The Great Gatsby
discussion
If we could the replace Gatsby on the school required reading list...
Beth wrote: "Licha wrote: "I don't think that because a book is not age relevant it should not be endorsed as required reading. These books paint a picture of what that era was like. Books shuld also not be c..."Change the mindset. More male English teachers.
William wrote: "Licha wrote: "I don't think that because a book is not age relevant it should not be endorsed as required reading. These books paint a picture of what that era was like. Books shuld also not be c..."I re-read my comment. I don't think I said reading was work.
Beth wrote: "Licha wrote: "I don't think that because a book is not age relevant it should not be endorsed as required reading. These books paint a picture of what that era was like. Books shuld also not be c..."I wholeheartedly agree that we readers don't need much encouragement when it comes to reading just about anything. I also agree that different level readers may not take to the classics, but I also don't think that their material need be dumbed down. I couldn't tell you what type of reading material a basic English class would be required to read. This is an interesting point, what are these classes reading? Out of curiosity, would abridged forms of the classics work for more basic English classes? What is your opnion on this? I don't think that being in a basic English class should exclude kids from being introduced to classics.
As for kids whose families don't read, well I'm one of them. My dad would read short weekly series, but I can't say that I was ever encouraged to read. I think I was just an inquisitive child who wanted to know what things said for myself and would read anything I could get my hands on. But the first time a teacher read a book out loud to the class with such enthusiasm was the day I HAD to go and read that book for myself. It's key that teachers are passionate about the books they have their class read.
Licha wrote: "I don't think I said reading was work. "Reading beats basketball, pool, baseball, football, TV, bike riding, video games, everything but yoga, rollerbladng and backpacking. That's why I'm a physical wreck.
Reading is life, it's breathing, it's traveling the world, it's traveling inside people's heads, it's time travel, it's unlimited. Kind of like the Internet.
Monty J wrote:"Reading beats basketball, pool, baseball, football, TV, bike riding, video games, everything but yoga, rollerbladng and backpacking. That's why I'm a physical wreck.."
You can do all of those things AND read. Here's an example: GoingPlacesReadingThings
Monty J wrote: "Licha wrote: "I don't think I said reading was work. "Reading beats basketball, pool, baseball, football, TV, bike riding, video games, everything but yoga, rollerbladng and backpacking. That's w..."
You couldn't have said it any better Monty J. I would much rather read than do anything else.
Ryan wrote: "You can do all of those things AND read."Actually, I meant PLAY, not watch. I'm not much of a spectator. I don't believe I've ever paid to attend a sports event except in college, and that was included in my student service fee.
Great link though. Thanks for sharing it.
Monty J wrote: "Licha wrote: "I don't think I said reading was work. "Reading beats basketball, pool, baseball, football, TV, bike riding, video games, everything but yoga, rollerbladng and backpacking. That's w..."
Lol Monty. Nothing beats baseball. Of course I'm a die hard Red Sox fan and watch every game. I actually cried when they won the World Series in 2004. :)
Ruth wrote: "I actually cried when they won the World Series in 2004. "I think a lot of people develop an attachment to a sport through some childhood experience, like when the family goes to a baseball game. I grew up without parents, and my great aunt had no entertainment budget. It's always been a curiosity to me. Like dancing. Same thing there.
I can watch a ballet or a musical performance or an opera though. The first ballet I ever saw was at the Bolshoi in Moscow. Made me cry. I've still got the printed program.
Monty J wrote: "Ruth wrote: "I actually cried when they won the World Series in 2004. "I think a lot of people develop an attachment to a sport through some childhood experience, like when the family goes to a b..."
We never went to a game when we were kids. My Mom raised us by herself and we could not afford things like that,but I have fond memories of listening to the games with my brothers on a transistor radio. I didn't go to a ballet until a few years ago and I cried.
There is a certain amount of cultural literacy that is attached to reading certain classic works. Society expects that an allusion to Romeo and Juliet or The Great Gatsby will be understood because most people have read these. I certainly do not foresee anyone quoting Twilight in 70 years!
