Books That Suck--LOLOMGWTFWWJD

[gee_ess]

As a young English teacher in rural Missouri, I taught The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier to my freshmen classes. I gave the choice of 4 books and warned them that if they read The Chocolate War to be prepared for some rough language and renegade thinking. (the novel takes place in a Catholic boys' school and one of the main character says, "Jesus was just a guy with a good PR man."

Anywho, everyone settles in...until the night before the test. Evidently, a local preacher's daughter was panicking the night before and cramming to get it all read. I am not sure exactly what went down between father and daughter (did she find it timely to complain about the novel as she was getting in trouble for being behind in her studies? who knows?)

But, the next morning the father was waiting at the office with the book. He had stayed up late and underlined the objectionable parts throughout the entire book (he could have taken the test) and she was excused from taking the test. He demanded the book be pulled from the classroom.

But here's the kicker: My principal totally backed the parent. He questioned the validity of the book, had me pull it from my shelves, forbid me to ever teach it again,etc. When I showed him it was on all national book lists, had won awards, his response was, "Those lists are made by people in New York. They don't have the same values as we do."

I brought the teacher's guide and pointed out all of the thematic points of the novel. I argued that certainly a parent should be allowed to censor what their child reads, but not keep a book out of the hands of every other student.

The discussion was heated. We went to the library and I pointed out the word "bastard" in Of Mice and Men. His response, "That's a classic. It doesn't count." I even pointed out the school board policy that stated nothing can be taken out of the curriculum without board approval. His response, "I have the power and the board will support me unconditionally."

So, I was in real quandry. Did I take it to the newspaper? Yell "Censorship" and get all sorts of headlines? It was really a tough situation. It was a tiny town, and we were young. My husband's career was very visible and having a rabble rouser for a wife was not going to be helpful.

So, I kept quiet. ( I know, I was a coward) But I did put it on my classroom library shelf and continued to let kids check it out individually because that felt like a small victory.

I still get worked up when I think about it today...oh, and the principal never read the book. He made his decision based on that one man's opinion and would never back off. It was a real shame because so many young boys really related to that novel and finding books that appealed to 14 year old boys was tough.

[ASUADPi]

You gotta love how a PICTURE BOOK, a picture book, is being challenged.

Oh but wait, it is being challenged by all the homophobic people who live in the United States.

Since I'm such a rebel rouser, I should totally read that book to my students.

[annabella]

I went to a conservative Southern private school, and let's just say the library was "limited," and leave it at that.

That said, our teacher read our fifth grade class To Kill a Mockingbird (at least I think it was fifth—it was definitely a grade where we could understand what was going on, but still young enough to be read to as a class). Reading the book later, I realized she'd skipped some pretty key parts.

[gee_ess]

Books that suck - The English Patient

[Ghostwriter]

How about anything by John Grisham after "A Time TO Kill". How many times can one write the same book? Well "A Painted House" was different but it still sucked.

[SydneyK]

^^^ I hear that. The Appeal was terrible (IMO).
I did like Bleachers, though.

I've mentioned before that GC needs a book club. If not a club, it'd be nice to have a couple threads that would at least steer us in the right direction.

[AGDee]

There is a "What are you reading?" type thread with lots of recommendations, etc. I can't find it though, I'm too tired.


Ok, I'm not THAT tired: http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...hlight=reading

[tld221]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

The Perks of Being A Wallflower is on that list too. Still one of my favorite books of all time.

umm, heck yes! my sister put me on to this book. young adult fiction has come a LONG way.

Originally Posted by AGDee

My daughter had to read TKAM for 8th grade English and AGAIN in 10th grade. I don't know if they changed the curriculum in between or what, but I don't think a kid needs to read the same book twice for school.

Maybe not for school, but if it's helpful for preschoolers to read a book multiple times (in developing their language and literacy skills), i can only think its as helpful for older children (and adults) to reread books. I know when i read a book for the 2nd or 3rd time (often years later), i get a WHOLE different understanding and comprehension of its content. I'm sure if i read TKAM now (and i havent read it since... id say 10th grade) i'd pull something more out of it.

I had to re-read "The Yellow Wallpaper" and "Streetcar Named Desire" in college and it was NOT the same as in high school.

Originally Posted by gee_ess

The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier... one of the main character says, "Jesus was just a guy with a good PR man."

Originally Posted by gee_ess

"Those lists are made by people in New York. They don't have the same values as we do."

As a fellow New Yorker, this book wins at LIFE. We also read it freshman year, read the book AND watched the movie. Good times. And i totally agree with you on "finding books that 14 year old boys can relate and enjoy" because that was one of the few titles the ENTIRE class could enjoy and discuss.

[libramunoz]

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by libramunoz

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Good points. I miss reading more KSig RC posts.

Ditto. KSig RC, rectify this.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I guess I'm in the minority who thinks TKAM and HF are not "must reads."

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.

[tld221]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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)