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

[Erin]

Also I can't think of anything MORE appealing to teenagers than gangsters, wild parties, "loose" women, unrequited love, adultery and manslaughter! seriously I think teenagers get bored with it b/c teachers think it's "beneath" the lesson plan or something stupid like that to actually acknowledge that this story is really quite juicy, and very scandalous!

[Lara]

Thank you Sarah. Those are my thoughts as a teacher. It's good to hear similar ideas from a student's perspective. I don't think any of the 'classics' are irrelevant, or I wouldn't teach them. And plenty of more contemporary books are on our list as well.

[Ken]

I would kick Gatsby out for Journey to the West, or a choice of Dumas, Borges, or Verne.

I find a serious problem with academia is the dumbing-down, low-bar approach to teaching that doesn't challenge students and doesn't kindle their imaginations. They're forced to read realistic fiction, often in historical or culturally significant settings, to serve as a segue to discuss those historical or cultural issues.

Never (at least that I am aware of) is the discussion of the book itself as a stand-alone-entity or the importance of authorship, style, or creativity discussed. As such, students become put off by future assignments and if you'd like any proof of this, check out here on goodreads what is considered the "Best of all time" and the "Worst of all time" lists. You'll see a lot of overlap. Many who praise such works propagate their use in curriculum and the current generation is not enthralled in the same way these educators once were. This is an age of urgency, wonder, technological advancement, discovery, change. Yet we are assigning books such as Gatsby that, while some topics are still relevant today, much is not.

I hold the unpopular opinion that accessibility is a negative rather than a positive attribute.

[Anthony]

Kenneth wrote: "...I find a serious problem with academia is the dumbing-down, low-bar approach to teaching that doesn't chal..."
funny, i find your closing line negates your entire previous comments, and funnier still, i cant figure out which i disagree with more. inaccessible work is of little use if you are trying to both communicate with and engage students, or readers in general, for that matter. of course, a level of interest increases the likelihood of a level of entrance:)

the best literature is stuff that works on say an 8-10 th grade level, and works even better on a post grad level. i think shakespeare, faulkner, joyce, and other great classics and great modern writers do this, white F Scott wasnt always so, i the the big ole gat does this just fine. if students hate it, it is probably because of the teacher, not the text

[Ken]

If students hate it, they should read something that engages them. One size fits all, well, doesn't.

By the way Anthony, I should add that I'm not advocating for opaque text that can't be penetrated. I'm arguing that "easiness" should not be the primary metric by which books are selected. We should give students more credit. This is now a world where instant information is accessible at any time, and many young people have a thirst for it. We should feed and not stifle that.

[Anthony]

that i dont disagree with, but i do disagree that english class should try to compete with google. eng lit is not about the quest of knowledge, it is about the appreciation of a well observed and retold event, preferably completely enacted in the head of the writer, though often the action might be inspired by actual events in part or in whole.

[Elise]

I am going into High School, and I'm supposed to read Gatsby in I believe 12th grade. I have already read it and found it wonderful. I don't think age has anything to do with liking or disliking this book.

[Julie]

If I can add...I read Gatsby when I was in H.S. and loved it. I don't know why I loved it - I don't know if it was the author, the teacher or the story.

I do know this, I also loved the Grapes of Wrath and it was 95% because of the teacher. He made us read between the text to adhere to our level of understanding and we discussed in layman's terms. He let us say ANYTHING as long as we understood what we were reading...and still to today I appreciate what he did for me. Elevated me - let me know that I could understand something that I thought was beyond me and something that I would otherwise feel was boring and irrelevant. Only through that experience do I realize what a great teacher can really do for a student. Bravo Mr Ricks - wherever you are

[Ken]

I think Anthony we might be looking for the same thing but with different approaches.

Maybe my own experiences are coloring my opinion here, as a majority of the books assigned me back then were books I found no love for. I don't think it was the teaching style either, having re-read some of them later I found the issues remained for me - they just didn't hold up to the lavish praise assigned them. I found works like Gatsby somewhat trivial compared to what I had been reading then. Granted, what I had been reading had far less historical significance.