Sheri wrote: "There is a certain amount of cultural literacy that is attached to reading certain classic works. Society expects that an allusion to Romeo and Juliet or The Great Gatsby will be understood because..."We used to play a game when we were kids (teenagers): who would be around in the next fifty years. I had hoped Faulkner and Hemingway; now I'm not so sure.
I sense Feliks is a frustrated English teacher. I totally agree with him since I am a former one myself. Monty J wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Name an age-relevant book for this era? How about 'Thomas the Train'.."Made me spew my coffee. Good one."
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..."
Philip wrote: "The Godfather?
It's not great literature, but if you just want to get the kids to read and talk about their reading, why not?"
Why have them read anything at all. Let them just watch tv. or play computer games or text each other.Forget reading altogether.
Why burden them with one of the greatest novels of the 20th century. They will never need to go into a library. They will never need to know who Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Proust are. Most of their parents don't. Most of their parents consider Tom Clancy and Danielle Steele "literature" so why should their children have any clue what a book is.
Forget about it. Years ago before the advent of multi-media a poor man/woman read and publishers found ways to get books to them for pennies & public libraries were founded so everyone can read. Now society is so advanced - but most people are barely literate. Sad sad commentary.
The only way to learn is to READ. Unfortunately there is no other way. There is something called intellectual curiosity and intelligent people have this. If you have this you will want to READ all the great literature to LEARN. It will become a lifetime occupation. You will spend you days forever seeking more knowledge. But we must be honest, this is a rare person in our world. Most people are either too poor and too occupied with keeping themselves and their loved ones fed and clothed and do not have time to seek knowledge. However those of us who do have time but rather, occupy ourselves otherwise are intellectually lazy. We do not care enough to understand the world anymore than how it affects us from day to day. And we have most of the world is this way. And almost all the offspring are this way. It is the rare person who seeks knowledge. To the gentleman above, who mentioned Shakespeare, I will say yes, kids in HS don't understand it and are bored because most of their teachers are incompetent and Shakespeare is meant to be PERFORMED not READ. However, one of the greatest gifts of life if Shakespeare's words and they have now continued on being performed for 500+ years so really I don't care how bored some kids are with them. Because Shakespeare speaks about everything on every level a person can imagine and for centuries people have referred to his work as a touchstone. I personally need Shakespeare like I need water.They can't relate to "The Great Gatsby" - my reaction is - they must be the most shallow people ever. This is a story of great dimension and people have examined and loved it for 80 years. So yeah - it's them - not Fitzgerald.
Eve wrote: "Most of their parents consider Tom Clancy and Danielle Steele "literature" so why should their children have any clue what a book is. "And when they do read, they choose books about vampires, werewolves, and boys flying around on brooms waving magic wands. I couldn't get past page one of a Harry Potter book. Or page 3 of Hunger Games.
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..."
School reading should be more challenging and may require the help of a great class discussion led by a wonderful teacher. That was my experience with Gatsby and it was a memorable one. Are you trying to say that it is no longer relevant because it's not modern? Or because it's not about teens? I think we are dumb enough already.
What does age-appropriate mean anyway? I am 49 and do not remember ever asking my Mommy if I could read a book. If a teenager is reading a book about Vampires and little boy magicians, that teenager, let alone and adult, is in my opinion a nitwit. Those are books for "children". 30+ years ago there was no such thing as YA. The point is the reading level for 16 year olds is now about the level of a 3rd grader in 1978.
I've said it before and I will say it again, I do believe it imperative to expose young minds to as many writers as possible and that way they will discover those that resonate strongest and will read them on their own. THE GOOD EARTH was one of my favs when I was in middle school and I went on to read four more of BUCKS books.There is way too much emphasis on the novel, too little on the novelas and short stories. Expose them to a variety and let them pick and choose who they wish to read further. Assign them a paper to write comparing the different novels of their same professed fav author from your class. Free up the agenda, mix it with teacher assigned reading and student directed reading. If they liked 1984, have them read other Orwellian fiction and write a paper about his development as a writer.
