If we could the replace Gatsby on the school required reading list...

[Anthony]

Not to mention it has the added quality of being a great read! That is something that I find way under played in school.

[Míceál]

Maybe Stephanie Meyer can write a Gatsby sequel where Jay & Myrtle come back as zombies and terrorize Nick & Daisy.

[Anthony]

Oh god...

[Joseph]

or maybe a sequel where jay and daisy's kids realize that they are a product of incest of the social nature, and myrtle's child that was given up for adoption in the prequel searches for the truth about his true father?

[Sandra]

LOL, Dr. Michael!

[Hannah]

The Great Gatsby isn't required reading at my school until junior year. I read it in sophomore year for fun. I loved it. Sure, I can't relate to bootleggers, booze, and manslaughter, but I still loved it.

How many people do you know that can relate to Bella Swan? I sure can't and I loathed Twilight. To me, enjoying a novel isn't about how you can relate to the novel (by that assumption, only WWI German veterans could appreciate All Quiet On The Western Front) But is simply personal preference. I prefer for the books I read to have an actual theme(s) that apply to the world in some way. Others don't. Simple as that.

As for not enjoying school assigned books, its not about them being assigned that makes kids hate them but all of the hours they have to focus on one single novel that they may or may not have enjoyed.

As to the actual question I'd recommend
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green
The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath
The Catcher in the Rye by J. R. Salinger

[Mary]

Feliks wrote: "Diane wrote: "Gatby is not age-relevant to today's high school students.

If we could the replace Gatsby on the school required reading list, with something that's both age relevant, and well writ..."

I'm down for Thomas the Train

[Anna]

He he he - That's the best idea yet. ;)

[Anthony]

Mary Feliks wrote: "Diane wrote: "Gatby is not age-relevant to today's high school students.

If we could the replace Gatsby on the school required reading list, with something that's both age relevant, and well writ..."

I'm down for Thomas the Train

yes, but can we leave out the bits about the troublesome trucks?

oh, i think it is called thomas the tank engine

[Gordon]

Sorry if this has already been covered in one or more of the 464 previous posts on this topic--I didn't have time to read them all....

Why do so many people feel that being able to "identify" with the characters and story line is the goal, or is even valuable? Isn't the whole point of reading fiction to be exposed to things that are outside of your personal and immediate experience?

Don't we read to look at people in different situations, with different backgrounds, living in different time or places? Isn't this how we come to understand either how similar we are to people who would seem at first glance to be completely different (i.e. the similarities of the human experience) so that we can learn to have true empathy for our fellow man and/or how people with similar or different backgrounds have dealt differently with the challenges they encounter in life?

By the "identify" standard, none of us would ever want to read "Robinson Crusoe", or if we did, we would immediately discard the whole experience because we were not 17th century rebellious rich boys stranded on a deserted island. We read "Gulliver's Travels," not because we have actually had the occasion of visiting Lilliput, but because that story makes us think differently about our lives and the lives of others. Thankfully, most of us have not had to hide from the Nazis and endure unspeakable persecution, but aren't we better people for having glimpsed into the life of Anne Frank to see the horrors of fascism first hand?

Are we trying to just reinforce our preconceived stereotypes and biases by reading stories that are about people just like us (which, let's face it would be rather boring) or to stretch ourselves with new experiences?

[Anthony]

Well put Gordon

[Don]

Diane wrote: "Gatby is not age-relevant to today's high school students.

If we could the replace Gatsby on the school required reading list, with something that's both age relevant, and well written, then mayb..."

I think Gatsby is very relevant, it's just that the setting is different. Haves v. Have-Nots? Infidelity? The abuses of capitalism? Success at any cost? What could be more relevant to today's world?

[Anthony]

not sure human nature ever changes much, thats why homer's stuff still holds our attention

[Don]

I'm a high school English teacher and Gatsby is one of those books that's difficult for some students. But those who actually read the book love it, and it tends to be one of their favorites (of those assigned in high school). I think most kids can relate to lost love, or chasing after elusive dreams. Most kids have at one time or another, been on the outside looking in, or been on the receiving end of someone who abuses power and status. And if they haven't experienced disillusionment by the time they're juniors in high school, then they've led extraordinarily sheltered lives and must have been wrapped in cellophane somewhere. Their biggest struggle with Gatsby isn't so much the story but Fitzgerald's vocabulary and sentence structure. Very beautiful and poetic, but challenging in these days of lower reading comprehension.
I think a strong case can be made for The Great Gatsby as the "Great American Novel." But I'd make the case for Catch-22 as well, for entirely different reasons.
As someone else pointed out, and I've pointed out to my students, there's no way a teacher can assign a book to dozens of kids and everyone will like it. The trick is to try to find some value in the work, if you're "forced" to read it.

