For the project my class is working on in AP English Literature, we were recommended to select a book to read from the library's extensive Young Adult fiction case. I had been eyeing one of the books shown to us (Going Bovine) because it looked kind of strange, and the librarian that showed us the book assured us that it was an exemplary, award winning example of Young Adult literature. Full of hopeful excitement, I picked up the book and began to read.
One of my teachers from a long time ago had a saying about reading. She said that reading a good book was like diving into a nice, cool pool of sparkling water on a warm sunny day. Was reading Going Bovine like diving into a nice, cool pool of sparkling water on a warm sunny day? Not exactly. Was it like diving into a decent, lukewarm algae-filled lake on a miserable, windy day? Almost. The image that entered my head as I read this book was that the experience was more like diving into a boiling pool of cow mucus as the flames and storms of Armageddon split the sky above me, showering me with large chunks of flaming debris. Okay, maybe it wasn't quite that bad, but it wasn't a nice, cool pool of sparkling water by any stretch of the imagination.
The book focuses around an angsty, drug-addicted teenager named Cameron Smith. The book introduces him as he narrates going to Disneyworld and thinking something that included the abbreviation WTF. WTF, coincidentally, was the first thought going through my head as I read the passage. Why was there chatspeak in an award winning work of literature? Was the author merely against swearing in their books? (Incorrect; Cameron Smith swears like a sailor in a storm.) Was the author providing some sort of commentary on teenaged online culture? (If the author was, it was extremely unclear and never mentioned again.) Was the author trying to relate to teenagers? The answer seemed to me to sadly be yes. And as I continued to read the book, I realized that my hands were slightly more tightly clenched, and my eyes slightly narrowed. The author, in trying to relate to teenagers, was merely insulting them at every scene in the book. I, in the course of reading this book, was literally being insulted by it.
The other classmates of Cameron Smith are all presented as drug dealing, cursing, high school failures. I'd like to say that the author was merely trying to show how some people in the school were acting, but the author takes specific measures to make sure that every single person in the school is lumped under that all consuming blanket. Is this the audience of Young Adult literature? Was this what teachers, politicians, and writers endorsing to try to get students more interested in reading? A book that does its best to constantly insult both their intelligence and who they are as people? I'd like to think that the author was merely not writing well enough to portray them as more than just wooden caricatures of every educator's nightmare, but as the author has won an award for her work, I realized that I had to believe that she meant to do this, or that she simply was not a good enough writer to realize that she was doing it. Either way, I found that I was disgusted.
I continued to read over one hundred pages of the book. From Cameron Smith's typical bad relationship with his family to the job he works at, and what happens at his job that shows nothing about his character and little for actual plot development, to when he discovers that he is dying, to when he meets Gonzo and they set off to New Orleans... maybe the book gets better. Maybe the book becomes a truly award winning source of material, that deserves a place among literary giants of the world. Even if it did, that would not be acceptable. A good book, and a competent writer, do not need over one hundred pages to properly set up and begin a story. In fact, an incredible writer can tell an exceptional story in less than twenty words. (For an example of this, I would suggest reading Stephen King's The Jaunt, or Hemmingway's Hills like White Elephants.)The author of Going Bovine barely starts the story in one hundred pages, taking (over, actually) five times as long to do half of what Hemmingway and King accomplish.
I returned the book to its shelf after far too long a time spent reading it. As I put it back, I considered another piece of Young Adult literature near it, Ender's Game. Like Going Bovine, the book has won considerable acclaim and awards for what it did. Unlike Going Bovine, it creates an exceptionally vivid and imaginative look at a horrifying idea of what the future might be, filled with psychological terror and action and actual characters that didn't behave like mere caricatures of very young children. It was an imaginative work of literature that still delights and inspires me to this day, ultimately succeeding without meaning to at what the author of Going Bovine meant to do but failed at; inspiring young students to continue reading and love literature.
To conclude this blog post/rant, Going Bovine is not a good example of Young Adult literature. In my opinion, it is not a good book and should not be an award winning look of literature, and especially should not be viewed by educators as a good way to get young adults to read.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
What should students read?
This morning I read a fascinating article (What should students read?, an article written by Stephen Wolk) on the role and importance of various types of literature read in schools. Numerous arguments were presented for different types of reading and how books were being read in schools, and while I agree with most of what he has written, I don't agree with everything. I believe that while Stephen Wolk does understand the importance of reading, there are some flaws in how he approaches how literature should be read.
Stephen Wolk begins his essay by contemplating what children read in class and why they dislike reading. Perhaps it's because I am in an AP class, and am different than many of my peers in how I read literature, but I disagree with most of his arguments. He believes that children in the first grade stop reading by the sixth grade only because they think that reading is boring, an argument that made me pause and wonder if Wolk had ever gone to a public school or was just homeschooled for his life. Or perhaps he was fortunate enough to avoid the hardships that come with growing. Admittedly, I don't remember much about what I was thinking about in first grade, but I can remember that my thoughts when I was in sixth grade being entirely consumed by thoughts (and a general lack of knowledge about) death, taxes, the generation gap, and if the girl I was crushing on at the time liked me back. (She didn't, in case you are wondering.) But as I continued to think about what he had written, I got more and more frustrated with Wolk's complete inability to consider what might be causing children to stop reading due to influences from outside of school.
