Google Lit Trips: Reading About Reading

An intriguing look at forgetfulness and reading. Though in the end I think I can't really align myself with the assumed premise. 

To Kill A Mockingbird bored me to death the first time I read it in high school. I don't remember reading it again until, ironically, I was required to teach it to my own high school students fairly early on in my teaching career.

The book had gotten better in the interim. I'd grown a bit in my ability to appreciate the stories themes. Though, I had some compassion for those students who really saw the book as "not something they'd choose to read.' But, my compassion and my increasing appreciation for the story led me to design lessons around the story that were more encouraging to more students. It eventually became a favorite book to teach and at least one of the favorite books among my students. 

I read and taught the book so often that it is one of a select few books that is fairly well-remembered in detail. And, among the many famous quotes from the book, my personal favorite was one that is much less often quoted, 

"When Aunt Alexandra went to school, self-doubt could not be found in any textbook, so she knew not its meaning. She was never bored, and given the slightest chance she would exercise her royal prerogative: she would arrange, advise, caution, and warn.” (p 129)

But, my difficulty with this author's premise is his concern about remembering books. 

In some ways I don't think passing the remember the story quiz is how we derive value from having read a book.

Not all great stories find a way to anchor themselves in our minds as solidly as To Kill A Mockingbird and Candide and Cat's Cradle and others have done in my reading life. But, nevertheless, many have had long lasting impact on my world view as each added "something" to the depth and breadth of my understanding of the "universal truths." My moral compass has been crafted by ocassional and sometimes repeated encounters with various expressions of those universal truths. 

Any teacher who has taught a literary piece repeatedly knows that it is mpossible to read the same book twice IF ONE'S EYES ARE OPEN TO SEEING WHAT STILL HAD NEVER BEEN NOTICED IN EARLIER READINGS.

Literary reading's impact depends upon both its immediate impact and its long perhaps cumulative impact.

When asking students to read a book that may "not be something they'd choose to read," we ask them to go where they've not found enjoyment before. When we succeed, they grow in their reading interest knowing that going where they had not been interested in going before can provide serendipitous rewards. When we don't succeed (and that may be for reasons more in tune with their readiness than our lesson design) seeds of disinterest in reading in areas beyond their existing reading interests may take root. 

In thinking about my own evolution in reading habits, there is no doubt that being entertained was the first criteria. Early on that meant it had to be funny. A bit later, it had to have action, adventure, and okay, some sexual content. It didn't have to be explicit. James Bond's womanizing skills were sufficient. Drama, heartbreak, tragedy... well, that took a while. Eventually all of that became entertaining. It no longer needed to be funny or fun, but relevant to my interests. As my interests grew, they came to include stories that included the universal truths behind heartbreak and tragedy. Can I pin the events from specific books that mark my journey to a broader appreciation of literary reading? Sometimes, but not always. 

I sometimes think of it as being similar to marinading food. When I'm enjoying the final outcome of a well-crafted recipe, "Wow! This is delicious! What seasoning did you use?" I might ask the chef. "I recognize garlic, but what's that unusual sort of sweet and salty taste?

"Chinese Five Spice!"

"Of course! I used to use that in a crazy Chinese Paella recipe I used to cook!"

Some books, probably many, are sort of like that Chinese Five Spice. I don't remember them, until some later experience reminds me that I did remember encountering them previously.

I remember when my music appreciation grew from "did it have a good beat and give me dancing feet?" to listening to the lyrics for "truth" to actually enjoying a musical piece by listening intently to only a single element as I'd play a song over while tuning into a single instrument. Gene Krupa, Art Blakey, Buddy Rich, Ringo Starr, Max Weinberg; each with a different style and each with a distinct contribution to a piece of music.

Other times I'd listen paying particular attention to guitar styles; other times to the sax. And, somewhere along the way I came to realize that my musical appreciation had grown not only in depth but in breadth as well.

But truthfully, do I remember the individual songs so much? Sometimes, but not always.