[Geoffrey]

"As for not enjoying school assigned books, its not about them being assigned that makes kids hate them but all of the hours they have to focus on one single novel that they may or may not have enjoyed."

Hear ye, hear ye.

Exactly my sentiments, which is my argument for novellas and short stories. In and out, some kids will be bored one week, then next they will be excited.

[Shannyn]

I actually really enjoyed reading The Great Gatsby a lot and I'm a sophomore in high school! Half of the books we read in school aren't "age relevant" and half of the books outside of school aren't either.

It's the fact that we're tested on books that makes us hate them. And plus, not everyone will like every book we read, you can't please everyone. But I know 90% of the kids who read Gatsby loved it. It's just a good book.

[Bill]

Don,

I certainly agree with what you said. I first read Gatsby when I was fourteen -- an extremely long time ago -- and many times since.

But I'm curious what exactly is challenging about Fitzgerald's sentence structure? I'm not arguing, I'm sure your kids find it challenging. But I'm curious -- what percentage and ***what*** exactly is challenging? The language is lyric -- but what's difficult about it, except perhaps some of the impressionistic coloring of things that in life have no color.

I could easily imagine someone struggling with Joyce or Virginia Woolf or Faulkner or Lawrence or Sterne -- but Fitzgerald? How much easier does serious literature get?

[Anthony]

Don, i think you are exactly right. you wanna cut the sound and the fury or ulyssses or even as i lay dying, i could understand, though i think they are readable, but f scott's gatsby is basically a page turner with pretty words in it

[Sabrina Conza]

I would replace it with The Fault in Our Stars, I know it's not a classic, but it is age relavent and it would definitely get more students into reading, or maybe Little Women, but that wouldn't be great for both boys and girls.

[Amanda]

I think "The Book Thief" would be a good one. I think it teaches a lot about WWII from a different perspective than we're used to seeing.
It's not a book for everyone, but neither is any book- especially those on the required reading list.
Plus, one can get a lot of good papers out of that book.

[Benjamin]

Shannon wrote: "I am a young person, and I read for pleasure obsessively. I don't know that my experience is consistent with that of other teenagers, but I grew to love reading by reading what I loved. Many of the..."

Thank you for sharing your thought. I am a father of a teenage boy. Your comment provides a good answer to my question.

[Shannon]

Gordon wrote: "Sorry if this has already been covered in one or more of the 464 previous posts on this topic--I didn't have time to read them all....

Why do so many people feel that being able to "identify" with..."
Yes, I agree! The reason most people read is to go someplace new.

[Shannon]

Monty J wrote: "Shannon wrote: "...classics ought to be mixed in with some of the high-quality, more modern Young Adult books that teens will be interested in..."

(Great post.)

You're in the right place to recom..."

Thanks :)
To name just a few: A Wrinkle In Time quartet, The Dark Is Rising, The Book Thief, Revolution, The Giver series, The Poisonwood Bible, The Goose Girl, Ella Enchanted, The Wish List, and the Uglies to name a few. These are all well-written and fun, I thought, and have deeper themes as well (some more than others).

[Ken]

Monty J wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "I hate hate hate Catcher in the Rye."

Jeepers, you sound like Holden."

Hahaha, it's probably #1 on my "didn't like" list because he was such a whiny, irresponsible character and I gained nothing from the book - its message, if there was one, was opaque to me.

I find it easier to give positive reviews. Consider that one just an exception.

[Anthony]

But yes, you must have perfectly gotten the message behind it. Otherwise you could hardly despise it so completely:)

[Míceál]

Not #1 on my "didn't like" list but very near the top.

[Jack]

Why remove it? I actually think it is somewhat relevant, but does it even matter if it's not? Hello high schoolers read Shakespeare, The Odyssey, Oedipus Rex, etc. Those are significantly less relevant.

