Would LOTF still be a better reading choice than Gone?

[Stephen]

Many teens have read and enjoyed Michael Grant's Gone which deals with many of the same issues as Lord of the Flies
Given that the writing in Gone is perceived to be more up to date and is somewhat more accesible to today's younger readers would you still recommend Lord of the Flies? and Why?

[Scott]

Given how young people speak and write today I don't think being "up to date" in that department is a good thing.

[Meg..reads]

@Scott:I agree 100%

[Matthew]

Scott wrote: "Given how young people speak and write today I don't think being "up to date" in that department is a good thing."

Oh that is just totes inappropes! I think whats trending today is craze amaze!

I'm sorry... I did that for as long as I could. Now I must go wash my mouth out with soap and read something Shakespearean.

[Richard]

Lord of the Flies is for any reader, it sounds as though Gone is aimed only at teens

In 20 years Lord of the Flies will still be there. Not sure this other book will be

[Amber]

Lord of the Flies is a great book that i really liked.
And im on the Gone series now. Both are amazing books and i would recommend either one. Though Lord of The Flies is more a high-school leave i think cause some of it for me was a bit hard to understand. Lord of the Flies will always be around i think. Gone may not but i hope so

[Stephen]

Sandyboy wrote: "Lord of the Flies is for any reader, it sounds as though Gone is aimed only at teens

In 20 years Lord of the Flies will still be there. Not sure this other book will be"

Actually to someone with an open and imaginative mind, the Gone series can be some of the most chillingly disturbing reading there is out there today. It sort of forces one to think of how Law is instituted among men, How money is a good as well as a necessity and whether or not some people are just naturally evil.

I'm one of those unlettered and unwashed folks who think that the main part of an author's job is to tell a story compellingly. Certainly Golding had some "cogent quandaries to pose." but when last I read it I was left underwhelmed with the package as a whole.

But then Herman Melville and Nathaniel Hawthorne also both had important ideas to communicate and yet, I find Moby Dick to be fascinating reading but best taken in small doses like fine aged port.

I loved the Ideas and the peek at puritan life that was The Scarlet Letter Also the story was good yarn and I did find myself caring about the characters and how their story would turn out all these years later. Now that's good storytelling! But judged simply on the convoluted nature of it's prose... Hawthorne himself provides the best words to critique his work when he describes the book that sent poor Dimsdale to dreamland in one of the books crucial scenes... "A Work of vast ability in the somniferous school of literature."

Pretty much wrote his own review there..

Literature can be an open window to an imaginative mind and yet our overwhelmed public schools seem little able to increase literacy rates. And yet I can attest certain teachers have done than their fair share in increasing the aliteracy rate.

[Lara]

There it is! Thanks for blaming (yet again) the teacher. aliteracy? perhaps you should head to a dictionary and look up illiteracy and see if that might not be what you really meant. Or perhaps blame a teacher for never properly teaching you how to spell the word.

Regardless, I will agree with you that an author should tell a story compellingly, and that is enough when we choose books to read for ourselves. But, as you mentioned, in school we have much to do in a limited amount of time, so the books we choose to teach must do many things at once. Now, I have never read gone, but what is particularly compelling in LOTF is the microcosm/macrocosm idea. That what is happening with the boys on the island is a microcosm of the world war that is happening in Europe at the same time. And, I believe it is Jack says "We've got to have rules and obey them. After all, we're not savages. We're English, and the English are best at everything." This creates a platform for the discussion of irony and how really, the adults aren't behaving any better than the kids. Which in turn, sets the stage for the adult's reaction to the mayhem when they are finally rescued.

Again, I have not read Gone. But being a compelling story about important themes is not necessarily enough to make a book worthy of teaching in high school. Nor is "The kids like it" a good reason. If they like it, they will read it on their own. Literature taught in schools should introduce students to a perspective they may not come across on their own, and needs to be important on several levels at once.

[Stephen]

Lara wrote: "There it is! Thanks for blaming (yet again) the teacher. aliteracy? ..."

I'm not saying that there aren't thousands of great teachers in the USA but there are also thousands that aren't. Aliteracy is exactly what I meant. An aliterate is a person who is able to read but rarely chooses to do so. Years of holding to some outdated standards of what is "Good Literature" has left many American students uninterested in reading.

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.” - Mark Twain

“Give me a man or woman who has read a thousand books and you give me an interesting companion. Give me a man or woman who has read perhaps three and you give me a very dangerous enemy indeed.” - Anne Rice

“In old days books were written by men of letters and read by the public. Nowadays books are written by the public and read by nobody.” - Oscar Wilde (Though how he knew about e-publishing beats me)

My main suggestion here is not that teachers are the culprits just as I don't think that the police are the problem when I rail against the de-volution of the U.S. Justice system into the U.S. Legal System.

What I was railing against is that haughty attitude that "Great Literature" should be worshiped as perfect. And to criticize is more telling of the shortcomings of the reader than the work itself. That helps turn people off from reading.

We are all responsible for our society be it great or ignoble. We need to honestly examine our viewpoints in order to be the best that we can be as a society.