It's true of films as well. The Graduate and 2001: A Space Odyssey were pivotal films for me. Each opened my eyes to the idea that there might be more to think about in some films and storytelling than i had thought about previously and eventually I found myself watching classic films with different eyes. 

And yet, ask me if I remember "that part where [character x] looked around the corner and saw the [whatever he saw] and thought nothing of it?" and my mind is capable of going quite blank. At best, more often than not, I can remember bits and pieces or general ideas. Yet, i know The Graduate and 2001: A Space Odyssey both played important roles in the trajectory of my growing appreciation for the deep over the shallow and the thought-provoking over the short-term adrenalin rush. 

i may not remember much about some of the music and movies that played significant, perhaps only subconcious roles in my journey. But in retrospect, I do recognize that there has been a cumulative impact of many forgotten experiences in my journey into the depths and breadth of the wonders of music and film ....

...and photography and dance and science and math and history and...yes, just about everything I've grown to appreciate at levels beyond my early experiences.

Of course, at my age, I am beginning to worry about events I just don't remember well or at least momentarily at all. I'm even a bit concerned that ocassionally I have extremely clear recollections of events that never happened. But, I'm not too concerned about having forgotten that I'd read a book or seen a movie sometime in the past and only remember having read the book or seen the movie before after having read several chapters or watched a third of a movie I'd experienced before.

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

 What a great idea!

A simple concept. Enhance literacy education by starting with an established engagement. Kids already like children's movies. So, why not turn OFF the sound track and turn on subtitles? 

Just a little Vygotsy nudge within an established zone of proximal development where overcoming even the slightest forces of resistance is essentially a mute point since they already know that they enjoy seeing children's movies they haven't seen before.

It is sort of a variation of an established option in many digital children's books where pre-literate children can opt to turn on an audio reading feature that highlights the digital text word by word as the child listens to the reading while his or her eyes are directed towards the words being spoken.

It's finding that bridge between an established engagement and activities that build off of that existing engagement. It's more than "just a connection." Sure, Romeo and Juliet has much to say about gang-mentality and teen romance. But, high school students come with as many attitudes regarding gang-mentality and teen romance as .... well, too many to make assumptions that the connection itself is a reliable bridge. For many students, gangs are security in a world far more insecure than the worlds of their teachers or a far more supportive "famila" than the biological family that they have actual biological connections to while others in the same classroom may have family beliefs embracing tolerance and respect for people of different spiritual and cultural traditions while others have family beliefs much less tolerant or, let's face it, often quite intolerant of people's beliefs and cultural traditions. 

A simple example of the point I'm trying to make is to imagine what the student engagement might be in a very diverse classroom if Shakespeare had written "Romeo and Julius." 

Of course, I realize I've shifted the attention to older students, but the point might be, the variables of every single student are a unique combination of influences so it is rarely a safe bet to assume that we're providing a "precision-zone-of-proximal-development-targeted" learning experience with pancea-like effectiveness by assuming a connection will engage.

"Hey! You're a teenager. Romeo was a teenager. You're going to like this story." An inviting bridge? Maybe. Maybe not.

There is a difference between "finding connections" between our students and the learning experiences we design or employ and designing learning experiences with significant and broad pre-existing elements of perceived enjoyment and relevance. 

My guess is that popular children's movies are created with significant attention to every single element of storytelling that the industry has found  profitable at the box office in as many different families, neighborhoods and cultural settings as possible. And, thereby, perhaps that might make them a more dependable and inviting bridge from the known to the nearby unknown.

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

Google Lit Trips is proud to announce the publication of a brand new Lit Trip for Number the Stars by Lois Lowry.

This Google Lit Trip was developed by Steve Figurelli, a Staff Development Trainer for the Edison Township Public Schools in Edison, New Jersey.

Yes there are certainly many moms in the canon. This charming article ventures to suggest possible Mother's Day gifts for the best and the worst of them.

Just as interesting is the opening several paragraphs where the author contemplates what she might give her own mother by listing what might be considered appropriate at different age levels. 

I couldn't help but wonder what teachers of students of the various age categories listed think of her appraisal of appropriateness for that group with which they work every day.

