Hobbit
07-22-2008, 02:30 PM
My mom is an English teacher at a government school (one of the few who actually tries to get the kids to LEARN), so I have access to the reading curriculum, and I've noticed an alarming trend. The books that students must read for high school have not changed since I graduated from high school 8 years ago. Even more alarming, though, is that they also haven't changed since my mom graduated from high school 37 years ago. Now, classics like Huckleberry Finn (which was one of the best books I ever read right up until Tom Sawyer showed up and Mark Twain just stopped trying) and The Lord of the Flies are the only ones being considered for removal due to being 'inappropriate,' with the charge that Huck Finn is racist being the most ridiculous. On the other hand, turds like Jane Eyre, which studies would probably indicate causes sharp drops in testosterone levels, are staunchly clung to as they continue to bore over half the class to tears year after year. Then there's Shakespeare, who you must read EVERY YEAR, and the four plays that have been used in curricula for who knows how long, while arguably the best he has to offer, are also the most depressing.
Some may not see a problem with this, but I do. Our high schools are turning out ignoranuses by the truckload who would rather watch a bad movie than read a masterpiece of a book. Why should they think any differently? The books they were force-fed in high school not only weren't really selected for their liking, but were treated by the school like another mathematically ordered assignment that must be met with regular progress updates and quizzes and tests that require memorization of the book to pass (mine in particular loved making half the test be a list of quotes with blanks beside them where you wrote who the quote was from). First off, the curricula treats every student as a generic, cookie-cutter kid. EVERYONE, must read Jane Eyre, which is 75% description and girly besides, making it torture for any guy. You might as well give him a manicure assignment. At my school, we later had to read "All Quiet on the Western Front," a graphic, bloody, violent, and somewhat sexual account of life on the front during World War I. It's very unenjoyable for the girls because combat is a theme they have trouble relating to and they tend to not like bloody violence. Forcing ALL high school students to read these two books and claim they don't like reading when they're not engrossed with both of them is like sitting a bunch of high school students in a theater to watch Steel Magnolias and Saving Private Ryan until they've got every name and rank memorized and can do perfect imitations of everyone's accent, then claiming they just don't like movies because the guys fell asleep during Steel Magnolias and the girls threw up during Saving Private Ryan. Different people, different books. Not everyone is the same. If guys got to read something like "The Red Badge of Courage" for the mid-19th century and girls got to read something less war-themed, like, say "To Kill a Mockingbird" for the early 20th century, I think you'd find a lot fewer high school students swearing off books.
Then there's the Shakespeare problem. There are FOUR Shakespeare plays that are studied in high school, and every student who graduates from high school will have read at least three of them, all four more often than not. Those four plays are: Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and Hamlet. These are arguably the best four plays the Bard ever wrote, but they are also the most depressing. Romeo and Juliet is supposed to be the quintessential love story, but ends with the two committing suicide over an epic misunderstanding, a device usually used for a dramatic twist towards the end of a romantic comedy rather than an unspeakably tragic end to a heavy drama. Julius Caesar is about a plot to kill the man who would take the power from the people by that man's best friend, only to end with that power being taken away, anyway, leading to centuries of Roman despotism. Macbeth is about a mighty Scottish lord who is coerced by his wife and some soothsayers into assassinating the king, only to end up losing everything he ever had, including his life. Hamlet is about a prince who discovers that his uncle assassinated his dad for his throne and plots revenge, a plot which results in the death of EVERY member of the cast, including his girlfriend and his mom. This is in addition to the high school students' introduction to Greek tragedy, the Oedipus Rex trilogy, which will give anyone mental problems. Try reading all of those in a row and tell me you don't want to paint your face and write poetry about killing yourself. There's a reason the 'good' Shakespeare plays have not been made into box office fare. Everybody's read them, and everybody's sick of seeing Shakespeare characters coming to horrible ends, and high school students graduate with a burning hatred of a man who actually invented ten commonly used words and phrases of the English language. (http://www.cracked.com/article_15859_10-words-phrases-you-wont-believe-shakespeare-invented.html) Why don't they ever go with 'The Taming of the Shrew?' It's a rather funny story about a rather interesting love debacle. A man wants to marry a woman, but her father won't let her court until her older sister is married. The problem is that the older sister is a shrew (a really old word for b----), so the guy pays another man to court her. After much hilarity has ensued, the two hit it off and get married, leaving the younger sister to court with her suitor. Sound familiar? It was adapted into a moderately successful high school drama called "Ten Things I Hate About You," and is the only Shakespeare movie watched for any reason other than the fact that it's by Shakespeare. Then there's Henry V, which climaxes dramatically at the Battle of Agincourt, with the line "Once more into the breach!"
