person, anymore than we can judge beforehand what will touch us, until we happen across it and find ourselves blown away by its truths.
The best way to get people to read is simply to share one’s love of reading and hope that it is catching. When we offer, but don’t force, this shows respect for another person’s ability to choose for himself. I believe that faith in others is the greatest gift we can give. It is the best way for them to learn the most important lesson of all — to have faith in themselves.
Ah, the socialization question.
We spend plenty of time in groups, just not classroom groups. For example, we frequently get together with other homeschoolers for various activities, we go to the Y, and my daughter is in Girl Scouts. It’s not that I believe my daughters should hang out only with other homeschoolers — they both have friends who are not — but those are the people who tend to be available during the day.
Sometimes I think schooling in groups is so popular because it’s easier to get people to behave in a certain way when there’s peer pressure and a need to fit in.
As far as the problem of doing something that our society considers “unnatural,” that’s the only way anyone will ever change the world – by doing something differently, by living a life one believes in living, despite what anyone else is doing.
Sorry none of this is in your order of questions… Keep it up Dan!! YOU’RE THE MAN!
My list of books that I think everybody should read (i’m horrible with remembering authors’ names though):
“Catcher in the Rye” JD Salinger (much stress on this book because it is all about the coming of age)
“Slaughterhouse Five” Kurt Vonnegut
“1984″ George Orwell
“The Gunslinger” Stephen King (I’ve only encountered one person that has read this book and I must say that it is sad… This book is a work of art from the first sentence)
“The Communist Manifesto” Karl Marx
“Hamlet” William Shakespeare (clearly under the guidance of someone that can help explain his many metaphors)
“The Iliad” Homer
“Canterbury Tales” St. Augustine???
“US Constitution” The Founders
“If This is a Man” (also titled ”Survival in Auschwitz”) Primo Levi (I’ve never seen anyone capture the true horrors and details of the Holocaust in such an amazing manner. I HIGHLY recommend this one)
I personally think that schools should make some of these books mandatory to read, but it is the students decision whether or not they want to pursue other books of this nature. If teachers gave students a list of all of the great works and told them to choose one to write a paper on, it would create a more wanting environment to pursue further literature. There are some books that students just NEED to read. Unfortunately, when I was in high school, I threw away my list of the 100 greatest works. I’d advise others to not make the same mistake.
Preference should be given to works that will expand the readers attention to literature or further their development as an individual. When I read “Catcher in the Rye” when I was in 11th grade, it was like a breakthrough in my life. You just have to make sure the students are mature enough to handle the reading material.
School somewhat forced me to also read books that I didn’t want to read… at first. After being introduced to some more heavy literature such as Hamlet and 1984, I realized why those books are considered to be spectacular. I’m glad that I was forced to read some books.
I also believe that today’s view of books should not affect what books our school’s introduce. If a new great literary work comes along, I have no problem with introducing it. But students must examine past works (NO MATTER HOW GROTESQUE IT MAY BE IN THE CURRENT TIME PERIOD) to understand where current authors might have learned to write. I’m tired of schools trying to ban books. It’s RIDICULOUS! A school in my area tried to ban Harry Potter b/c it “PROMOTED WITCHCRAFT”! WTF?! It’s a book…
As for the Michael Moore idea… I could see it being introduced in a political class, but even teachers are biased. In a political class, a teacher has their spectrum alignment and with my experience, they favor the students that fall into that alignment. It’s just custom for teachers to know how more than the students. So if a liberal is having a hard time with a conservative teacher (or vice-versa), we can’t expect them to take Michael Moore as an easy writer to talk about. Maybe in about 20 years, when all is said and done, we will be able to talk about his works, but for now people are too immature to talk about his works without being biased! It’s a FACT! I just imagine a professor saying “Now why do none of Michael Moore’s statements make sense?” It just gets me upset…
i can’t believe you’re back in new york. that’s so weird. this year is over. it’s insane to think that we’re 22, no?? i can’t believe it. it’s truly crazy.
anywho – i agree with lettersat3am, that books shouldn’t be decided for you as everyone gets different things out of different books. however, i also think that sometimes going into a library with no direction can be the most overwhelming experience – and having a base from which to jump is extremely helpful. i think the point of reading in class, at least in my ap english class (which is really the best memory i have of high school english) wasn’t to get us to like a book, it was to teach us how to critique a book. i remember that the teacher usually gave the requirement of the whole bible + gospels as summer reading, but for our year she tried something different, she gave us 10 popular books (The Color of Water, China Boy, Snow in August, For Whom the Bell Tolls, etc) and we had to keep journals for them – critiquing them inside and out. we read short stories by Sartre, Joyce, Hemingway, Lawrence – and it wasn’t about liking it – it was about teaching us what to look for. i could never have read Sartre on my own for the first time and truly understood (even now i’m pretty sure i’m still lost). Even in 10th grade, i remember we always got these reading lists that were huge – not the top 100 books, but the 100 books that were acceptable for us to read and then write a review of – I read The Heart is a Lonely Hunter (which totally spoke to me) but my friend read The Grapes Of Wrath which totally spoke to her. and i think that is a distinction that my teachers were okay with.
I think sometimes, you need to be taught. I think books for young people can be difficult. And I think there is a certain element of guidance that comes from a teacher – providing you and your classmates with a framework from which to jump. and i think some teachers are really good at making sure it isn’t about who likes what, but HOW who likes what. I think that was always the key in my high school. my teachers were really good at making sure we understood – and if we didn’t like something, we had to explain why. it was never about everyone agreeing. at least i don’t remember it that way. but memories are social constructions – so i could be glorifying this entire experience as a means of explaining myself away. SHIT! I hate social psychology – this is how i think now!
and i agree with bill about moore. i think he’s more of a college-level thing than a high school thing – only because high schools, as public institutions, tend to steer away from overt political messages.
Capital by Karl Marx and For Marx by Louis Althusser