Books in Class

[Welcome to the Machine]

What does everyone think about reading a book for a class as opposed to reading it on your own? Sometimes it's nice to just read a book for the sake of reading it. However, at times I find that delving into the book and analyzing it increases my appreciation for it. I just finished an essay for Peter Shaffer's play Equus, and while I found it frustrating to write, I feel as if my appreciation for the play grew. Most people seem to say that reading a book for school kills the book, and I can see why that would be so. But does anyone else agree with me that the analysis can sometimes improve your opinion of the book?

[Jezebel]

I can't write a long response at the moment, but I find that reading a book in school is generally a bad expereince. However, when I read books on my own I analyze them on my own, but I don't have to deal with all of the memorization/dogmatic teaching/non-responsive peers.

[oceanflower]

My aunt, who was an elementary school teacher for 25 years, allowed her pupils to choose the books that they read in the class. She found that this stimulated far more interest in and appreciation of reading than assigning one book for everyone to read. She found that the children did not "dummy down" their reading, either, but with each book that they read they challenged themselves to read at a higher level.

[Welcome to the Machine]

Hmm, I don't know about elementary school: I was talking about the high school level.

[oceanflower]

Hmm, I don't know about elementary school: I was talking about the high school level.

I think it applies to high school reading as well. One will be more excited about reading a book when one chooses it one's self. Not everyone is interested in the same type of books. I've always been an insatiable reader, but, without exception, I found that required reading was stifling. Everyone takes away something different from a book; picking apart a book to analyze it is unneccessary busy work.

[Welcome to the Machine]

Yes every one takes something different from a book, which is why I like english class so much. If you have a different opinion about a book, that's cool, but be able to back it up. Writing an essay is almost as much about being able to form coherent arguments as it is about being able to understand the book itself. I've found some of the analysis I've done to be rewarding, but I can easily understand why one would feel it is "stifling." I can't say I agree that analysis is nothing more than "unneccessary busy work," though. :-)

[musi]

hmm.. i never liked the books we read at school, but i guess it was always necessary. our literature classes were like introductions to eras and writers. say we have the Renaissance on agenda, so we read books from that period. in most cases we read the best examples of literary works of the time, so i couldn't complain :) not that they were really interesting..
but i sometimes didn't understand why we are supposed to read a lot of books, that are really out of date, and the teacher insists, that the problems in the book are still alive today.. :)
as for analysis, i think a discussion in class is a good thing, espacially, if all opinions are welcomed, argumented opinions, that is. however, some teachers cannot accept a new point of view of the matter, and might press their opinion on children. this is a bad thing, i think. a child should learn to think for himself.

[Jezebel]

Yes every one takes something different from a book, which is why I like english class so much. If you have a different opinion about a book, that's cool, but be able to back it up. Writing an essay is almost as much about being able to form coherent arguments as it is about being able to understand the book itself. I've found some of the analysis I've done to be rewarding, but I can easily understand why one would feel it is "stifling." I can't say I agree that analysis is nothing more than "unneccessary busy work," though. :-)


Analysis is "unnecessary busy work" when a teacher crams down one, and only one, interpretation of the text down your throat and allows for little to no variation. Generally, in my expereince, if you have a different opinion about a book, that's not cool, even if you can back it up. If alternative interpretations are tolerated, it generally is met with something like this, "That's a nice thought, but this (the interpretation in the teacher's spark notes) is the accepted interpretation. It's nice to think about other views, but do it on your own time; here in class you need to memorize the established interpretation." A lot of schools, at least here, have state standards they need to meet and there is no time in the schedule to include "outside" ideas- this includes English class. You must memorize what Hamlet said, not why he said it. You must memorize what Holden said, not why he said it. If you actually do get the chance to talk about the whys, it is force fed spark notes that you do not discuss- you memorize. It sounds like you have lucked out and gotten better teachers and schools than I have experienced.

[Winifred]

There are books I'm very glad that I read for school - I probably never would have read them on my own, and the differing interpretations and background from class discussion (on good days :) a lack of discussion can be a problem at times) and teacher input and written criticism was valuable. Beloved, To the Lighthouse, Middlemarchcome to mind. In addition, in high school, we read a Shakespeare play each year (starting with Julius Caesar in 9th). I'm sure I didn't get the maximum appreciation out of the plays at that age, but it kept me unafraid to pick them up in later years, and to move on to others.

I was part of the pre-standardized test era, and did not have to kowtow to canned interpretations, fortunately. I do think the "accepted interpretation" is not bad to know: as someone who loves to sling around images and references, if I allude to "lend me your ears," it's nice if people have a context.

There was also stuff I hated: the Romantic poets come to mind - the goopiness was awful, and stood in the way for years of any appreciation of them. I had to wade through reams of the stuff, with only the occasional touchstone( "Ozymandias" was one). Keats and Shelley remain for the most parts a vast, purple-frilled jellyfish mass of poetry, but I'm glad I was exposed to them. I'll still take the Metaphysicals anyday.

[P Glew]

In that case, there is certainly a difference about how literature is taught in the US and UK. If what Jezebel is saying is true and that pupils are forced to "memorize the established interpretation", there is a major difference. Over here, we are told to explore many, many opinions - including those of the author, critics and our own personal interpretations. In our GCSE and A-level testing mark schemes, a huge chunk of marks is given to the expression of personal interpretation. Of course, it is important to mention the common understanding of a text, but, mix it with your own... compare even. Naturally, your own interpretation needs to be able to be backed up though.