I wasn't always an AP student taking classes in New York. I have spent a fairly large amount of my life moving from area to area. Only a short while ago, I was in another state entirely, with people that were different than the fairly intellectual students at the school I attend now. I had a friend at one of the other schools I used to attend who wouldn't read the books assigned in class, considering them to be boring and beneath him. He would always disrespect the teacher and refuse to do the work assigned. When I asked about him, it turned out that he used to be a fairly good student before his brother was badly beaten by a couple of people that went to my school, and ever since then he had changed for the worst. Obviously not all examples are that severe (although in some cases they can easily be far more severe) but at the very least he, to me, is a clear example of one of the flaws in Steven Wolk's thinking. To completely disregard outside factors (including some more that I have not even brought up yet) shows that he really has not thought too much about what he is considering; or he simply has focused too much on only the schools.
As I continued to read the article, I was slightly dismayed to see some of his ideas. They reminded me too much of my own a few years ago, and the reasons why his ideas can't work in our society are the same as why my ideas couldn't. All of the students in America are subject to a schooling system more archaic than the literature they are meant to read in class. The system has been in place for many years, and doesn't seem to be close to changing soon, as less and less financial support is given to schools and teachers become victims of parents and facility members that refuse to support them or what they are attempting to teach. If there is to be some change in education, it must begin with some support from actual legislation or elected officials, and cannot be done even by the very best of the teachers and educators who are already overworked, underpaid, and under appreciated by the students and parents that rely on them most. In a way, the culture students live in today is a culture that tells them to disrespect their educators and not take school seriously. How many teachers make money equal to that of movie stars or musicians? How many times have places of education been portrayed in the media as useless or unnecessary? While there needs to be some change in how students learn and are taught, it simply cannot be done in the world they live in today.
Another aspect of Steven Wolk's article I dislike is his strange focus on political correctness in literature. He condemns the current classics of literature as being written almost entirely by white males, but what does that have to do with literary merit? How can that even be a factor in what is considered to be worthy literature? Why must that become a factor in what is considered good? More ethnic diversity and racial acceptance would be an incredible thing for every person in the world, but the responsibility to teach such an important thing should not fall upon the shoulders of English teachers.
Steven Wolk's essay is persuasive, and I agree with his argument that students should read literature that applies to them. However, I believe that just saying that does not mean anything. The notion that schools need to change and become more efficent in how they teach and how much love for academics students get out of them has been around long before Steven Wolk wrote his essay. I believe that while thinking about what students should learn is important, the world we live in today demands that implementing these changes is the most important thing. Outside influences, such as the hardships people go through every day and a general lack of funding for schools need to be reduced in some fashion before any change can really occur. While the literature being read in classes may contribute slightly to the problem, I believe that in the end, the students make up their own minds about whether they would like to learn.
Stephen Wolk begins his essay by contemplating what children read in class and why they dislike reading. Perhaps it's because I am in an AP class, and am different than many of my peers in how I read literature, but I disagree with most of his arguments. He believes that children in the first grade stop reading by the sixth grade only because they think that reading is boring, an argument that made me pause and wonder if Wolk had ever gone to a public school or was just homeschooled for his life. Or perhaps he was fortunate enough to avoid the hardships that come with growing. Admittedly, I don't remember much about what I was thinking about in first grade, but I can remember that my thoughts when I was in sixth grade being entirely consumed by thoughts (and a general lack of knowledge about) death, taxes, the generation gap, and if the girl I was crushing on at the time liked me back. (She didn't, in case you are wondering.) But as I continued to think about what he had written, I got more and more frustrated with Wolk's complete inability to consider what might be causing children to stop reading due to influences from outside of school.
I wasn't always an AP student taking classes in New York. I have spent a fairly large amount of my life moving from area to area. Only a short while ago, I was in another state entirely, with people that were different than the fairly intellectual students at the school I attend now. I had a friend at one of the other schools I used to attend who wouldn't read the books assigned in class, considering them to be boring and beneath him. He would always disrespect the teacher and refuse to do the work assigned. When I asked about him, it turned out that he used to be a fairly good student before his brother was badly beaten by a couple of people that went to my school, and ever since then he had changed for the worst. Obviously not all examples are that severe (although in some cases they can easily be far more severe) but at the very least he, to me, is a clear example of one of the flaws in Steven Wolk's thinking. To completely disregard outside factors (including some more that I have not even brought up yet) shows that he really has not thought too much about what he is considering; or he simply has focused too much on only the schools.