[Anthony]

with the exception of a day in the life of ivan EVERY book i was ever assigned i hated by the time the teacher or professor got through making it look like a lab frog, fortunately, i had seen the sleek green Gatsby before the scapple turned it into a bloody pile of guts. btw, i got a d on the ivan book, but still enjoyed how he told the entire history of a region in one day! it was for an exposition class, no wonder i made a d, i never even figured out what exposition is, seriously.

I love reading and writing and am a pretty smart guy, but my aptitude for english as a field of study is extremely low.
i must have about an 80iq when it comes to the field, because every time i spend any time around educated folks and listen to them talk, i get angry and frustrated, and if they happen to talk about a book i like, they almost always destroy it, so i am not sure how much my opinion has any validation here, except that i think i represent at least a small minority of people who end up in various levels of english classes

[Lara]

Kenneth, While I agree with much of what you say, Gatsby is primarily taught in American Literature classes, and your suggested authors are, well, not.

And as far as relevance is concerned, there is much in Gatsby that is timelessly relevant, as is true of most of the works I teach in American Literature classes. I'm not saying Gatsby is the only choice. We read quite a range. The challenge for a teacher is to ask her/himself what is the purpose of each work of literature. Rather than teach a selection from a textbook company's archives, we need to choose a work that serves an educational purpose beyond the text itself. It must be more than enjoyable and more than relevant only to this time and place.

And if a teacher can't figure out why, beyond the fact that a work is on the core list or included in an anthology, he or she is teaching a certain text, nothing can be done to make it relevant to the students. This doesn't mean any scalpel need be used to dissect the text. If I have learned anything in the past fifteen years, it's to trust my own literary instincts over those of textbook publishers or publishers of canned curriculum.

[Anthony]

Lara, I might a liked you for an English teacher!

[Ken]

I'm glad you trust your instincts Lara and wish more teachers did.

I'm of the opinion that there's a gap in the education system where the appreciation for writing, beyond plot but not necessarily as a vehicle to discuss issues contemporary to its setting, seems to be missing. For a lot of people the concept of reading gets tied to this sort of perceived trickery in that you read the book, take apart the themes and then discuss how they were influenced by or able to influence the external world of that time. Of course it's not intended to be experienced that way, but for some students, it's like a bait and switch. The book ends up becoming like a text book in terms of how it is used.

By contrast, a lot of the books I thoroughly enjoyed were discussed instead on the basis of how, for example, thematic elements and style allowed the author to better deliver their message. This might be above the level of High School, though.

Canned curriculum is a pox on us all for sure!

I suppose I would describe my view as more like the Renaissance man - self sought knowledge, and more interested in Writing than in Literature.

[Lara]

Not at all above high school Kenneth. It is all important. What separates good literature from a 'beach read' is that it's a reaction to something outside of itself, whether it be a historical event or a personal tragedy. It should also evoke a reaction from the reader and anger and loathing are just as acceptable as enjoyment. I am not concerned necessarily with how much my students enjoy a book as much as I am concerned that they are able to identify their own reaction to it and explain intelligently what in the work inspired that response. And so yes, the method is easily as important as the message.

[Joseph]

T wrote: "I've first read the Great Gatsby when I was in 8th grade, and rather loved it. I really wouldn't say the matter is about the age... because even back than, I did care about the rich, bored, white m..."I think there is a point missing in this conversation concerning the relevance of Gatsby. It is a perfect example of narration from the Nick character point of view. This seems simple to us as adult readers, and it is not totally unique, but as an example it is easy to analyze, as is the symbolism which is rather direct. I don't see how the outsiders is more relevant with it's glib assessment of gang life as it relates to a much more fatal contemporary version.

[Rebecca]

Through Their Eyes is a book about eye witness stories of ground zero on 9/11 told by high school students. I am an English teacher and this book recently won over Scarlett Letter on my reading list for students. It's contemporary and can be used to see not only different literary aspects but current events essay writings and the whole nine yards

[Anthony]

i wonder if your class learned more about english lit from that book than scarlet letter?