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

An amusing and thought-provoking piece of interest to literary reading educators. Though the topic of sexism within the publishing world should certainly be of concern to our students, a pre-read before considering sharing it with students is clearly in order.

No obscenity, but references to sexual organs with phrases such as "my lady parts" at least require some professional judgment.

It's satire. It's funny. It's worth important conversations in faculty rooms. And, if not shared with students, it's message is certainly one that has merit in classroom conversations in one way or another.

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

Whoo Hoo! Google Lit Trips makes the list.

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO!

Any teacher worth his or her salt knows the truth Rita Pierson shares in this absolutely inspiring talk.

I found this video on this page where the title in giant letters was

"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rita-f-pierson/student-teacher-relationships_b_3203159.html'

I was  a bit off put by my assumptions based upon the talk's title. I immediately flashed to an experience I had with a high school math teacher in a local district who told parents at a back to school night that he purposely made the first test of the year so hard that every student would start the year with an "F" in the gradebook.

When asked why in the world he would do such a thing, his response was, "Because I want every one of them to think they need me."

Unfortunately, by the time kids get to high-school they have, like it or not, developed a belief that there are subjects they just "aren't any good at."

And, many high-school kids who believe they "aren't any good at" ________ have already developed mechanisms for dealing with "failure." One of which is to give up at the first sign of "Here we go again. I knew I wasn't any good at _________."

Literary study is no different. By the time they get to high school, many kids who just can't "see" what those crazy literature teachers are telling them is "between the lines." This is particularly true when reading works like those of Shakespeare where reading and understanding what's "on the lines" is challenging enough... or perhaps too challenging for more than we suspect is true.

But, turning the frustrated into the encouraged is an art that we all should take as a highest level professional skill. 

It takes practice, particularly when, as Pierson reminds us, teaching isn't always easy.

Loved this line...

"And while you won't like them all, the key is, they can never, ever know it. So teachers become great actors and great actresses, and we come to work when we don't feel like it, and we're listening to policy that doesn't make sense, and we teach anyway. We teach anyway, because that's what we do."

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~ 

A defense of jargon? They do it in the sciences so why can't we in the humanities?

I love the examples used to illustrate the jargon used by literary scholars. 

"focalizer"

"heteroglossia"

"subaltern"

"aporia"

You know, the everyday words of literary scholarship.

The Professor Evan Gottlieb, the author is certainly tuned into a serious problem when he begins with what is certainly a very accurate summary of his experience with students' opinion regarding their high school English and Literary Reading experiences.

"When I tell people I'm an English professor, I frequently get one of several responses. When it's "You're not going to correct my grammar, are you?" I can reassure them that I won't (even if I can't help doing so in my head). Then, depending on the nature of their memories of high school or college English classes, I often hear something along the lines of "I always liked/ hated a) reading novels, or b) writing essays about them." Those who disliked English are usually satisfied when I respond sympathetically; those who remember such activities fondly are generally happy to reminisce about them."

These recognitions are probably not too far off in verifying the findings of the National Endowment for the Arts 2004 (updated in 2007) studies.

see 2004 report  Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America: http://www.nea.gov/pub/readingatrisk.pdf 

see 2007 update To Read or Not to Read: A Question of National Consequence: http://www.nea.gov/research/toread.pdf 

Those reports, specifically focusing upon literary reading, contain startling data regarding the literary reading habits of 18-24 year olds; those who have recently graduated from high school. When asked to self-verify whether they could claim to have read as little as a single poem, short story, novel, or play within the preceding 12 months, only 52% could reply in the affirmative. And, this includes those who went on to college.

In a sense, we might conclude that nearly half of the students in the author's classes were among those incapable of passing the low bar distinguishing literary readers from non literary readers. Do we blame this alarming data on "kids these days" or on "those darned iPods" or on "TV" or the "Internet?" 

I don't doubt that literary reading is facing significant competition from other distractions, but what if excessive attention to literary minutiae is also playing a role in turning students off to the pleasures, and thereby the benefits of literary reading?