Anything by Ellen Hopkins. It's "age relevant" and may even turn some students on to poetry. It's a great way to work with and introduce poetry, while also discussing relevant issues that teenagers have. Even if you're not in high school, anyone can, in some way, relate to Ellen's books. Each one is unique and amazing in it's own way.
Eve wrote; "To the gentleman above, who mentioned Shakespeare, I will say yes, kids in HS don't understand it and are bored because most of their teachers are incompetent" Yes, Eve, let's definitely blame the teachers. That's what's wrong with society today.
Eve wrote: "The only way to learn is to READ. Unfortunately there is no other way. There is something called intellectual curiosity and intelligent people have this. If you have this you will want to READ al..."I think it was John Cheever who said, "Who wants readers who can't appreciate the beauty of a double-play?" We need all kinds of people. We happen to be readers; that doesn't necessarily make us better.
How about tabloid articles about the Kardashians?
Suzanne wrote: "How about tabloid articles about the Kardashians?"William wrote: "Eve wrote: "The only way to learn is to READ. Unfortunately there is no other way. There is something called intellectual curiosity and intelligent people have this. If you have this you will wan..."
Sorry - as Tom Stoppard says - "some things are better than others" and being informed and literate is Better than not. Everything does not have equal value.
Sheri wrote: "Eve wrote; "To the gentleman above, who mentioned Shakespeare, I will say yes, kids in HS don't understand it and are bored because most of their teachers are incompetent" Yes, Eve, let's definite..."
Not just the teachers today - but teachers forever -most teachers with few exceptions were uninspiring - that's why people remember the exceptional one's that stood out. The education institutions of the United States ruined Shakespeare for generations by having it read up and down the aisles of classrooms until the kids were snoring at their desks. Today they sit and text each other. A handful of exceptional students will come out of every class, the rest will get by and many will fail to learn anything no matter what.
I've known some authors in my time who were asked to spend a semester lecturing at what were considered prestigious universities in America. I can't begin to tell you how unimpressed they were with the quality of intellectual work by American college students.
Eve, you have given me so much enthusiasm for getting to school this morning to teach my students. It's nice to read how respected my profession is these days. So, apparently, the majority of teachers forever are uninspiring? Maybe I should just crawl back in bed. I mean, after a full day of teaching yesterday, I spent the afternoon writing instructive comments on 50 literary essays, and after dinner wrote a midterm and spent the evening studying for grad school. Your comment was truly inspiring, inspiring me to go back to bed.Suppose the trend your author buddies noticed in American college students was not, in fact, the fault of their past teachers. Is there any other cause that might be afoot here? Or have we pretty much decided that student apathy is a burden that falls solely on the shoulders of the teachers who see them, possibly two hours a day?
Eve, I'm sorry you apparently did not have inspirational teachers, but to basically say our educational system is full of terrible teachers is just not true. Sure, there are some terrible teachers, but I believe the majority works very hard to give the best to students. Teachers certainly aren't motivated by the wages or "public support" (from wonderful people like you). Unfortunately in most districts, the curriculum (and novels) a teacher must teach in the classroom is dictated by the school district and is not individual choice of the teacher. As for the comments that YA literature is not "literature" and is basically useless drivel - my goodness, what a group of literary snobs you guys are. YA books have turned a lot of non-readers into readers, leading them to read more challenging texts that they certainly would have never tried to tackle before.
As for the Great Gatsby...maybe it should NOT be read as part of a literature class!Fitzgerald wrote it to be a reflection of the 1920's. He said he wanted to write a book during the 1920's (1922 ).. ABOUT the 1920's. This would probably be good to add to an economics or social studies class. It really characterizes the values and lifestyles of some that contributed to the great depression and problems of the 1930s... Yes, depressing, but a reflectioin of the worst of our society at the time. A bit like the Romans??