Then there's the third problem, modern perspective. These works of literature are designed to give you a perspective on history. You read "The Scarlet Letter" for a peek into puritan life, as well as the prevailing thoughts on it by later authors (Nathanial Hawthorne wasn't born until the period of the puritans was long dead). You read "Jane Eyre" for a perspective on live in the 19th century (that it was terribly boring and people had nothing better to do but sit around and write books that are 75% filler). However, your historical perspective stops there. There are NO books in high school curricula that give a perspective on history past about 1950. Even 1984, a novel about what basically amounts to a different version of the Cold War, was written in 1949 and the perspective it gives is the fears of the future in a post WWII world, not a look at the actual Cold War. Why not add books like 'The Hunt for Red October,' which could let modern students, who know nothing the overhanging cloud of nuclear annihilation that existed for 40 years, get a perspective on what it was like to live on such a dangerous precipice?
So, why not adopt any of these things? The short answer is: Because f--- you! That's why. Much like those who condescendingly tell you that capitalism is a farce, that the science is settled on global warming, and that corporations ruin the world, the academic elites will tell you that you peasants don't know the meaning of real literature, that there was nothing worth reading written after 1950, and that you WILL read Shakespeare's best and you WILL like it, so you might as well get used to it because they know what's best for you. The words of modern literature: Tolkein, Clancy, Crichton, King, and others, no matter how good, well-written, or relevant their work may be, will never be heard within the halls of academia, and modern students may never know what it's like to read a book written by an author who is still alive. Instead, all high school students will know is dusty tomes written about times long gone by people who are little more than dust now. The snobs hold the keys to academic curricula, and they don't accept new members. While you're struggling to memorize enough of another centuries old book written in outdated English to pass another quiz written by somebody who thinks this book is a second Bible, works of modern literature are being shut out by the truckload.
The same applies to music. Music appreciation should be renamed 'classical music appreciation,' because is it really a music appreciation class without introducing the most dynamic century in music, the 20th century, where all the old boundaries were broken down with the introduction of big band, jazz, rock 'n' roll, and yes, even heavy metal? No, say the elites. You feel free to listen to those long-haired punks from Liverpool or that 'Freebird' song by those stupid rednecks on your own time. In their class, you'll listen to 'real' music, which can only be written by people who are already dead and requires at least a 200 piece orchestra to perform. They won't even recognize the classical stylings of John Williams because he 'degrades' the art by *gasp* making his music for a movie, and a science fiction movie at that. How pedestrian.
Seriously, when are we going to stop letting these snobs maintain their stranglehold on education? There are things that deserve to be studied and which students need to study, but are regularly snubbed by those who make the curricula. We wonder why our kids hate reading, but rarely attribute it to what they're forced to read, and we wonder why our kids know nothing about music, despite the fact that they listen to music all the time. It's just not 'educated' music and they don't know the 'proper' way to analyze it.
Some may not see a problem with this, but I do. Our high schools are turning out ignoranuses by the truckload who would rather watch a bad movie than read a masterpiece of a book. Why should they think any differently? The books they were force-fed in high school not only weren't really selected for their liking, but were treated by the school like another mathematically ordered assignment that must be met with regular progress updates and quizzes and tests that require memorization of the book to pass (mine in particular loved making half the test be a list of quotes with blanks beside them where you wrote who the quote was from). First off, the curricula treats every student as a generic, cookie-cutter kid. EVERYONE, must read Jane Eyre, which is 75% description and girly besides, making it torture for any guy. You might as well give him a manicure assignment. At my school, we later had to read "All Quiet on the Western Front," a graphic, bloody, violent, and somewhat sexual account of life on the front during World War I. It's very unenjoyable for the girls because combat is a theme they have trouble relating to and they tend to not like bloody violence. Forcing ALL high school students to read these two books and claim they don't like reading when they're not engrossed with both of them is like sitting a bunch of high school students in a theater to watch Steel Magnolias and Saving Private Ryan until they've got every name and rank memorized and can do perfect imitations of everyone's accent, then claiming they just don't like movies because the guys fell asleep during Steel Magnolias and the girls threw up during Saving Private Ryan. Different people, different books. Not everyone is the same. If guys got to read something like "The Red Badge of Courage" for the mid-19th century and girls got to read something less war-themed, like, say "To Kill a Mockingbird" for the early 20th century, I think you'd find a lot fewer high school students swearing off books.