Phil

[Jezebel]

I don't know if it's like that all over the US, but definitely in many New York/Long Island schools. The New York Regents have really turned school into memorization and No Child Left Behind didn't help things any.

[oceanflower]

I don't know if it's like that all over the US, but definitely in many New York/Long Island schools. The New York Regents have really turned school into memorization and No Child Left Behind didn't help things any.

Yes, it's the same here in Maryland, too. It was that way when I was in high school back in the late '70s, and it's that way today in my daughter's high school Lit. classes, so it looks like nothing has changed. It is definitely a stifling of imagination and free thinking.

[Jezebel]

Funny how that happens in the "land of the free" that prides itself on tolerance, free thinking, and individuals.

[oceanflower]

Funny how that happens in the "land of the free" that prides itself on tolerance, free thinking, and individuals.

In my opinion the American public educational system is just a conveyor belt that tosses kids out at the end of 12th grade, their heads full of memorized facts and their imagininations and ability to think for themselves in chains. :rolleyes: (But that's a topic for another thread.)

[Bandini]

If taught well it can add greatly to enjoyment; if badly it can ruin a text forever.

[Star_Anise]

By the sound of it, we're lucky here in that English is not taught in a "cram a standard meaning down their throats" style. I would say on the whole I have benefitted an awful lot from my English study, which has formed my ability to read, analyse and appreciate texts, which I am still building on and which will never be complete.

That doesn't mean I've always enjoyed studying books, some still give me the horrors (Life A User's Manual springs to mind), but that's mostly about trying to make books that I don't like palatable. And poetry. You can over analyse poetry so easily.

[The Careful Collector]

I had the very freeing experience of a year of home school with a mother who loves reading as much as myself. Every other subject got left in the dust (thus the return to public school, and the continuing struggle with math :) ) but I think that year, and the ability to choose and read whatever I liked was amazingly helpful to me. I found that because the choice was my own I did want to choose challenging, stimulating books on more subjects than I would have perhaps had I not been "educating myself". Of course I entered home school immediately after a year spent with one of the best literature teachers I've ever had. Every day she read to us (wonderful books, the names of which I am still searching for), and then gave us time to read a book of our own choice. Everyone loved her class, and learned to view books as welcome rather than required.

[and-i-temporary]

i went to a private school, and had one fabulous teacher for three out of my four years. i can say that at that stage, the best, hardest, and sometimes least enjoyable classes are those that teach you how to take a text and write about it. not reading it and thinking imaginatively. at the advanced level (and note that a kid who doesn't care about reading isn't going to do jack shit on the basic or advanced level), even in high school, you gotta learn how to write first! i'm currently taking 500-level undergrad lit classes, and you'd be surprised how many people can barely form sentences.

someone teach these people how to write!

unless they don't care to learn, then they don't need to.

[Jezebel]

i'm currently taking 500-level undergrad lit classes, and you'd be surprised how many people can barely form sentences.

someone teach these people how to write!

unless they don't care to learn, then they don't need to.
Oh I know, I tutor them! Sometimes I really can't believe what I'm seeing, but again, I suppose this is another thread topic....I promise I will not digress again :embarrass .

[majestic62]

Urgh! Sometime reading stuff assigned to you in school is terrible. At this very moment I'm reading "The Life and Times of Michael K." by J.M. Coetzee for an exam I have in two days and Im not enjoying it much. So far in University I havent enjoyed the book much, I think its just the association it gets in your mind that it is work and you cant just leisurely go through the book and really enjoy it.

And sometimes they jsut really arent books you would usually like. But for me High School was definitely the excpetion in my last two years we read "Liek Water For Chocolate", "Angelas Ashes" and "1984" all of which I thoroughly enjoyed and are still some of my favourite books.

I guess also when we read for leisure we get lazy, and going through assigned readings and being forced to analyze them opens up your mind a bit to further interpretation (and possibly further enjoyment) in your leisurely reading.

[TariNumenesse]

Reading some of others' experiences of reading at school, I'm feeling really fortunate. I personally have had several different English and Literature teachers, and all of them have been fantastic.

All my school life (from Prep to 12, this year) we have read books in class. In the primary years we were encouraged to read what we wanted, and then when I got into year 5, my teacher for the year (a wonderful lady I very much admire now) would read books aloud to us in class. It was always my favourite lesson. :)

High school English classes were always great, because I always had good teachers. In English there was a bit more rigidity about interpretation of the text, but at the same time I think it was because we were being taught how to analyse things (how to find evidence, etc.). Our own interpretations of the text were never frowned upon, as long as we could back them up.

Now, literature is a completely different story. We could only take it from year 11 (and of course I took it without a second thought :) ), and all through last year and up to now it has been 'there are many interpretations of the text. All are valid, but you must be able to back it up with evidence from the text'. This has been great for me, because I love exploring my own reaction to the text, and hearing others, and even arguing about them!

Reading a book at school has never ruined it for me. There have been books I have disliked (Hatchet, Looking for Albrandi and The Silver Sword are foremost in my mind), but even reading books I dislike has helped me to learn why I dislike things, and how to improve my own story writing. As for other books, I have discovered several wonderful novels, plays and poets I would never have come across otherwise: The Longest Memory, Dylan Thomas, The Summer of the Seventeenth Doll, the list is long. So for me, reading in school has been a fantastic experience.