Rereading it with a lifetime of real events behind me, I do see it very differently than a HS student...It's a commentary. What will future generations think about some of our current fiction? There are often valuable messages.... and maybe some of these classics would be better aligned with history studies. Extra credit? What say you teachers??
Kathie wrote: "As for the Great Gatsby...maybe it should NOT be read as part of a literature class!Fitzgerald wrote it to be a reflection of the 1920's. He said he wanted to write a book during the 1920's (1..."
I have been a high school English teacher for 10 years now, and many schools align their American Literature course during the junior year when American History is taught. Most schools try to align the curriculum of these 2 courses so that when the history course is studying the Great Depression, the ELA course is studying The Grapes of Wrath, for example.
The courses don't always align perfectly though; I am usually a little "behind" the history course because I start with early colonial literature and explorer journals whereas the history course starts with The Revolutionary War. But, by the time I get to a period piece, the juniors have already studied it in history, so they are able to reference the historical context.
Sheri wrote: "Eve wrote; "To the gentleman above, who mentioned Shakespeare, I will say yes, kids in HS don't understand it and are bored because most of their teachers are incompetent" Yes, Eve, let's definite..."
The students who don't understand Shakespeare don't understand his writing because they do not WANT to understand it. Not because teachers fail to introduce and analyze it properly. I had great English teachers in high school, and now that I am in college, I still have great English teachers, but along with that, I am a good student and I completely immerse myself in what I am reading, and I make every effort to comprehend it. The problem with today is that the STUDENTS don't care. In high school, where I was just a year ago, I was surrounded by so much apathy and I was completely disgusted by it. My penchant for learning is going to get me far, and I know that. I just wish people would stop saying how much their teachers suck and look at how much (or how little) they are actually trying to do the work that the teacher lays out for them, and how little they are willing to care and let the teacher do their job.
Sometimes, it is student apathy that makes me question my future as an educator.
Cait wrote: "Sheri wrote: "Eve wrote; "To the gentleman above, who mentioned Shakespeare, I will say yes, kids in HS don't understand it and are bored because most of their teachers are incompetent" Yes, Eve, ..."
Thank you. This is exactly what I face daily. I have a small pocket of motivated students, some sort-of motivated students, and a majority that couldn't care less about school. So many students today are more worried about Twitter, Snap Chat, and video games than paying attention in class and actually reading the material. They take the "easy" way out and skim through Sparknotes to get enough information to pass, which is just enough for them. But another way to look at it is that the motivated students will be rewarded by earning a college degree and getting a decent-paying career some day!
Kathie wrote: "As for the Great Gatsby...maybe it should NOT be read as part of a literature class!Fitzgerald wrote it to be a reflection of the 1920's. He said he wanted to write a book during the 1920's (1..."
Kathie: Part of the point of literature is that is it a reflection of the time in which it was written. This is why it is literature and not a mass market book to read and discard. When I teach American Literature, or any lit for that matter, we discuss the historical, political, musical, cultural background that the author was influenced by. We look for patterns and trends. Not only does this help students understand the book better, but they appriciate current trends, music, culture better because they are looking for trends that influence their own tastes.
Now I will shut up and go back to being uninspiring.
Kudos to the teachers in this discussion. I do not think there is a harder job than teaching at the middle and high school level. You all sound like you are engaged and working hard to engage your students. The discussion about what books to assign reminds me of the discussion about what level to teach to in a class. No easy answer. Reading is core to all education and the earlier children learn to read, the better chance they will have to be successful, engaged students, even if they get distracted as they journey through the educational system.
Amy wrote: "Cait wrote: "Sheri wrote: "Eve wrote; "To the gentleman above, who mentioned Shakespeare, I will say yes, kids in HS don't understand it and are bored because most of their teachers are incompetent..."I'm looking forward to my careers as an English teacher and a speech pathologist. It's sad that we're given so little to work with, but we must make the best of it!