The great gatsby teaches lots of things that are relevant to basically anything.
-The issues of 'classes' and 'status'
-That money, wealth, and fame aren't everything
-The danger of idolizing people.
-Typical relationship issues (i.e. cheating) and the morals revolving around those issues.
-Whether to or not to judge other people (think Tom).

I could go on.

[Rebecca]

How does Tom fall into the range of judging others? By his judgment or people's judgment of him?
I think the scene where myrtle screams for George to beat her instead of lock her up is indicative of her relationship with Tom

[Lara]

Jack: Thank you for pointing out that relevance doesn't only mean it is about people our own age from our own time. Relevance is about universal, timeless meaning, in addition to learning about our development as a culture.

And how many teenage vampires does one know anyway?

[[deleted user]]

I think that kids should read some classics, but it would be cool to get some contemporary stuff in there. I wouldn't say the contemporary-mainstream-page-turner-easy-read, but something with more substance. Problem would be finding something shorter, novella sized, etc.

I see nothing wrong with reading older novels. If you only read what's practically applicable to your day-to-day life you are going to read some serious crap. Especially if you are looking for something about high school. I mean, we read history because it's useful, why not read historical novels? Gatsby says a ton about American culture.

Cloud Atlas is an awesome book that I would have liked to read during high school. And it is definitely scholarly study material.

I think the idea of education, however, is to push kids out of their comfort zone of understanding into new places. The fastest way to break new ground of understanding is to read what has already taken place. Like I said above, if you only read what was practical to your life in high school you would have known absolutely nothing about the world.

[Jacquelyn]

Diane wrote: "Gatby is not age-relevant to today's high school students.

If we could the replace Gatsby on the school required reading list, with something that's both age relevant, and well written, then mayb..."
Personally, I think that kids need to learn how to put themselves in with other time periods. It teaches kids to be empathetic and to grasp understanding of other cultures--even when the "other" culture is really just an earlier version of our own. I don't think it should be replaced at all.
And note to people saying "Of Mice and Men", Steinbeck is a general requirement. OMaM is a very common requirement (at least in the honors programs)

[[deleted user]]

Diane wrote: "Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Gatsby story end on the note that certain things are unattainable? Along the lines of, doesn't matter what you do, you can get rich, but you'll never be "in", ..."

Well, it definitely speaks about how some things are unattainable. It especially points out how money does very little to change circumstance no matter how much you have.

However, we also live in a time where less people control more wealth than ever before. And The Great Gatsby says quite a bit about the force of wealth in one man's hands whether or not we parallel our times with the 20's or not.

Learning about the circumstances of the Great Gatsby and the 1920's is an important lesson to have because the average high schooler also grew and learned before the crash happened. It's good to know how to prevent a future problem not just cope with it once it has happened.

[[deleted user]]

Diane wrote: "By the way, to the good people who loved Gatsby,I mean no offense. I don't hate the book, and I never say it wasn't "good" or "great". But as someone commented in the " worse book thread", the main..."

So, your opinion of Gatsby is actually completely associated with your hatred of everything you had to read in school, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of the book or your actual opinion of it. So, for the people like you, it would not matter what you read because it was read during school? Are you saying that reading Gatsby for school is good or bad?

Diane wrote: "at 15, the idea of dying for love was "romantic"

At what age does dying for love become unromantic? I am curious.

[[deleted user]]

Diane wrote: "We had maybe 30 out of 400 in my graduation class that got into advanced English. Forget about reading Gatsby, I was shocked when I found out many many of my peers WATCHED videos in class in place of reading Romeo and Juliet. We weren't that far apart back in Freshman years, but 3 years later, its like we went to totally different high schools.

30/400, 30 were the minority, the dying race. "

I was in advanced English and we watched movies during class too. I see no difference between watching film or reading the novel except a bit of left-out minute details. Film is just as much art as a book. Maybe that is the direction we are heading, though I don't believe it. All of my friends were in normal English watching film and they all had thought about the story just the same as I had. I just read the book outside of class on top of it. Reading is easy; it's thinking that's hard.

I don't understand how you were far apart 3 years later? Intellectually, I feel just as stupid as a bum on the street. I mean, what can I answer that he cannot? Do I know the meaning of life? How to love? What I want to do for a profession? I don't know any of that; I may have a better (not more certain) idea of it, but I have also wasted more time thinking about it.