It is unclear as to whether the author's students are lower division or upper division or graduate students. Among those who are upper division or graduate students, as well as among those who have have achieved "Literary Scholarhood," the use of professional jargon, particularly the jargon reaching the levels of minutiae/sophistication used as examples, is probably appropriate and to be expected by those students who have self-selected a focus upon literary reading. 

In lower division coursework, a healthy dose of deeper literary analysis is certainly also appropriate whether students are going on to major in English or not. It is the last opportuntiy to instill an appreciation for literary reading at deeper levels as a life long endeavor. However, at the same time there is a delicate balance between enticing and discouraging lower division students into or away from developing a life long reading habit.

If the NEA reports are to be heeded, should we be concerned that we may be failing at nearly the same rate we are succeeding in that regard; even if reading a single poem, short story, novel, or play in a year is the qualification for claiming success?

And, if we take the same question back to the high school English classroom, shouldn't we be concerned that the NEA reports find an even more alarming finding among 18-24 year olds  who do not go on to take any college courses? Among that group, those who can not pass the test of self-confirming that they've read at least a single poem or short story or novel or play in the preceding 12 months is somewhere in the neighborhood of 37%!

There is an argument in favor of scholars' use of sophisticated jargon amongst themselves. There is an argument in favor of scholars using sophisticated jargon with students studying to become literary scholars themselves. And there is even an argument for introducing advanced levels of literary analysis to undergraduates regardless of their future career choices. This is also true in high school. However, on that scale of increasing sophistication of a developing appreciation for literary reading there is a parallel issue of the degree to which that jargon turns away more interest in life long reading than it attracts.

It might be useful to compare the argument made by Professor Gottlieb and the argument put forward by actor AND PROFESSOR Alan Alda, also published today...

"Today, the award-winning film and television star is on a mission to teach physicians, physicists and scientists of all types to ditch the jargon and get their points across in clear, simple language.

The former host of the long-running PBS series "Scientific American Frontiers" is a founder and visiting professor of journalism at the Stony Brook University Center for Communicating Science, which has just been named in his honor.

" 'There's no reason for the jargon when you're trying to communicate the essence of the science to the public because you're talking what amounts to gibberish to them," Alda said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.' "

see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/alan-alda-scientists-jargon_n_3207738.html

Alda, makes a serious point not addressed in this Professor Gottlieb's article. And that is the professionals in every field need to also consider the impact of their specialized jargon upon the general public. 

One need only wonder about those who deny global warming, or evolution, or carbon dating, or who believe that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time to verify the dismal levels of comprehension upon which a significant percentage of the voting public base their votes.

If the deepest levels of sophisticated learning in science and math and history and the arts proves to only be of perceived value to scholars, then what exactly is their responsibility for passing on the value of their knowledge to the rest of us? If not the scholars, whose responsibility is it?

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com

THIS IS FLIPPIN' GREAT!!!

Sometimes we just run across a pretty darned incredible resource for teaching literature. This short video makes the different types of heroes in literature and the roles they play so clear...and best of all, the role they play in our lives.

Can it get any cooler? YES! You can actually "Flip" the lessons yourself and wrap your own lessons around each video. 

AND, it just keeps getting cooler. You can use the ed.TED.com site to create a lesson for any video on YouTube! Host that lesson on ed.TED.com 

You can assign the lesson and even track your students' progress through the lessons. 

And (I'm hyperventilating!) this is only one of several great lessons in literature. Check this out...

http://ed.ted.com/lessons?category_id=221

And, literature is only one of several subjects represented.

BUT... just watch this video for an overview of the project. 

http://ed.ted.com/lessons/dear-subscribers

Probably the most inspiring 2:42 minute video I've seen in a loooong time!

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

Take this quiz FIRST (really)

and then watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gokm9RUr4ME

and then ask yourself, "What's the problem?"

And then take just a moment to leave a comment below. 

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

Love Gatsby?

Just found this site that might make a great bridge between your students' interest in contemporary music and your interest in teaching Gatsby.

Here's a list of some of the contemporary musicians on the soundtrack just in case you want to check them out so you can reference them in class discussions.