Eve wrote: "What does age-appropriate mean anyway? I am 49 and do not remember ever asking my Mommy if I could read a book. If a teenager is reading a book about Vampires and little boy magicians, that teena..."First, that little boy magician affected millions of kids and taught them that reading is valuable. Harry Potter is the reason a lot of people in my generation read at all, so I would be careful about scoffing such an impactful, if simply-written, series.
Second, your high-and-mighty tone, which slipped into rude and patronizing more than once, is completely unnecessary. This is goodreads, remember? Relax.
Third, just because something worked 30+ years ago, doesn't mean students will respond to it the same way. Times change, and basing your opinion on what worked when you were a kid is closed-minded and pompous. Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/mag...
Stephanie wrote: "School reading should be more challenging and may require the help of a great class discussion led by a wonderful teacher. That was my experience with Gatsby and it was a memorable one. Are you try..."The Great Gatsby is not the only valuable book in existence!!! There are so many wonderful books in the world that would be a great substitute for a book that is not directly relevant to high school students. If teachers, families and communities are having trouble getting their students to read the books they are assigned, and thus learning crucial literacy and comprehension skills, shouldn't we do everything we can to try to fix that problem? Why is this suggestion being met with such vehemence?
Linda wrote: "Kudos to the teachers in this discussion. I do not think there is a harder job than teaching at the middle and high school level. You all sound like you are engaged and working hard to engage you..."I completely agree with you. There is no easy answer. This is such a nuanced issue, and blaming teachers, or my generation, or parents, or the internet is not going to help.
Lara wrote: "Eve, you have given me so much enthusiasm for getting to school this morning to teach my students. It's nice to read how respected my profession is these days. So, apparently, the majority of tea..."I am not in the blame game. But I think the truth is always the same no matter what day and age we live in. There are very few exceptional people - most people are ordinary. A schoolteacher cannot take 30 kids and turn out 30 exceptional students because they are not magicians. No matter what the parents believer the majority of the kids are ordinary and that is that. However, sometimes a teacher can channel a gifted child who has an intellectual capacity and more importantly an intellectual curiosity toward the greater texts and works of great people. The other kids just need to get through the basic curriculum - which let's face it is enough of a job for most teachers today, with what they are dealing with today. Parents can play a role, but it depends on their socio-economic situation and their own educational and intellectual capacities and understanding.
Suddenly in the last few years new ideas have cropped up - and I am taken to task because I don't agree. Maybe teachers and moms don't have the hardest job on the planet - - maybe a soldier has a slightly more difficult job, or a miner, or cardio-surgeon. What do you think is it possible.
Beth wrote: "Eve wrote: "What does age-appropriate mean anyway? I am 49 and do not remember ever asking my Mommy if I could read a book. If a teenager is reading a book about Vampires and little boy magicians..."So read Harry Potter, who's stopping you. But have the honesty to admit it is to literature what McDonalds is to cuisine. While Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby is Le Cirque.
Eve wrote: "Lara wrote: "Eve, you have given me so much enthusiasm for getting to school this morning to teach my students. It's nice to read how respected my profession is these days. So, apparently, the ma..."I am really, really hoping you are not a teacher. You have called us out on being uninspiring, and your calling most people no better than "ordinary" is the most uninspiring thing I have heard all week. If I treated my students as "ordinary" instead of helping them find the nugget of "extraordinary" they each have within themselves, I would be doing an incredible disservice to them. Every student has the ability to improve even a little bit; that is why were hear stories of tremendous triumph in a child with autism or Downs or some other disability every day. Thank goodness those individuals don't get poisoned with the less-than-ordinary tag you want to label people with. They obviously had parents, teachers, and friends who encouraged them to try just a little harder.
Yes, well, Eve...but there's a difference between your original post about teachers, and what you have said here. I was only responding to your words. I totally believe that there are only a few exceptional people in the world. That is the definition of 'exceptional'. But I do my best with all of them, because yes, people do change. I have. Haven't you?