Furthermore, as long as there is need for literary scholars there will be literary scholars. I am Nietzschean and evolutionary in my views as I see holding onto something that is extinct is wasteful and hindering. If I still played my music on wax cylinders I would just be an overly sentimental person. Art moves, changes, and adapts. However, studying to be a scholar of written word, I don't feel that the extinction of it will come as soon as you are expecting, if ever. And I do feel that there are amazing writers out there who are capable with a pen. I also feel strongly that film is a wonderful art that has been developing over the last century. It is incredibly useful; film can pack a week of reading into one hour. Sure it is not as deep, but many books aren't that deep in the first place. Most books are full of filler; movies can pack all of that experience into multiple sensory stimuli allowing you to experience the story far differently.

Sure, you were a minority in your English classes but so is everyone else in everything they do.

[Míceál]

No, No, No. Sure, film is an art form but most (I'm not saying all)books that are turned to film are distorted and completely ruined. Take for instance the new Gatsby, or the Redford/Farrow version, Hemingway's To Have & Have Not (which was a great film but had little to do with the book)and a host of others. Stephen King hated what Hollywood did to The Shining. I don't believe most books worth reading are full of filler. After reading Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Steinbeck and, for modern writers such as, Cormac McCarthy how in the world can you say their books are full of filler. Your second sentence scares the shit out of me. Read the book, see the movie. Decide for yourself.

[Jack]

Rebecca wrote: "How does Tom fall into the range of judging others? By his judgment or people's judgment of him?
I think the scene where myrtle screams for George to beat her instead of lock her up is indicative ..."

In the beginning of the novel Tom thinks back to advice his father gave to him about judgement:

"In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since.
“Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,” he told me, “just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.”

Tom grew up with these morals and you can see how they affected him from his time at college, to his interactions with Gatsby and Daisy. Throughout the novel Tom struggles with this and although he wants to hold himself back from judging others he eventually learns that it is inevitable:

"Reserving judgments is a matter of infinite hope....And, after boasting this way of my tolerance, I come to the admission that it has a limit."

[[deleted user]]

Dr. Michael wrote: "No, No, No. Sure, film is an art form but most (I'm not saying all)books that are turned to film are distorted and completely ruined. Take for instance the new Gatsby, or the Redford/Farrow version..."

First, your initial statement is attempting to make objective what is pure subjectivity. You don't even have any evidence to support your claim. You even disprove its generality: "Stephen King hated what Hollywood did to The Shining." Great! One person, even the maker of the original art, hated what another group of artists did when reproducing his art. In order to refute the objective truth of your statement, I would like to site a larger number of people; the Critic and Audience Tomatometer on Rotten Tomatoes shows The Shining with 90.5% liked. The newest Great Gatsby has 70% audience liked rating. 51% of the audience liked the Robert Redford TGG.

I don't believe that many people would agree with you that film "distorts" and "ruins" any literature it portrays. Literature elitists are a minority, and the support for their argument is pretty spotty. I just can't agree with you that the book is better than the movie simply because it is the book. I am sorry, I don't measure art by preferred medium. Sure, and you agree, film and writing are obviously different mediums capturing different aspects of an idea. But, does this mean, as you imply, that when you turn literature to film it turns in to trash "most" of the time? I suppose I just don't follow your reasoning.

Next, I would like to know what exactly a high school kid or even an average person will take from TGG book that will not come from a film reproduction? And I mean this sincerely; just name something real substantive in the book that isn't replicated in the movie. Now, we aren't talking in sentimental feelings toward words and pages anymore, nor are we speaking about subtle differences. What I need is your cut-and-dry objective and measurable proof that TGG book is undeniably-entirely-unequivocally better than the movie. I need to know why the movie is garbage better off in the dumpster. I need to know why it would be better to spend the semester reading three books instead of seeing 3 film reproductions of books and 7 more because there is now time.

I agree, good books tend to have less filler. Like I asked, explain why my sentence scares the shit out of you.

Sure, I've read the book and seen the movie. I enjoy both separately. However, I do not agree that literature is better than film all of the time. I like literature and writing more but that is a personal preference, and I refuse to gauge an art by its medium. Furthermore, it is not an filmmaker's job to create art that is ad-verbatim copy of the book. An artist who recreates an idea does just that, recreates the idea. The artist does this in his own way; the artist is not a scribe not an amanuenses. The artist is a creator of the thing.

