Disturbing Assigned Reading

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the anti-intellectual mob that crows against dead white men authors is that often the proposed alternatives rarely even qualify as literature.

Case in point, my child’s assigned reading, Esperanza Rising, by some no name author, but checks a bunch of boxes for what counts as the correct ‘lived experiences’. I’m sorry, but what a complete waste of time! Simplistic plot line, poor character development, vocabulary and sentence structure at the comic book level. And that’s the only book they read so far this year!

To the question of what constitutes classics, how shallow and simplistic is to judge and reject literature by the genitals of the author? Classics are works that have an outsized influence on the culture, on later authors, and how society perceives the world. Why can’t they read Aesop’s fables instead? Yeah, I know, dead (certainly), white (possibly), male.

Esperanza Rising’s intended age group is 9-12. What do you expect? They should substitute Faulkner instead?

You would be amazed at what kids can learn when challenged. Perhaps not Faulkner at that age, but maybe Dickens?

I like Dickens - or rather, there are many Dickens novels that I like a lot. Why should 9-12-year-olds in Montgomery County in 2023 read Bleak House instead of Esperanza Rising?

https://www.ala.org/awardsgrants/content/esperanza-rising-0

Oliver Twist, if you're going by page count. Bleak House is 900+ pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t HS kids today read the classics?

LOL, we all know why.

Because the classics were written in a different time about a different society and they may not feel like the problems they're facing right now aren't addressed in those books. This relates to the "why do you read" thread but HS students don't just read because they're told to. Maybe that's one reason, but just like with anything else you want to enjoy what you're doing and if you do enjoy it you're more likely to keep doing similar things.

Telling a child who hates Treasure Island or Dickens or Tolstoy or whoever else that they must read X number of those books to finish a class only makes them hate the class more, especially if there are newer stories like say Harry Potter or Percy Jackson that they enjoy more and may be easier reads.

No, that's not why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t HS kids today read the classics?

LOL, we all know why.

Because the classics were written in a different time about a different society and they may not feel like the problems they're facing right now aren't addressed in those books. This relates to the "why do you read" thread but HS students don't just read because they're told to. Maybe that's one reason, but just like with anything else you want to enjoy what you're doing and if you do enjoy it you're more likely to keep doing similar things.

Telling a child who hates Treasure Island or Dickens or Tolstoy or whoever else that they must read X number of those books to finish a class only makes them hate the class more, especially if there are newer stories like say Harry Potter or Percy Jackson that they enjoy more and may be easier reads.

You didn't compare J.K. Rowling to Tolstoy, did you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the anti-intellectual mob that crows against dead white men authors is that often the proposed alternatives rarely even qualify as literature.

Case in point, my child’s assigned reading, Esperanza Rising, by some no name author, but checks a bunch of boxes for what counts as the correct ‘lived experiences’. I’m sorry, but what a complete waste of time! Simplistic plot line, poor character development, vocabulary and sentence structure at the comic book level. And that’s the only book they read so far this year!

To the question of what constitutes classics, how shallow and simplistic is to judge and reject literature by the genitals of the author? Classics are works that have an outsized influence on the culture, on later authors, and how society perceives the world. Why can’t they read Aesop’s fables instead? Yeah, I know, dead (certainly), white (possibly), male.

Esperanza Rising’s intended age group is 9-12. What do you expect? They should substitute Faulkner instead?

You would be amazed at what kids can learn when challenged. Perhaps not Faulkner at that age, but maybe Dickens?

I enjoyed reading Dickens as a kid and Treasure Island and The Count of Monte Cristo.

I read The Count of Monte Cristo as an adult. It's 1,243 pages long, because Alexandre Dumas (père) got paid by the word.

It's fine to read Treasure Island, but why should kids have to read Treasure Island when there are so many other books that will likely resonate with them more?

I don't disagree. I mean I look back on reading these fondly but have tried to find more engaging books for my kids. Surprisingly, for them books like the Hunger Games were really enjoyable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it Kite Runner? My child had to read that in ninth grade and found it extremely disturbing.

A Thousand Splendid Sons by the same author.

The problem with this book is that it is completely devoid of any kind of hope, even in the end. It left me depressed. Not so with Kite Runner. Humans need a glimmer of hope to survive and thrive.

Unlike As I Lay Dying, justly famous for its optimistic outlook. King Lear, too. And don't forget One Hundred Years of Solitude!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t HS kids today read the classics?

LOL, we all know why.