And yes, truth does not change. But cultural influences do. And it is important to me to show my students cultural works of literature from a wide variety of regions, eras and authors. How else do we realize what a diverse planet we live on? How else do we recognize the richness of ideas that have made us who we are right now?
And no...The purpose of high school reading is not to instill a love of pleasure reading. That should have been completed by eighth grade. By high school, students should be challenged to read because they are learning, not just for fun. They should be exposed to literature that is not something they would pick up on their own. The have plenty of time for that.
Going back to being uninspiring now.
Amy wrote: "Eve wrote: "Lara wrote: "Eve, you have given me so much enthusiasm for getting to school this morning to teach my students. It's nice to read how respected my profession is these days. So, appare..."What's wrong with ordinary? Most people are glad to just have an ordinary day. Read what psychologists are saying (great article recently in Atlantic Monthly) about the repercussions of the the "self-esteem" movement has had on young people now in their 20's raised never hearing a negative word about themselves and receiving constant meaningless praise needlessly and accolades. The result is when they are faced with real life day to day existence where everything is not a party everybody is thrilled by their very presence they are depressed and lost and are seeking therapy because as one psychologist said "life isn't awsome" as they were promised it would be. Another interesting aside from the article - parents when questioned would rather be told their child had a learning issue than be told their child was ordinary. To me and to the psychologists that was part of the problem.
I don't see why the truth is so awful. That was the best thing you can teach children. And one of life's truths is that most of life is about the ordinary. Special has been so misused and overused as to have absolutely no meaning anymore. Awards mean nothing when everyone gets one.
Eve wrote: "Amy wrote: "Eve wrote: "Lara wrote: "Eve, you have given me so much enthusiasm for getting to school this morning to teach my students. It's nice to read how respected my profession is these days...."I think I took your post as meaning "sub-par" more than just "ordinary." I took it as "boring" and not good enough rather than just regular, average. I agree that praise is dished out too much, but I also believe in encouraging my students that they have strengths they need to nurture because often those strengths will lead them to a career they can be satisfied with.
Amy wrote: "As for the comments that YA literature is not "literature" and is basically useless drivel - my goodness, what a group of literary snobs you guys are. YA books have turned a lot of non-readers into readers, leading them to read more challenging texts that they certainly would have never tried to tackle before."This is an important point. Reading is important, more important than what's actually being read. Review your own reading habits and think about what takes each of you from book to book. Maybe it's a topic, maybe an author, maybe a genre, but I bet you've been taken to books you never expected at the start of your reading journey. The same goes with Young Adult and any other genre: it's important to get people reading and to give them the freedom to evolve their tastes and go along with where their reading journey takes them. Others have mentioned Tom Clancy in this discussion: As a burgeoning reader, Clancy books got me interested in reading and helped me to hone my reading abilities. They taught me how to stay focused on what I was reading and to stick with longer books. Because of Clancy, I became interested in Tom Wolfe, and that led to me thoroughly enjoying reading The Great Gatsby in one sitting a couple of Sundays ago.
Just like everyone else, I want to see people reading more and more challenging and sophisticated works; however, for many people that can only happen by their own accord.
Praise reading regardless of the particular book or author they're reading today, acknowledging that you're actually praising what they're reading decades from now.
Ryan wrote: "Amy wrote: "As for the comments that YA literature is not "literature" and is basically useless drivel - my goodness, what a group of literary snobs you guys are. YA books have turned a lot of non-..."Very well said.
Amy wrote: "Ryan wrote: "Amy wrote: "As for the comments that YA literature is not "literature" and is basically useless drivel - my goodness, what a group of literary snobs you guys are. YA books have turned ..."Absolutely. I went from reading Ellen Hopkins and a lot of "teen angst" literature to reading and understanding A Clockwork Orange, which is a book that even most adults can't grasp (at least, that's what most adults I've interacted, even in English departments at colleges and high schools, have told me)
YA lit is not all worthless. Literary merit depends on the book and the reader and the relationship between these two things...not on an entire genre.
