"shaboingboingboinnnnnnnnnnnnnnng...."
~Tommy Davidson as Sammy Davis, Jr.

Getting to the books that actually such part--that would be Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye and Wuthering Heights!
OMG--everytime I think about have having to read those books, I want to SCREAM!

But back to the topic at hand--people want to avoid having to deal with confrontation within their lives. Having to have a book as controversial (sp) as To Kill A Mockingbird or Huckleberry Finn would mean that they might have to look within themselves-even if just for a quick second. It would sometimes mean that they would have to question themselves and question the way that they may have raised (or are raising) their children.

While trying to "prevent" them from being exposed to the "reality" of the "real world," these books promt the child to have to understand that this is part of the real world. It's again, not something that people want to face for themselves when they are in their own world-ie at home.

It doesn't surprise me that To Kill A Mockinbird is still on the list, but it is still kind of a quandry for me that Harry Potter and Twlight (-no, I've not read this series) is on the list.

I guess I'm in the minority who thinks TKAM and HF are not "must reads." I don't remember much about either book. I also don't remember whether my predominantly Black school made us read them or whether my parents made me read them. That's how unprofound they were and are, as far as I'm concerned.

There are much better sources of fiction and nonfiction if families and schools want people to have doses of reality and hints of confrontation regarding race.

I think it's just hints of the reality of the world. Some people don't want to expose their children to things unless they can "control" the introduction to the material. Some people just don't want their children to know things in general.

I know that I didn't have to read Huck Finn or To Kill a Mockingbird, I really had no interest in reading it. I know that growing up partially in a small Texas town, I had to find books to keep my own self interested and socially conscious of the times. But I don't think that the school would have had any objection to "some" reading material.

That is to say, that when I was going there-umpteen years ago-something with heavy sexxing or sex petting or anything REALTING to sex wouldn't have been openly given to us by a teacher. But if a person was reading it on their own, I don't know how much the district would have had to say.

Back to the subject at hand. I think that some people just have such a control issue that they want to say that they'll "introduce" their child/children to specific subjects and some parents don't give a flying squirrel how the child/children are introduced to a subject.

I think that it just depends on the context, for some, in which the books are introduced that just bugs the hell outta some people.

I'm pretty sure it's a well-described psychological phenomenon that people generally mistake "sad" for "profound" . . . as if depressing or sad outcomes are the only ones that teach a lesson or impress a point on others.

Personally, I think To Kill a Mockingbird is generally pretty overrated - it's a fine book, but it seems to fit easily and completely into the "Young Adult Fiction" category. The "lessons" taught by the book are bold-face and didactic, leaving the reader to do almost no work other than "Bawwwww, bad things are bad." That's not a bad thing, per se, but it's certainly not the mark of profound art. Put another way: anybody whose life or world view was fundamentally altered by TKAM was probably on the right path anyway (or open to it), and a well-timed interview with Tracy Morgan or listening to a Little Brother album might have had the same effect. Neither will go down as profound.

By comparison, Huckleberry Finn seems far more clever in its attempt to 'see' the other side of a social issue - to the point where it might go too far in the wrong direction, mocking or lampooning to an extent that the "target audience" isn't let in on the story's point. This problem is likely getting worse as the story ages and context is lost.

Good points. I miss reading more KSig RC posts.

Ditto. KSig RC, rectify this.

Ditto this. I thought both were quaint but boring. Floating around on a raft and finding your Dad dead is not that scintillating. As court room dramas go TKAM was pretty lame. Tom Sawyer was a lot more interesting vs HF and even "A Time to Kill" by lame-o Grisham was more interesting than TKAM. Maybe not better written but...

In TKAM's defense there is not a better name for a kid in literature than "Scout". Gotta' love that.

you realize that TKAM was written in 1960, and took place during the Great Depression, versus A Time to Kill, written in and takes place in the 80s.

Don't know if that makes a difference to you, or anyone. But on another note, TKAM is probably more of a classic because of its "coming-of-age" nature, much like The Chocolate War, Catcher in the Rye, etc.

I'm going to throw my vote in for A Separate Peace - was this required reading for others? (i'm not saying it sucked; i actually liked it)

I love TKAM...and these people who want it banned probably haven't even read it! If anyone read my school's required reading list, they'd faint. Night Kites was particularly interesting about a teen whose brother comes home to die of AIDS. This was 1989 BTW in Baton Rouge, LA! A book I really loved my sophomore year was I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou. I've really never cried so much. We also read a lot of standards like The Three Musketeers, The Once and Future King, Izzy Willy Nilly, Cold Sassy Tree, etc. They're all great books that I probably wouldn't have read if they weren't on the list.

"Things fall apart" by somebody lol.

So I *technically* haven't really read this book, but I did read a few chapters when my cousin had to read it. SNOOZE-VILLE!!!

I do have to say however, that high school teachers are WHIIIIIINEY (sorry if any of you are). My mom decided to teach 'Of Mice and Men' to her 8th graders, and actually got them to LIKE the book (which is tough for our kids here). Some HS teachers found out and complained, so the books were taken away from my mom's classroom, 1/2 way into the book. The kids were pissed cause they wanted to finish it, and my mom's pissed cause she doesn't understand why the kids can't finish it.

The book is NOT on the list that the HS put out as books they are reading in class, but it is a book that is an 'option' (along with 50 million other books) so it isn't teachable at any other grades.

I had to read it for World Lit in 12th Grade. Oh man I hated it.

AOIIAngel - Loved Once and Future King
epchick - why are English teachers whiney? I don't understand.

For those of you comparing TKAM with Grisham, TKAM is not supposed to be riveting courtroom drama. It is about prejudice - on a variety of levels not just racial. That is what makes it good subject matter for students.

Ha! I had to read it. We also watched the movie in class. Of the required books I read in high school, I'd say I got the least out of that one.

My favorite books that we had to read in middle school and high school are "1984" and "The Metamorphosis" (short book).

I also enjoyed The Canterbury Tales because we learned the Middle English prologue. Our teacher made us rap it and I remember it line-by-line to this day. :)

Whan that aprill with his shoures soote. The droghte of march hath perced to the roote!!!! :p