It's as if you read a play and were claiming that every cast that did the play were distorting and ruining the words on the page.

[Míceál]

A play and a novel are quite different don't you think? The actors are acting out the author's written word (word for word). Not so in a movie (for the most part). As for the 71 % of the viewing audience liking the Shining or Gatsby or whatever, how many of those viewers actually read the book(s) also? Your second sentence scares the shit out of me because you can not differentiate between a book & a film except to say that a film has less filler. That's a scary statement for a writer or a literary scholar to read. It's frightening to believe that others might think that way also. BUT, I'm never going to change your mind and you won't change mine so let's drop it. I'm too old to argue. Perhaps someone else can pick this up. I'm out.

[Jack]

Marc wrote: "It's funny, because in schools it seems to be almost exclusively American literature; of Mice and Men, Gatsby, To Kill a Mockingbird, On The Road, The Waste Land and so on and so on and to and fro ..."

I agree that most high schoolers dont seem to have a good range of literature. My high school had a surprisingly good range; We read African folk tales, Shakespeare, Homer's classics, Arabian Nights, books on the apartheid and slavery, books from spain, france, and mexico in addition to American Literature.

[Geoffrey]

I am addressing this comment to 483 Rebecca and Jack posting 491
Your comments were confusing until I figured that you had the wrong name in mind. Nick is the narrator and writer of the novel and you should have substituted his name for Tom. Tom is Daisy`s husband. Minor point aside, yes, I agree. I suspect that he is not as unbiased as he claims as well. He speaks ill after he breaks up with the Parker woman as she has some very cutting words for him. He calls her cynical, but I am hardpressed to find evidence of that. Cynicism is a personality trait high on Nick`s negativity list as his admiration for Gatsby rests on the absolute lack of it in his hero.

[Jack]

Geoffrey wrote: "I am addressing this comment to 483 Rebecca and Jack posting 491
Your comments were confusing until I figured that you had the wrong name in mind. Nick is the narrator and writer of the novel and y..."

oops, my bad! Yeah I meant Nick, not Tom.

[John]

Johnny Got His Gun, By Dalton Trumbo
Yes, it's a novel about WWI, and yes, there's a tiny bit of sex, but all HS students nowadays need to know the people get maimed in war, or even die, and they don't all come back "and pick up the pieces." In the age of bloodless movies with high body counts and first-person shooters, young people need to be reminded ofwhat war IS.

[Míceál]

Trumbo's book is used in Lit classes at Nantucket High School. I would have picked All Quiet On The Western Front over Johnny Got His Gun but I still think Johnny is a good choice.

[Hannah]

You did NOT just bash Gatsby. There is a reason that it's a classic. Gatsby is an amazing novel (my personal favorite) and it's important for kids to be exposed to the classics.

[Míceál]

Who are you talking to there Hannah? I didn't bash Gatsby. It's one of my favorite books.

[Hannah]

Dr. Michael wrote: "Who are you talking to there Hannah? I didn't bash Gatsby. It's one of my favorite books."

The original comment. Saying Gatsby isn't relevant for high schoolers doesn't quite make sense when many other classics that are required reading aren't either. School doesn't assign books for how relatable they are. They assign them due to their educational value. I think Gatsby is a good choice for juniors or seniors if we're going by reading level.

[Míceál]

You might want to clarify which post you are responding to. I assume you are answering Diane's original post. Perhaps a quote from her post and attributing the quote to her would relieve the confusion as to whom you are responding.

[Míceál]

By the way. I agree with you.

[Hannah]

Dr. Michael wrote: "By the way. I agree with you."

Thanks! I read Gatsby when I was in middle school. So really, if a junior high student can read it and comprehend it, older high school students should be able to as well.

[[deleted user]]

Dr. Michael wrote: "A play and a novel are quite different don't you think? The actors are acting out the author's written word (word for word). Not so in a movie (for the most part). As for the 71 % of the viewing au..."

Just like a book and a movie, a play and a performance the author has written inflections and emotions into the work. The author imagines it one way and it comes out differently every time it's acted out. Furthermore there is different scenery, etc. Just like a movie.

We can drop it as you please. You are the first old man I've met who has been "too old to argue" with me. Maybe I've been reading too much Socrates and talking to too many professors, but I tend to like the disagreement.