Playpen

Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.

at 23:14 on 05-09-2009, Sister Magpie
Right--first there's the question of how important it necessarily is to read fiction for life. Like, is it necessary to create people who love to read? I think it's a great thing to do, but also hard--and probably impossible through choice of books.

Choosing books to pound in an idea of national heritage, or kick off discussions of social issues, or have people get familiar with books considered "classics" (with or without explaining why) or based on pure entertainment--they're all just one answer to an unanswerable question: what book should we read? They all have drawbacks. The first obviously focuses only on the one country, the second, imo, suggests that literature only exists for what social issues it highlights, which I don't agree with, the third can be empty and arbitrary without admitting it, the last is going to be different for everyone. Basically, any teacher has to start somewhere and teach something about it. And probably the teacher's approach is going to wind up being most important.
permalink
at 04:09 on 05-09-2009, Guy
I was talking a little while ago with someone about education and he told me that children who are "active readers" read multiples in the hundreds of what children who are not "active readers" do. In a way I think... it hardly matters what they read; if children are excited enough about books, they will eventually become active readers, and if they aren't, they won't.
I also half-agree with Dan's point about classism. I guess the thing is that, as an avid reader myself, I feel as though my life has been tremendously enriched by my reading habit and that therefore it relatively would have been greatly impoverished if I hadn't had the opportunity to develop that habit. And consequently I think, for any child who has the potential to become an "active reader", everything that can be done, should be done to nurture that potential. On the other hand... if you said to me, "avid readers have better lives than reluctant readers", I would wholeheartedly reject the notion. Some people just aren't interested, and they find their fulfillment elsewhere, and I have no doubt that there are many other sources of fulfillment that are every bit as rich and satisfying as reading is. More so, even! I guess in terms of an "ideal school program", I'd want something that gave maximal encouragement to avid readers and potential avid readers, and minimised the boredom and resentment (and possible, shame) of reluctant readers. How on earth to do that in reality, I have no idea.
permalink
at 01:13 on 05-09-2009, Viorica
Plus, we wouldn't be able to laugh at Anne Rice's Dickensian principles!
permalink
at 00:34 on 05-09-2009, Jamie Johnston
... making [Shakespeare] compulsory (in the UK, this is) means that ideally nearly everyone has a rudimentary knowledge of who he was and something he wrote.

That's a very good point. Already for various reasons we're no longer immersed from early childhood in the Bible and the Greek and Roman classics, as the majority of even moderately educated Europeans were until several generations ago; and this makes it very difficult for us to understand a lot of the allusions to Biblical and classical mythology and history that permeated western art and literature up to the beginning of the twentieth century. Those references weren't put into paintings and books to mystify people - they weren't elitist when they were made. They've only become inaccessible to us because we've lost a lot of the basic cultural knowledge audiences in those days were assumed to have.

Of course in exchange we've gained other things, but it's important to consider, before jettisoning the books that we were all force-fed at school, how many other things we wouldn't understand if we hadn't internalized those books so early in our lives. We wouldn't laugh half as hard at the gravedigger scene in L.A. Story if we hadn't seen Hamlet, and goodness knows what we'd make of the repeated phrase "the Dickensian aspect" in season five of The Wire if we hadn't at least some idea what sort of things Dickens wrote. That's a risk in the approach that says it doesn't matter too much what children read as long as they read something.
permalink
at 00:31 on 05-09-2009, Arthur B
Now I think about it, my favourite bit of assigned reading coursework I did in my GCSEs was the one where we could choose two books to read - with pretty much no restrictions, save that one of them had to be written before 1900 - and compare and contrast them. Obviously you couldn't go completely mad with it - you had to find books which at least tangentially addressed the same subjects or ideas, otherwise you screwed yourself when it came to writing the essay - but it gave you freedom to at least pick books on subjects you enjoyed. (I ended up comparing the depictions of childhood criminality in Oliver Twist and A Clockwork Orange.)
permalink
at 00:11 on 05-09-2009, Sonia Mitchell
Mordecai is the best name ever.
permalink
at 00:08 on 05-09-2009, Viorica
I've never heard of him either, actually. Most of the emphasis seemed to be on Mordecai Richler and Margaret Atwood.
permalink
at 23:55 on 04-09-2009, Jamie Johnston
Up here in Canada, the curriculum is very focused on pounding a Canadian Identity into us, so all the assigned novels... are by Canadian writers...

Gosh, I'm surprised by that: I have a Canadian friend who intermittently complains how few of her compatriots know any Canadian literature. When she went to a bookshop to ask for something by Hugh MacLennan, the shop assistant had never heard of him.
permalink
at 23:55 on 04-09-2009, Sonia Mitchell
I'm always ambivalent about reading programs in schools. There's always that slight smack of classism.

That's a little too close to the whole 'reading is elitist' argument for my liking. While academic freedom is great and choice is valuable, leaving school with a basic grounding in a few classics is never going to be a hindrance. Obviously canon formation is a hugely controversial area, but Shakespeare won't be falling off the list any time soon and making him compulsory (in the UK, this is) means that ideally nearly everyone has a rudimentary knowledge of who he was and something he wrote. I'm not going to say that erodes class boundaries or anything so silly, but he's part of everyone's literary heritage here, not just the privately educated.

I do hate the tick-list mentality that comes with the classics sometimes, but communal reading - and the discussion that comes with it - has almost always been worthwhile to me. I've kicked out when a book has simply been too difficult for my ability at the time, and hated being pushed into 'worthwhile' books by blinkered teachers, but I don't see anything wrong with reading together as a group. Indeed, generally the more difficult the book the more I've appreciated the fact that I'm not alone in struggling through it. Then afterwards that sense of group satisfaction at interpreting something and having the 'aha' moment is much more potent for having talked it through.
permalink
at 22:38 on 04-09-2009, Viorica
Up here in Canada, the curriculum is very focused on pounding a Canadian Identity into us, so all the assigned novels (in twelfth grade, anyway; eleventh grade reads Frankenstein and Oliver Twist) are by Canadian writers, which meant reading some exceptionally bad books. My teacher assigned us The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz (ugh) while the other class read Alias Grace (ugh again)- both books by well-known Canadian writers, and set in Canada.