Amy wrote: "Eve wrote: "Amy wrote: "Eve wrote: "Lara wrote: "Eve, you have given me so much enthusiasm for getting to school this morning to teach my students. It's nice to read how respected my profession is..."I am not old fashioned or conservative in anyway, except in education. In that one area, I believe the finest education was a classical education begun thousands of years ago with Plato and Aristotle and right up through the late 20th century in the United Kingdom & mid-century in the U.S. Some of those who received classical educations were Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, Christopher Columbus, Galileo, Martin Luther, Darwin, Churchill. All exceptional humans. Unfortunately, we can't have Aristotle and Plato as our teachers like Alexander and we can't have the advantages of Britains once unsurpassed Public Schools (like Harrows, Eton) or American equivalents even on scholarships (Choate, St. Pauls, Phillips Exeter, Lawrenceville, Trinity, Horace Mann, etc.) or be lucky enough to live in NYC and pass a test to enter great old public schools (like Bronx High School of Science or Stuyvesant). But everyone can READ; therefore if we want to have knowledge we can; it is all there for us.
Then the democratic American Public school education system became the envy of the world, so it must have worked well. However today HS is the equivalent of a grammar school education in 1950 and today's colleges are equivalent to a High School education 50 years ago. With all the technology we have the students re less educated than their grandparents were. They are less well read for certain and they have less factual information about the world (history and georgraphy are all but lost subjects - very sad for the people teaching those topics). Years ago, and our president recently said this, a person could graduate HS and be fit to enter the workplace - not today. There were courses that taught the basics of letter writing and business/commercial studies. Others taught skills ora trade. Sadly not anymore.
What happened to those commercial courses, those trade classes. I rememer them. Why were they lost.
Teaching is the greatest example of the age old saying - you can lead a horse to water...well.
The world has certainly changed in one respect, when I was a teenager, nobody wanted to be treated like a kid. Who wanted to read a book written for a "kid". It was like spending your Saturday hanging around with your mother (another thing nobody I knew wanted to be doing). Kids went around with other kids. Now it seems kids and this may be because of the helicopter parenting have no interest in independence. What a difference the years make; kids just wanted independence - not anymore. Maybe it's economics and parenting, etc. But it can't be a positive thing this new infantalism.
And that brings me full circle - Why today's kids can't appreciate The Great Gatsby - they can't understand Jay Gatsby because they don't understand the capacity, the desire, the gumption to want something so much that you will work for it and make it happen without the help of anyone else in the world. Jay Gatsby, set his sight on Daisy, and Daisy set her sights on a rich husband, and he determined the next time she saw him he would be the richest man she knew. And he was. It was a truly American story. Rags to riches. All done on one's own. A self made man. That is I think what they don't understand and can't relate to.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Handmaid’s Tale (other topics)
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (other topics)
Watership Down (other topics)
The Lord of the Rings (other topics)
More...
Ray Bradbury (other topics)
Ernest Hemingway (other topics)
John Steinbeck (other topics)
Edgar Allan Poe (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
American Gods (other topics)The Handmaid’s Tale (other topics)
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (other topics)
Watership Down (other topics)
The Lord of the Rings (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
John Updike (other topics)Ray Bradbury (other topics)
Ernest Hemingway (other topics)
John Steinbeck (other topics)
Edgar Allan Poe (other topics)
More...
First let me say that I agree with you on most of what you said. Mixing contemporary with classics, encouraging non-required reading, etc. However, I think those strategies would only work for kids who already like to read.
I, and probably 99% of the people on goodreads, didn't need too much encouragement to read in grade school. But what about the kids who despise reading, or don't understand the value of a good book, or only read the little lines of dialogue in their video games? What about the kids who's families don't read? I don't think dumbing down the material is an option, but choosing books that will resonate with those kids in an obvious way, at least more than 1920's New England, might be something to consider.