[Lynsey]

Scott wrote: "Given how young people speak and write today I don't think being "up to date" in that department is a good thing."

What do you mean? I think it's important for curriculum to include quality contemporary works. Key word here would be QUALITY. Students will connect with them more readily, particularly those who are reluctant readers, and it still addresses the themes that we believe are important in "LOTF." For any book being taught in schools, it should be asked: "Why teach THIS book?" If the answer is "Because it's a classic," without any further elaboration, then I don't think that's a good enough reason to not consider alternative texts that may be just as important, and that students may ENJOY more.

[Lynsey]

Stephen wrote: "Lara wrote: "There it is! Thanks for blaming (yet again) the teacher. aliteracy? ..."

I'm not saying that there aren't thousands of great teachers in the USA but there are also thousands that a..."

Yes to this.

[Lara]

Lynsey: I love the way you put this: "For any book being taught in schools, it should be asked: "Why teach THIS book?" If the answer is "Because it's a classic," without any further elaboration, then I don't think that's a good enough reason..."

That is so exactly right. And classic is such a misnomer anyway, isn't it? Perhaps the answer they really mean is, "Because that's the way we've always done it." Or "Because the textbook told me to." And as I mentioned above, LOTF remains important for a variety of reasons, not that a different book can't fulfill this as well. But, I will maintain that the purpose of teaching literature in schools is not enjoyment. Not that I don't hope my students enjoy reading as much as they can. But the purpose is to learn how literature works and how we can intelligently discuss our individual responses to it. Enjoyment can't be taught for literature any more than it can be taught for algebra. However, we enjoy much more that which we understand at a level that challenges us with out discouraging us. Therefore, literature in schools should not be too easy. Also, we tend to enjoy that which gives us a sense of discovery. Therefore, literature taught in schools should not be just a good story. It should have several levels of meaning that can be interpreted differently. Finally, we tend to enjoy that which gives us a deeper sense of our selves. Therefore, literature taught should relate to our universal humanity.

If we teach enjoyment, we will fail every time. There are simply too many diverse tastes in a classroom to please everyone. But if we teach students how literature works and how to understand it on different levels, we can expand the range of what each student finds enjoyable.

[Lara]

And Stephen, thanks for clarifying your point. Forgive my hasty defensiveness.

[Sparrowlicious]

I don't know about you guys, but I read this book because modern classics inspire a lot of things in pop culture.
Since I didn't have to read any modern classics in school I can't say a thng about teaching with books, etc.
Just this:
If your teacher forces you to only think that one interpretation is right then they're wrong. If you can explain your interpretation then it's right. End of story. There is no one true point of view when interpreting a book.
Where I learned this from?
Adult education, where they teach you all the tricks.

[Stephen]

I recently checked out an old audio-book version of The Vampire Lestat in order to make sure that it was still in good enough condition to give away on the bookmooch site.

It got me to thinking about was how the Anne Rice vampire books had been such best sellers and now the Twilight books have rekindled that phenomenon.

Each successful update had something that it brought to the table. Anne Rice's novels took the classic Dracula (also a reboot) and added homosexual desire, Egyptian mythical roots and several post-existential twists to make for a worthwhile story compellingly told.

Now Stephenie Meyer has come along and added a few twists of her own, a romantic triangle, enough YA angst to enthrall a new generation of readers, and sparkles, don't forget the sparkles! How could she fail? No matter the clunkiness of her prose.

[Lara]

Yes, Sparrowlicious. You are so correct. And any good teacher will say the same thing, not just adult school. Which confirms my point that it is less important for my students to enjoy a book than it is to intelligently articulate the reason for their own reaction.

[Stephen]

Lara wrote: "... it is less important for my students to enjoy a book than it is to intelligently articulate the reason for their own reaction. "

That's spot on.

I recently tried my third pass at The Great Gatsby and was still disappointed that it didn't move me more. Here is a book about a period I love, written by a man whose prose often sings right off the page. The story has well developed, multi-faceted characters and yet... It's still a book I've been unable to love.

I think that (for me at least) when it comes to actually loving a book, having characters that I care about and empathize with is a make or break thing.

I just couldn't muster that level of caring about Jay Gatsby, or Daisy Buchanan, or even Nick Carraway, though I did care about him more than the others. Tom Buchanan was capable of annoying me but not to the point necessary to make him save the tale either.

And yet, the prose!

“And as the moon rose higher the inessential houses began to melt away until gradually I became aware of the old island here that flowered once for Dutch sailors' eyes--a fresh, green breast of the new world. Its vanished trees, the trees that had made way for Gatsby's house, had once pandered in whispers to the last and greatest of all human dreams; for a transitory enchanted moment man must have held his breath in the presence of this continent, compelled into an aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder.”

Having personally looked out over Long Island Sound on more than a few perfect summer evenings, I was totally and completely smitten by the concept of a majestic unspoiled view being commensurate to one's capacity for wonder.”

I'm still forced to lament though that F. Scott Fitzgerald was a better writer than he was a story teller.