Because the classics were written in a different time about a different society and they may not feel like the problems they're facing right now aren't addressed in those books. This relates to the "why do you read" thread but HS students don't just read because they're told to. Maybe that's one reason, but just like with anything else you want to enjoy what you're doing and if you do enjoy it you're more likely to keep doing similar things.

Telling a child who hates Treasure Island or Dickens or Tolstoy or whoever else that they must read X number of those books to finish a class only makes them hate the class more, especially if there are newer stories like say Harry Potter or Percy Jackson that they enjoy more and may be easier reads.

You didn't compare J.K. Rowling to Tolstoy, did you?

DP. Both are authors who have written books that people can read. Also both are arguably awful people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child is almost an adult and should be able to handle books of this sort. This is why you don’t shelter kids; it makes them unprepared for life.

These kids are living in a pandemic. They aren’t shielded. They don’t need extra trauma in their lives.

Way to raise fragility in your child. This post shows the growth of “safetyism” in America

Exactly why kids are unable to "adult" when its time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the anti-intellectual mob that crows against dead white men authors is that often the proposed alternatives rarely even qualify as literature.

Case in point, my child’s assigned reading, Esperanza Rising, by some no name author, but checks a bunch of boxes for what counts as the correct ‘lived experiences’. I’m sorry, but what a complete waste of time! Simplistic plot line, poor character development, vocabulary and sentence structure at the comic book level. And that’s the only book they read so far this year!

To the question of what constitutes classics, how shallow and simplistic is to judge and reject literature by the genitals of the author? Classics are works that have an outsized influence on the culture, on later authors, and how society perceives the world. Why can’t they read Aesop’s fables instead? Yeah, I know, dead (certainly), white (possibly), male.

Esperanza Rising’s intended age group is 9-12. What do you expect? They should substitute Faulkner instead?

You would be amazed at what kids can learn when challenged. Perhaps not Faulkner at that age, but maybe Dickens?

I enjoyed reading Dickens as a kid and Treasure Island and The Count of Monte Cristo.

I read The Count of Monte Cristo as an adult. It's 1,243 pages long, because Alexandre Dumas (père) got paid by the word.

It's fine to read Treasure Island, but why should kids have to read Treasure Island when there are so many other books that will likely resonate with them more?

Exactly! What is so uplifting about Count of Monte Christi which is essentially a story or revenge and realization. What is so uplifting about Tale of Two Cities. What is so wonderful about Treasure Island or Robinson Crusoe that can’t be achieved reading Amulet or the Lost Island Tamarind. There are thousands of books published a year. Why should classes be reduced to “classics” when so many other works have been created. The point is to cover Themes, Genres, and Analysis. That can be done with a variety of books. The goal is not to read the same book for eternity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the anti-intellectual mob that crows against dead white men authors is that often the proposed alternatives rarely even qualify as literature.

Case in point, my child’s assigned reading, Esperanza Rising, by some no name author, but checks a bunch of boxes for what counts as the correct ‘lived experiences’. I’m sorry, but what a complete waste of time! Simplistic plot line, poor character development, vocabulary and sentence structure at the comic book level. And that’s the only book they read so far this year!

To the question of what constitutes classics, how shallow and simplistic is to judge and reject literature by the genitals of the author? Classics are works that have an outsized influence on the culture, on later authors, and how society perceives the world. Why can’t they read Aesop’s fables instead? Yeah, I know, dead (certainly), white (possibly), male.

Esperanza Rising’s intended age group is 9-12. What do you expect? They should substitute Faulkner instead?

You would be amazed at what kids can learn when challenged. Perhaps not Faulkner at that age, but maybe Dickens?

I enjoyed reading Dickens as a kid and Treasure Island and The Count of Monte Cristo.

I read The Count of Monte Cristo as an adult. It's 1,243 pages long, because Alexandre Dumas (père) got paid by the word.

It's fine to read Treasure Island, but why should kids have to read Treasure Island when there are so many other books that will likely resonate with them more?

I don't disagree. I mean I look back on reading these fondly but have tried to find more engaging books for my kids. Surprisingly, for them books like the Hunger Games were really enjoyable.

My kids also had a phase where they liked the YA novels about dystopias. I read a few of them, but in general I find that the real world is already quite dystopian enough for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t HS kids today read the classics?

LOL, we all know why.

Because the classics were written in a different time about a different society and they may not feel like the problems they're facing right now aren't addressed in those books. This relates to the "why do you read" thread but HS students don't just read because they're told to. Maybe that's one reason, but just like with anything else you want to enjoy what you're doing and if you do enjoy it you're more likely to keep doing similar things.