[Rebecca]

I teach predominantly sophomores and I just feel Scarlett Letter is not as good as it use to be. Most students in my area have horrible time with understanding Hawthorne. Of course, I live in a low budget state with an even lower budget school board. Educational funding has gone down very bad. I hve had to buy two set of classroom books for reading ( Through Their Eyes and Speak) just so they could read something. That's all irrelevant.

Low school funding royally makes me mad :)

[Anthony]

believe it or not fla, texas, and Nev are consistently at the bottom, well behind Miss, LA, ARK and WV.....

[Anna]

when students are assigned a book to read for a certain class, regardless of age, discussion in the classroom is vital. If students can't understand the book, then it defeats the purpose of reading it at all! A book in another language may be wonderful, but if you don't speak the language, you won't get anything out of it. In today's society, there are so many people who don't enjoy reading, who don't take the time to understand the written word. Teachers shouldn't just assign a book and expect their students to understand it the first time. A good teacher would allow students to ask questions and encourage open discussion about the book. The books I read in my senior English class in high school were the most enjoyable because my teacher took the time to discuss the book with us. We analyzed it. We discussed it. We asked questions. And as a result, I understand those books. I learned what was behind the words. I think one of the reasons I didn't enjoy The Great Gatsby was due to the fact that my junior English teacher did not devote enough time to discussion in the classroom about the book. It was labeled an "outside reading book". As a consequence, the only time it entered the classroom was for a test. This shouldn't happen in classrooms. I'm not saying teachers should hold their students by the hand throughout the whole book. The teacher should teach about the book itself.

[Mary]

The Pearl, really?

[Megan]

I am a high school student and The Great Gatsby was required reading in my junior year. I LOVED it, it is beautiful writing and I am so glad I read it. It does have enduring themes that high schoolers can relate to, like wealth isn't equatable to happiness, image isn't everything and, you can't become so fixated on a dream and completely invent yourself around that dream. These can be translated across the decades and are relevant to young people venturing out into the world. Maybe we should ask not what we can replace Gatsby with, but what we could add to high school curriculums to make reading more appealing and relatable to high school students? Sounds like Of Mice and Men would be a good option.

[Rebecca]

I am in Mississippi

I think overall American schools are behind

I think a good classic that does well with high school reading is Animal Farm.

[Rebecca]

I think it is just the challenge of finding ways to get the kids interested in the book as opposed to what the book is

[Will]

I often wonder which book(s) the teenaged F. Scott Fitzgerald was forced to read that made him say, "this is crap, even I could write a better book".

[Anthony]

Will wrote: "I often wonder which book(s) the teenaged F. Scott Fitzgerald was forced to read that made him say, "this is crap, even I could write a better book"."

will, exactly, or conversely, what great book inspired him to try?

rebecca, you are right about mississippi, even though FLA and TEX are among the worst when it comes to totla spending, out of 51 (including DC), FL is 36th, TX is 40th on education, while MS is 47.

[Will]

I work with people who fight (not an exageration) over the educational funding formula all day. The state-by-state ranking lists vary depending on who compiled and submitted the list. I find it easier to use a tiered stystem, but even then the generally agreed upon bottom tier of ten states has twelve states - ironically similar to classrooom overcrowding (another favorite topic of the education policy people). They also spend a lot of effort reviewing the US global rankings on both spending and achievement - they don't even come close to one another. So, at least in the global model, more spending doesn't equal smarter kids. That being said I think any further discussion of educational funding is a burden beyond the tensile strength of this thread and should probably be transferred to a new heavy rope or cable.

[Amy]

Will wrote: "They also spend a lot of effort reviewing the US global rankings on both spending and achievement - they don't even come close to one another. So, at least in the global model, more spending doesn't equal smarter kids."

