Anonymous wrote:The Dumbing Down of America has been going on since WWII. Go figure.

The dumbing-down of the youth has been going on since Socrates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cause it's boring

I am sorry to say that you, my friend, had the wrong teachers.

It's not the teachers only. The biggest blame lies with households that don't encourage reading and allow hours on the internet and TV. I make my kids read the classics. They get pumped when they can answer Jeopardy questions about the Classics.

That's a good reason to read.

I want to know why they don't teach Boccaccio or Catullus in schools these days. The classics are always treated so anglocentrically. It does a disservice to students when the Italians offer much that would keep your typical teenager interested.

The Dumbing Down of America has been going on since WWII. Go figure.

I graduated high school in the mid-2000s and we studied Donne and Milton in AP English. We also read several Shakespeare plays, pretty much at least one a year every year except Junior year which was more focused on American literature (heavy focus on Faulkner). We did not read Chaucer, but we discussed his historical relevance in social students. I think the curriculum is highly varied from school district to school district.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took an intense college seminar in 16th century literature, and then another Milton seminar later in college, and it was incredibly layered and complicated and esoteric stuff.

I think a few short poems may be worth a surface exploration for exposure's sake, but it's just not appropriate for complete analysis in high school, as you need a huge knowledge base before you get to the meat of this stuff. YMMV.

I don't mean Chaucer; Chaucer is fine. Milton and Browne and Faust are TOUGH STUFF.

Milton's poems, in my opinion, are not that hard to read.

His prose, however, is very difficult to read.

Some people think Shakespeare is difficulty reading.

We read Shakespeare in 9th and 10th grades. I didn't get it and couldn't stand it. Even back then I was a voracious reader; I was the only idiot in class who read EVERY story in our textbook.

I didn't get Shakespeare until I actually got to experience the plays being performed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cause it's boring

I am sorry to say that you, my friend, had the wrong teachers.

It's not the teachers only. The biggest blame lies with households that don't encourage reading and allow hours on the internet and TV. I make my kids read the classics. They get pumped when they can answer Jeopardy questions about the Classics.

How old are they? Which ones did you have them read? Depending on the ages, I think it's difficult to have them just read it own their own. My daughter and I read a bit Wuthering heights together over the summer. My oldest DD in 7th will be reading Shakespeare this year.

I think Chaucer and Milton may be a bit much. I was an English major too and took classes specifically devoted to each of those authors and it was difficult to get through but very rewarding at the same time.

I went to a DCPS middle school and vividly remember reading Julius Caesar. In addition to having to memorize and recite the friends, Romans, countrymen lend me your ears speech, we also reinterpreted several acts of the play for modern times. I loved that teacher and often wonder where she is now!

We read a lot of Chaucer and Shakespeare in my high school and inevitably only like 3 people in the class actually read the works and everyone else just did Cliffs notes. Maybe teachers pick more modern work to try and avoid this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took an intense college seminar in 16th century literature, and then another Milton seminar later in college, and it was incredibly layered and complicated and esoteric stuff.

I think a few short poems may be worth a surface exploration for exposure's sake, but it's just not appropriate for complete analysis in high school, as you need a huge knowledge base before you get to the meat of this stuff. YMMV.

I don't mean Chaucer; Chaucer is fine. Milton and Browne and Faust are TOUGH STUFF.

Milton's poems, in my opinion, are not that hard to read.

His prose, however, is very difficult to read.

Some people think Shakespeare is difficulty reading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cause it's boring

I am sorry to say that you, my friend, had the wrong teachers.

It's not the teachers only. The biggest blame lies with households that don't encourage reading and allow hours on the internet and TV. I make my kids read the classics. They get pumped when they can answer Jeopardy questions about the Classics.

Will it be on the standardized tests?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took an intense college seminar in 16th century literature, and then another Milton seminar later in college, and it was incredibly layered and complicated and esoteric stuff.

I think a few short poems may be worth a surface exploration for exposure's sake, but it's just not appropriate for complete analysis in high school, as you need a huge knowledge base before you get to the meat of this stuff. YMMV.

I don't mean Chaucer; Chaucer is fine. Milton and Browne and Faust are TOUGH STUFF.

Milton's poems, in my opinion, are not that hard to read.

His prose, however, is very difficult to read.

Maybe a better question is this: Why specifically should Milton, Chaucer, and Donne be taught in high schools nowadays?

The specific answer to that question will help determine whether Milton, Donne, and Chaucer offer something special that other works do not offer, also will offer guidance on how they should be taught (if at all).

Anonymous wrote:I took an intense college seminar in 16th century literature, and then another Milton seminar later in college, and it was incredibly layered and complicated and esoteric stuff.

I think a few short poems may be worth a surface exploration for exposure's sake, but it's just not appropriate for complete analysis in high school, as you need a huge knowledge base before you get to the meat of this stuff. YMMV.

I don't mean Chaucer; Chaucer is fine. Milton and Browne and Faust are TOUGH STUFF.

I took an intense college seminar in 16th century literature, and then another Milton seminar later in college, and it was incredibly layered and complicated and esoteric stuff.

I think a few short poems may be worth a surface exploration for exposure's sake, but it's just not appropriate for complete analysis in high school, as you need a huge knowledge base before you get to the meat of this stuff. YMMV.