As I continued to read the article, I was slightly dismayed to see some of his ideas. They reminded me too much of my own a few years ago, and the reasons why his ideas can't work in our society are the same as why my ideas couldn't. All of the students in America are subject to a schooling system more archaic than the literature they are meant to read in class. The system has been in place for many years, and doesn't seem to be close to changing soon, as less and less financial support is given to schools and teachers become victims of parents and facility members that refuse to support them or what they are attempting to teach. If there is to be some change in education, it must begin with some support from actual legislation or elected officials, and cannot be done even by the very best of the teachers and educators who are already overworked, underpaid, and under appreciated by the students and parents that rely on them most. In a way, the culture students live in today is a culture that tells them to disrespect their educators and not take school seriously. How many teachers make money equal to that of movie stars or musicians? How many times have places of education been portrayed in the media as useless or unnecessary? While there needs to be some change in how students learn and are taught, it simply cannot be done in the world they live in today.
Another aspect of Steven Wolk's article I dislike is his strange focus on political correctness in literature. He condemns the current classics of literature as being written almost entirely by white males, but what does that have to do with literary merit? How can that even be a factor in what is considered to be worthy literature? Why must that become a factor in what is considered good? More ethnic diversity and racial acceptance would be an incredible thing for every person in the world, but the responsibility to teach such an important thing should not fall upon the shoulders of English teachers.
Steven Wolk's essay is persuasive, and I agree with his argument that students should read literature that applies to them. However, I believe that just saying that does not mean anything. The notion that schools need to change and become more efficent in how they teach and how much love for academics students get out of them has been around long before Steven Wolk wrote his essay. I believe that while thinking about what students should learn is important, the world we live in today demands that implementing these changes is the most important thing. Outside influences, such as the hardships people go through every day and a general lack of funding for schools need to be reduced in some fashion before any change can really occur. While the literature being read in classes may contribute slightly to the problem, I believe that in the end, the students make up their own minds about whether they would like to learn.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
My earliest memory of Reading
My love for literature and reading started many years ago, back in preschool. I'm not sure what the first book I ever read was (it was most likely a typical book for my reading level, like Goodnight Moon or The Bearenstein Bears), but I can remember my mother reading to me in a gentle voice, almost like a song of some sort. Maybe that soothing sound was why I first tried to start reading? I can never be sure, and I don't think it really matters anymore. What does matter is that I set out on my own scholarly path, and my life changed forever (for the better) because of it.
The first actual book I ever read on my own was one of the books my (grand?)parents had lying around in their house. The name of that book was My Father's Dragon, and I was originally drawn to it by the simplistic yet beautiful illustrations of a young boy standing next to a small dragon. I picked it up, and started reading it. I was four at the time, and wasn't quite able to grasp what some words meant, and I sometimes had to ask my parents for help, but I was able to understand enough of the story to fall in love with it.
After I finished reading My Father's Dragon, I moved on to other simplistic works of fiction that delighted me. I was enthralled by the talking mice and medieval world of Redwall, delighted by the poetry of Shel Silverstein, and gripped with terror over R.L. Stine's Goosebumps and the stories told in Alvin Schwartz's Scary Stories to tell in the Dark. (They still scare me somewhat, but more for the haunting, eerie illustrations of Stephen Gammel.)
Ever since those early days of discovery, I have been enthralled by works of greater literary magnitude, such as The Great Gatsby, Brave New World, and Of Mice and Men, but I will always have a special place in my heart for the books I read so many years ago. I was fortunately able to hold onto my copy of My Father's Dragon for many years, until my parents were divorced and I had to move away from home. I never saw it again.That book, like so many other old possessions of mine, probably still sits in a box in a storage room somewhere, another forgotten item of childhood lost to the rapidly changing world around me.
The first actual book I ever read on my own was one of the books my (grand?)parents had lying around in their house. The name of that book was My Father's Dragon, and I was originally drawn to it by the simplistic yet beautiful illustrations of a young boy standing next to a small dragon. I picked it up, and started reading it. I was four at the time, and wasn't quite able to grasp what some words meant, and I sometimes had to ask my parents for help, but I was able to understand enough of the story to fall in love with it.
After I finished reading My Father's Dragon, I moved on to other simplistic works of fiction that delighted me. I was enthralled by the talking mice and medieval world of Redwall, delighted by the poetry of Shel Silverstein, and gripped with terror over R.L. Stine's Goosebumps and the stories told in Alvin Schwartz's Scary Stories to tell in the Dark. (They still scare me somewhat, but more for the haunting, eerie illustrations of Stephen Gammel.)
Ever since those early days of discovery, I have been enthralled by works of greater literary magnitude, such as The Great Gatsby, Brave New World, and Of Mice and Men, but I will always have a special place in my heart for the books I read so many years ago. I was fortunately able to hold onto my copy of My Father's Dragon for many years, until my parents were divorced and I had to move away from home. I never saw it again.That book, like so many other old possessions of mine, probably still sits in a box in a storage room somewhere, another forgotten item of childhood lost to the rapidly changing world around me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