Then there's the Shakespeare problem. There are FOUR Shakespeare plays that are studied in high school, and every student who graduates from high school will have read at least three of them, all four more often than not. Those four plays are: Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and Hamlet. These are arguably the best four plays the Bard ever wrote, but they are also the most depressing. Romeo and Juliet is supposed to be the quintessential love story, but ends with the two committing suicide over an epic misunderstanding, a device usually used for a dramatic twist towards the end of a romantic comedy rather than an unspeakably tragic end to a heavy drama. Julius Caesar is about a plot to kill the man who would take the power from the people by that man's best friend, only to end with that power being taken away, anyway, leading to centuries of Roman despotism. Macbeth is about a mighty Scottish lord who is coerced by his wife and some soothsayers into assassinating the king, only to end up losing everything he ever had, including his life. Hamlet is about a prince who discovers that his uncle assassinated his dad for his throne and plots revenge, a plot which results in the death of EVERY member of the cast, including his girlfriend and his mom. This is in addition to the high school students' introduction to Greek tragedy, the Oedipus Rex trilogy, which will give anyone mental problems. Try reading all of those in a row and tell me you don't want to paint your face and write poetry about killing yourself. There's a reason the 'good' Shakespeare plays have not been made into box office fare. Everybody's read them, and everybody's sick of seeing Shakespeare characters coming to horrible ends, and high school students graduate with a burning hatred of a man who actually invented ten commonly used words and phrases of the English language. (http://www.cracked.com/article_15859_10-words-phrases-you-wont-believe-shakespeare-invented.html) Why don't they ever go with 'The Taming of the Shrew?' It's a rather funny story about a rather interesting love debacle. A man wants to marry a woman, but her father won't let her court until her older sister is married. The problem is that the older sister is a shrew (a really old word for b----), so the guy pays another man to court her. After much hilarity has ensued, the two hit it off and get married, leaving the younger sister to court with her suitor. Sound familiar? It was adapted into a moderately successful high school drama called "Ten Things I Hate About You," and is the only Shakespeare movie watched for any reason other than the fact that it's by Shakespeare. Then there's Henry V, which climaxes dramatically at the Battle of Agincourt, with the line "Once more into the breach!"
Then there's the third problem, modern perspective. These works of literature are designed to give you a perspective on history. You read "The Scarlet Letter" for a peek into puritan life, as well as the prevailing thoughts on it by later authors (Nathanial Hawthorne wasn't born until the period of the puritans was long dead). You read "Jane Eyre" for a perspective on live in the 19th century (that it was terribly boring and people had nothing better to do but sit around and write books that are 75% filler). However, your historical perspective stops there. There are NO books in high school curricula that give a perspective on history past about 1950. Even 1984, a novel about what basically amounts to a different version of the Cold War, was written in 1949 and the perspective it gives is the fears of the future in a post WWII world, not a look at the actual Cold War. Why not add books like 'The Hunt for Red October,' which could let modern students, who know nothing the overhanging cloud of nuclear annihilation that existed for 40 years, get a perspective on what it was like to live on such a dangerous precipice?
So, why not adopt any of these things? The short answer is: Because f--- you! That's why. Much like those who condescendingly tell you that capitalism is a farce, that the science is settled on global warming, and that corporations ruin the world, the academic elites will tell you that you peasants don't know the meaning of real literature, that there was nothing worth reading written after 1950, and that you WILL read Shakespeare's best and you WILL like it, so you might as well get used to it because they know what's best for you. The words of modern literature: Tolkein, Clancy, Crichton, King, and others, no matter how good, well-written, or relevant their work may be, will never be heard within the halls of academia, and modern students may never know what it's like to read a book written by an author who is still alive. Instead, all high school students will know is dusty tomes written about times long gone by people who are little more than dust now. The snobs hold the keys to academic curricula, and they don't accept new members. While you're struggling to memorize enough of another centuries old book written in outdated English to pass another quiz written by somebody who thinks this book is a second Bible, works of modern literature are being shut out by the truckload.
The same applies to music. Music appreciation should be renamed 'classical music appreciation,' because is it really a music appreciation class without introducing the most dynamic century in music, the 20th century, where all the old boundaries were broken down with the introduction of big band, jazz, rock 'n' roll, and yes, even heavy metal? No, say the elites. You feel free to listen to those long-haired punks from Liverpool or that 'Freebird' song by those stupid rednecks on your own time. In their class, you'll listen to 'real' music, which can only be written by people who are already dead and requires at least a 200 piece orchestra to perform. They won't even recognize the classical stylings of John Williams because he 'degrades' the art by *gasp* making his music for a movie, and a science fiction movie at that. How pedestrian.
Seriously, when are we going to stop letting these snobs maintain their stranglehold on education? There are things that deserve to be studied and which students need to study, but are regularly snubbed by those who make the curricula. We wonder why our kids hate reading, but rarely attribute it to what they're forced to read, and we wonder why our kids know nothing about music, despite the fact that they listen to music all the time. It's just not 'educated' music and they don't know the 'proper' way to analyze it.