Honestly, I don't think it should matter how old or well-known a book is. Books should be assigned on the basis of challenging the kids' views. Give them The Analects or A Vindication of the Rights of Women, or Das Kapital (though people would probably have fits over that last one) or use books that can be a jumping-off point to discuss real-world issues (my eleventh-grade teacher assigned us research projects on child labour and homeslessness when we read Oliver Twist) instead of just throwing The Scarlet Letter at them because it's considered a classic.
permalink
at 18:00 on 04-09-2009, Sister Magpie
I wrote a longer response to those two articles, but also came up with no solution. I liked a lot of books that I studied in class, but it's impossible to pick books that everyone enjoys. (Not that school is usually promising to be about enjoyment anyway.)

Basically, art appreciation is always going to be fraught with problems about who gets to choose what art is best, but English was always my favorite subject so I was biased. If we read a book in class that I didn't like all I lost was having read a book I didn't like. I might have hated it anyway. Or maybe I was bound to hate it at that age. I do think it would be an improvement to be more honest about why books are chosen--the attitude that they're just generally "good books" (meaning of a higher quality in some snobbish sense) is ridiculous--but also sometimes a good thing for a kid to be aware of anyway.

In talking to other people about it it really comes down to bad teaching, it seems. Teachers who teach certain books as just generally better than any story you might like, unable or not caring to make a story relevent beyond that, basically teaching the whole thing as a class issue. Better teachers can teach the same books without making poeple hate them.
permalink
at 17:52 on 04-09-2009, Arthur B
I remember being assigned A Wizard of Earthsea by my really cool English teacher who eventually went on to better things. And then we did To Kill a Mockingbird, which is incredible.
permalink
at 15:14 on 04-09-2009, Rude Cyrus
I remember having to read The Bluest Eye and A Lesson Before Dying for an English class, and ended up hating both books as a result. I don't remember reading funny novels or anything light-hearted at all.

And everyone in that NYT article has a case of insufferable smugness.
permalink
at 09:35 on 04-09-2009, Shim
There's also the problem, or at least the thing, that mostly you get assigned bleak, depressing books about miserable people whose lives suck. Every book, play and poem assigned by my secondary school was grim (for all five classes in our year, so that's thirty-five class-years of data). Every "worthwhile" book suggested by the articles is depressing. This appears to be the measure of worthwhile reading.
permalink
at 16:16 on 03-09-2009, Dan H
Just read those two articles about reading.

There's something slightly off about both of them, isn't there...

I'm always ambivalent about reading programs in schools. There's always that slight smack of classism. We have to get children to read because that's what nice little boys and girls do. We have to get children to read the right sorts of books, because we don't want them to grow up reading trash.

One always wonders exactly how many works of literary fiction the average education secretary reads during his time in office...
permalink
at 05:02 on 01-09-2009, Robinson L
Kyra: Is there to be a review?

Viorica: There is! It's sitting in the queue as we speak.


Robinson: Oh good.
permalink
at 05:01 on 01-09-2009, Robinson L
Viorica: everyone should go read this right now.

Kyra: Is there to be a review?
Good idea. I'll put it on my reading list, and maybe get to it in a couple years ... or not.

On the other hand, really glowing reviews on this site have been known to bump books towards the top of my reading list. I'm still rather cross to learn that the library system near my college doesn't have a copy of Innocent Mage. Guess it'll have to wait for winter vacation.

Kyra: lol lol lol
This video is not allowed in your country due to copyright restrictions./smarmy Youtube official voice
Pillocks. Care to tell me what it was?
permalink
at 04:09 on 01-09-2009, Viorica
Is there to be a review?

There is! It's sitting in the queue as we speak.
permalink
at 21:42 on 31-08-2009, Wardog
Hehe, I actually meant rebuttal to some of the comments on the article.... but that works too :)
permalink
at 17:11 on 31-08-2009, Jamie Johnston
Is that 'rebuttal' in the sense that Cabot's post is so annoyingly written that it makes the reader instinctively want to disagree with her and the original article she seems to be endorsing?

It's interesting that this movement away from having children all read and discuss the same book as a group is beginning at the same time that the rise of the book-group is moving adult reading in the opposite direction. I wonder what it all means. There are several different forms of entertainment, now I come to think of it, that seem currently to be drifting one way or the other on the axis of Solitary Pursuit <-> Shared Social Activity. Music has slowly been becoming less collective and more solitary since the invention of the gramaphone, but especially now with the ipod is becoming almost an anti-social (in a neutral sense) form of entertainment; computer games used to be at most a shared activity for two or three players at a time, but the internet has blown the social potential of computer games wide open. Reading, since silent reading became the norm and especially since mass literacy killed off any real need for books to be read aloud, is almost necessarily a solitary activity, but book-groups and online discussions create a social activity not out of reading itself but out of 'having read', as it were. So... er... sorry, completely lost track of how this relates to anything. Yeah.
permalink
at 12:42 on 31-08-2009, Wardog permalink
at 12:22 on 31-08-2009, Wardog
Adorable? That child is frankly terrifying.

An article from the NY Times on the future of reading and a rebuttal from Meg Cabot.

If anything they both illuminate this: society has a funny attitude to reading.
permalink
at 01:38 on 31-08-2009, Wardog
Really?

Okay...

*adds to basket*

Is there to be a review?
permalink