This alone tells me where you stand on educational funding for US students. You think we are not getting what we are paying for. Don't forget that most other countries do not have school-sponsored athletics and other activities to fund for the money. Don't forget that a lot of European countries do not put technology into the hands of students like the US does. Whether or not you feel we should get rid of school-sponsored athletics and extra-curriculars or get rid of all the technology used, until US school athletics and activities are fully paid for by parents and US schools move backward in technology, these will be major expenses for schools. Sure education is cheaper per student in Germany, for instance. They don't have school sports and they have very, very few computers in the schools. Sorry I am "burdening the tensile strength of this thread" by continuing down the path. Sort of pretentious to deem the thread unable to support a topic.

[Sandra]

The Great Gatsby is an easy read, is heavy laden with obvious symbolism, is very relevant to the economy we live in at the moment, and is a significant part of the American canon. I think these are all good reasons to teach it in high school even though personally I'm not a big fan of it.
The Scarlet Letter is the one I would delay to senior year or later. I found it really tedious in high school, but learned to appreciate it much more as an adult.
I also don't mind in the slightest if students think that Twilight is the best novel ever written. That just means they're fairly new to reading for pleasure.

[Karen]

I think it's important that teachers include books that they are passionate about. Students can tell the difference because it is a much better experience for the teacher. Of course, appropriateness must be considered, but good teachers will consider this.

[Ken]

I would take exception to students believing Stephanie Meyer a literary giant. That's exactly the sort of thing that doesn't get addressed in education. There's an oversight here and if the country isn't careful, 50 years from now you may find it part of "the American canon" Sandra, and that is a depressing thought.

What qualifies for canon anyway? Who chose it and why is it continued? When is review worth considering?

Is there even a difference between reading for pleasure and reading great literature? Should there be?

[Amy]

Kenneth wrote: "I would take exception to students believing Stephanie Meyer a literary giant. That's exactly the sort of thing that doesn't get addressed in education. There's an oversight here and if the country..."

As for the literary canon remaining relatively unchanged, I blame the textbook publishers. They continue to publish the same anthologies, edition after edition, with pretty much the same texts and only change up some introductions, literary criticism, and maybe add/delete a piece or two. If one were to compare high school American Literature textbooks from different publishers, probably 70% of the content is the same works. It is too costly for the publishers to gather a committee to search for new pieces to add to a revamped textbook. I could totally be wrong on my ideas here, just my opinion.

As for the "reading for pleasure" versus "reading great literature," I think they totally intersect but can also be separate. I've read a lot of books I have thoroughly enjoyed and found pleasure/entertainment in reading but would never consider them "great" literature. I've read a lot of books that are "great literature" that I have completely enjoyed as well. But then, I've read books that are considered "great literature" that I've really disliked and some I didn't even complete.

As for Meyer being seen as a "literary giant," I have to say that my students, even the biggest Twilight fans, would never claim that she is a literary giant and will stand the test of time. In fact, I hardly see my students read Twilight any more. They have moved on to other series. I think far too many adults (ones who are not teachers) put far too little stock in teenagers today. They do have brains and they do have sense. Maybe I'm only in a pocket of this country where this is true, but I don't think our teens are as "dumbed down" as many adults like to think they are.

[Rebecca]

In high school the best books I read were Of Mice and Men, Fly Away Peter and To Kill a Mocking Bird.

There was also a wonderful book called "Amongst Women", but I don´t expect American schools to take that up because it is Irish.

I don´t see anything wrong with students studying something like The Hunger Games in high school, the job of high school teachers should be to inspire a love of reading. That´s a far greater gift than trying to force "classics" on children.

[Sandra]

Who chooses canon is a whole political discussion, but I think there's something to the idea that a literate, educated person in the US is at least familiar with certain key titles that reflect the American experience. Both The Great Gatsby and The Scarlet Letter fall into that category. So does Their Eyes Were Watching God, another imperfect novel that is nonetheless great fun to teach. That doesn't mean it or the others MUST be taught, but it makes them good candidates to be taught.