Telling a child who hates Treasure Island or Dickens or Tolstoy or whoever else that they must read X number of those books to finish a class only makes them hate the class more, especially if there are newer stories like say Harry Potter or Percy Jackson that they enjoy more and may be easier reads.

You didn't compare J.K. Rowling to Tolstoy, did you?

I did, but I was thinking of Tolkien. I did not like the Hobbit but did like Rowling and Riordan, as they were some of the first full books I read as an adult and they actually got me to enjoy reading. The other authors there didn't and it was a painful read. I never tried to read Tolstoy because it never seemed interesting to me and luckily I was never required to read them (or if I was I just guessed the answers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids just read Daniel's Story in 7th grade. Lots of violence and murder there. Should they have read something else?

so did my 7th grader. Although, my child found it upsetting, and purposely read the book in the same room I was in.
Which is fine. She finished it and thought it was a good book despite it being sometimes scary/upsetting.
OP - have your daughter read A Thousand Splendid Suns in a "safe" space - either when you guys are around, or during the daytime, and follow it up with something light (either reading, or music, or a tv show).
There are plenty of books that I read in high school that were super unsettling to me (Bluest Eye, Things Fall Apart, Night, Handmaid's Tale, etc) but I still remember them vividly. They were that powerful. It opens your eyes to the human existence that's so easy to avoid these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the anti-intellectual mob that crows against dead white men authors is that often the proposed alternatives rarely even qualify as literature.

Case in point, my child’s assigned reading, Esperanza Rising, by some no name author, but checks a bunch of boxes for what counts as the correct ‘lived experiences’. I’m sorry, but what a complete waste of time! Simplistic plot line, poor character development, vocabulary and sentence structure at the comic book level. And that’s the only book they read so far this year!

To the question of what constitutes classics, how shallow and simplistic is to judge and reject literature by the genitals of the author? Classics are works that have an outsized influence on the culture, on later authors, and how society perceives the world. Why can’t they read Aesop’s fables instead? Yeah, I know, dead (certainly), white (possibly), male.

Esperanza Rising’s intended age group is 9-12. What do you expect? They should substitute Faulkner instead?

You would be amazed at what kids can learn when challenged. Perhaps not Faulkner at that age, but maybe Dickens?

I enjoyed reading Dickens as a kid and Treasure Island and The Count of Monte Cristo.

I read The Count of Monte Cristo as an adult. It's 1,243 pages long, because Alexandre Dumas (père) got paid by the word.

It's fine to read Treasure Island, but why should kids have to read Treasure Island when there are so many other books that will likely resonate with them more?

I don't disagree. I mean I look back on reading these fondly but have tried to find more engaging books for my kids. Surprisingly, for them books like the Hunger Games were really enjoyable.

My kids also had a phase where they liked the YA novels about dystopias. I read a few of them, but in general I find that the real world is already quite dystopian enough for me.

I know what you're saying but I mostly just want to find material they'll read and those seemed to resonate with mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t HS kids today read the classics?

Because those books are not #Equitable.

[Anonymous]

This whole thread reminds me of that scene in Tár which was a perfect criticism of contemporary culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t HS kids today read the classics?

LOL, we all know why.

Because the classics were written in a different time about a different society and they may not feel like the problems they're facing right now aren't addressed in those books. This relates to the "why do you read" thread but HS students don't just read because they're told to. Maybe that's one reason, but just like with anything else you want to enjoy what you're doing and if you do enjoy it you're more likely to keep doing similar things.

Telling a child who hates Treasure Island or Dickens or Tolstoy or whoever else that they must read X number of those books to finish a class only makes them hate the class more, especially if there are newer stories like say Harry Potter or Percy Jackson that they enjoy more and may be easier reads.

There is a vast difference in writing skill between Tolkien and Rowling. Both are in the high fantasy genre, but Tolkien has a mastery in his writing that Rowling simply does not. In fact, you may have noticed Tolkien's influence on Rowling's works. She used names and versions of names and similar characters he used 40 years earlier (ex. Bagshot, Gandalf vs. Dumbledore). A more paranoid person might sniff plagiarism, even. Why not read the origional or, at least, don't put Rowling up there with Tolkien.


You didn't compare J.K. Rowling to Tolstoy, did you?

I did, but I was thinking of Tolkien. I did not like the Hobbit but did like Rowling and Riordan, as they were some of the first full books I read as an adult and they actually got me to enjoy reading. The other authors there didn't and it was a painful read. I never tried to read Tolstoy because it never seemed interesting to me and luckily I was never required to read them (or if I was I just guessed the answers).