Books That Suck--LOLOMGWTFWWJD

[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)

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by tld221

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)

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.