In any case, expecting all students to love every title (or all teachers to be passionate about everything they teach) is like expecting everyone to agree with you about who should win the Pulitzer. Literature is a conversation over time among readers and writers. As a teacher you give students the tools to enter into this conversation themselves, and then let them go at it, hopefully for the rest of their lives. But they won't do any of that in any authentic way if they hate reading, or feel that they are not really allowed to have their own tastes and make their own critical judgments.

As for the publishers -- I've worked on both sides of this. Textbook publishers simply want to sell as many textbooks as they can. They cater to what the most schools/teachers/professors/departments will find the most useful.

[Ken]

Rebecca wrote: "the job of high school teachers should be to inspire a love of reading. That´s a far greater gift than trying to force "classics" on children."

On this we agree! While the importance of the classics is still valuable as a teaching aid, it shouldn't exist alone.

[Lara]

Except for that fact that nowhere in the adopted standards is enjoyment or love of reading mentioned. The teacher is paid by the state, through the district to teach the standards. That being said, I do hope my students enjoy and love what we read. Some will; some won't. It is impossible to find any books that everyone will enjoy. Which is why it is important to help students learn why they react a certain way to a certain book and be able to discuss that reaction in an informed manner, using support from the text itself. Supporting an argument with examples from a text IS a standard. So it is important to choose works that warrant a strong reaction rather than 'Hey, that's neat.'

[James (JD)]

Common Core State Standards now recommend TGG for 11th-12th grade, so Gatsby isn't going away. I hadn't taught it before (in Tennessee), but I added it this year, replacing The Grapes of Wrath, which CCSS recommends for 9-10.

The reason to read it isn't just the relevance, but the text and vocabulary that Fitzgerald uses are challenging and enlightening. I do think that Baz Luhrman's recent movie version opened up the book to more interest from non-WASP audiences.

[Bill]

In high school, the best book I read was "King Lear". Interestingly, it's still the finest literary work of art I've ever read.

The novels I remember loving were "Vanity Fair," Hawthorne's "The Marble Faun" and "House of Seven Gables," "Jane Eyre," and "The Great Gatsby." "The Great Gatsby" became a favorite which I've read several times since.

What I loved then and still love was the enormous romantic gesture, mostly that, but also the humor, and the language. The book itself is a bizarre combination of a romantic fable and "social criticism," although I think it's far more successful as the former. In fact, America is essentially indicted for a failure of imagination -- the ultimate romantic sin. There's also the business of "carelessness," but I don't think the notion that the rich (along with everyone else) can be self-involved breaks new ground.

I think for grown-ups "The Great Gatsby" is best read in terms of two of its influence, "Heart of Darkness" and "The Waste Land" (Eliot loved "The Great Gatsby" - he read it three times.) I think assigning "The Waste Land" in high school would be insane. But high school students could read "Heart of Darkness." I believe I read "Heart of Darkness" in high school.

In junior high school (what is now called middle school), I identified with Holden, of course. We were assigned "Portrait of the Artist as Young Man." I didn't like it much. I reread it about ten years ago, and didn't like it any more now than I did then. Joyce may forever be a blind spot for me. But that's not a reason not to assign it.

I found "Two Years Before the Mast" the worst slog I'd ever experienced. I didn't know how to read "Moby-Dick" which was standard high school reading when I was in high school. I read it two years ago, and I loved it.

I found "Don Quixote" too episodic and there was no translation then to compare with Edith Grossman's. I've been reading it now. It improved substantially. :-)

I'm fascinated by the notion that students have to love everything that's assigned to them in school. The point is that part of the reason we teach English literature classes are to acquaint students with actual literature which they probably won't come across otherwise. They can find "Twilight" all by themselves. I didn't need school to lead me to Robert Heinlein or Theodore Sturgeon.

I don't remember too much assigned poetry except Keats, "Ode on a Grecian Urn" which I loved, and thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread until my girl friend, freshman year of college, turned me on to the "Ode to a Nightingale," belatedly at seventeen. I remember reading Sara Teasdale (!) and perhaps e. e. cummings. I don't actually remember what I thought of old "e.e." back then, but never a favorite.

Again, so what?

I remember thinking most of the poetry assigned wasn't inspiring. What I discovered myself were "The Love of J. Alfred Prufrock" -- I memorized it -- and an anthology called "Contemporary American Poetry" which was a revelation to me -- serious poems using contemporary diction and filled with people like W. S. Merwin, James Dickey, John Logan, James Wright, etc.

Was I "everykid"? No. Not hardly. But I was one of the kids. Everyone is not going to fall head over heels for literature. It would be nice. But it's not going to happen.

On the other hand, some of us will.

It will become increasingly irrelevant as, at least I've read, that English classes will be emphasizing more non-fiction so the students will have it as a model for writing. After all, how many will write fiction?

More's the pity -- although separating writing and the study of English literature wouldn't be a bad idea. Of course, what could we give up?

Perhaps gym. :-)

[Monty J]

Bill wrote: "The book itself is a bizarre combination of a romantic fable and "social criticism," although I think it's far more successful as the former. "

Agreed.

[Bill]

And there's no way to justify Lear's irrationality in Act I -- and Lear is possibly the greatest literary work ever written.

"Gatsby" is full of flaws -- but it works regardless, and I think if you have to pick a single work of American literature of the twentieth century that still delights many who read it for the first time, accessibility (it's a LOVE story), and brilliant writing this is it.

It's okay not to get it. I don't get Joyce, and he's usually considered the greatest writer in English of the 20th century, with Proust perhaps winning the crown if we include non-English works.

But if you have to pick a single novel of American literature, it's hard to find a competitor. Faulkner is nowhere near as accessible. I loved "A Farewell to Arms" which I read in high school -- but I don't think it has the appeal of "The Great Gatsby" for most students most of the time.

But of course I read them both in high school. Some people write as thought people read only one novel in high school We're not that degenerate yet.

Soon perhaps.

[Anthony]

except where both joyce and faulkner try not to be, i find them both as accessible as F Scott. and all of them quite wonderful, and while i have enjoyed the sound and the fury and ulysess twice apiece, i do not find them to be better for being less accessible than their other works, not sure why teachers bother to encourage students to read them until they have exhausted their other works

[Ken]

Heart of Darkness, Moby Dick, A Farewell to Arms, Don Quixote, King Lear, and Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man were all excellent. Proust is like the richest chocolate cake you can read.

I hate hate hate Catcher in the Rye.

[Kyle]

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..."

"The Great Gatsby" is timeless. "Twilight" is just another YA book. I don't see how the two of them intersect at all.

[Bill]

Everyone doesn't have to like everything. But that shouldn't affect what's assigned in school.

[Monty J]

Bill wrote: "'Gatsby' is full of flaws -- but it works regardless,"

Agreed.

"Some people write as thought people read only one novel in high school We're not that degenerate yet."

I have confidence that the world will come to its senses and classic literature will rise again. How many vampires and boys riding brooms waving magic wands can people stomach? Really.

[Monty J]

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

Jeepers, you sound like Holden.

[Shannon]

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 classics taught in schools rather turn kids off reading...yes, Steinbeck's writing is beautiful, and yes All Quiet on the Western Front has interesting themes, but teachers need to recognize a genre besides tragedy. We do not want to read depressing, "it'll make you more well-rounded" books, nor do we want to spend our lives analyzing them. In my opinion, classics ought to be mixed in with some of the high-quality, more modern Young Adult books that teens will be interested in. If kids develop a love for reading (which, admittedly, not all are capable of) and our tastes are allowed to mature naturally, we'll read the depressing classics...for fun.
I used to read mostly young adult fantasy. Not anymore. I guess you could say there are more things in heaven and in [the library] than were dreamt of in my philosophy.

[Monty J]

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 recommend a few.

[Anthony]

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

f---ing A!

[Rebecca]

I think it could ultimately stay as a book on reading list for high schools. I mean, when you look deeper in the symbolism you can kind of see how the whole novel radiates the idea of an American Dream, and it can even be viewed as a coming of age story. Even though all the characters are in their late twenties, they themselves are passing from one stage of life to another.