I'm just wondering how kids might welcome a teacher's modeling the kind of interest in learning more about what his or her students care about that the teacher hopes his or her students might have or develop in learning more about what literature teachers care about.

The soundtrack is executively produced by Jay Z.

The xx

Florence and the Machine

André 3000

Lana Del Rey

Will.i.am

Fergie

Q-Tip

Goonrock

Nero

By the way, there's no doubt that these artists and their fans will be abuzz on the artist's official websites, Facebook pages, and on Twitter specifically about their work on The Great Gatsby project. Seems like a ripe opportunity to let students incorporate their interest in any of the artists into a personalized learning experience while reading Gatsby.

Something to think about...

I can't help recalling the reactions by various English teacher friends of mind when DeCaprio's Romeo and Juliet came out. Many loved it; many did not.

In either case, whether Romeo and Juliet was or Gatsby is great adaptation or not, keep in mind that if it engages your students in an receptiveness to the story, encourage the receptiveness. Treat it like the carrot dangled in front of the otherwise reluctant horse's nose.

By the way, one of my favorite post reading a book and a subsequent film-viewing activities was a brain storming activity built around the following questions...

1. What did the film maker leave out of the film that YOU think was really important in the book?

2. What did the film maker put in the film that the author might have liked even though it wasn't in the book?

3. Which character in the film do YOU think did the best / worst job of portraying the original character?

Students who could list important scenes left out of the movie were pretty pround of their knowledge and discovered their own reasons to critique the film.

Students who could list scenes added to the film that the author might like anyway, were pretty proud of their "seeing" the connection  between the scene and their understanding of the author's themes.

Students who could list reasons why a particular character was well or not so well represented, were pretty proud of their understanding of a character's motives and purpose for being in the original story.

The point being, that the students were always welcome to like or dislike the film, but they got the opportunity to express their opinion in a way that let them enthusiastically show what they knew about the author's intentions.

And, yes, it works with film adaptations we love like To Kill A Mockingbird that pretty much left out the importance of Miss Maudie and Aunt Alexandra. And, it works with the worst of adaptations like the most recent adaptation of Animal Farm that put a happy ending on the movie and with the children's book Cloudy with Meatballs that never really did get around to having much to do with the original story.

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

Following my earlier post today about  The Curse of Reading and Forgetting.

I offer this charming favorite and somewhat disturbingly reassuring poem called "Forgetfulness," by Billy Collins.

If you teach literary reading you may be amused. Perhaps a bit disturbed and hopefully reassured.

Must watch if you haven't read or seen "Forgetfulness."

By the way, there are actually two poems in the video, the second was my favorite poem to share with my creative writing class just prior to Mother's Day.

Don't know about you, but I'm a big fan of Mad Men.

I've commented before on the novel-like quality of several modern television series where an ongoing story allows writers to go deep into the psyches and themes over the course of a season. 

From Downton Abbey to Boardwalk Empire, to the Sopranos and Mad Men, it's pretty hard to ignore some of the most universal truths captured in the greatest literature.

We DVR the show, primarily so we can speed through the commercials, but also so we can do a quick pause when the shot of some character reading some book flashes on the screen.

Just looking at the image above, I can't help but wonder if reading The Inferno is going to do Don Draper any good. I hope so since I spent an entire teaching career believing literary reading was one of the great paths leading to a life well lived.

 ~ http:///www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

Oh my! I thought we got past this decades ago.

Past what? Past arguing whether Phonics is better than whole word instruction? Well, that too. But, I'm referring to using made up words as a way of seeing if kids could properly employ phonics skills they'd been taught.

What might the justifying premise have been? I suppose it might have had something to do with controlling the variables by precluding the possibility that a child might not be sounding out a word and instead merely correctly identifying a word he or she had seen so many times that whole word recognition had previously been established.

It's one of those "It-seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time" sort of assumptions. But, it reminds me of an example of such thinking that I would ocassionally use in my satire class. In the United States there is a protocol for naming naval ships. Battleships are always named after states. Some types of ships have naming traditions with a bit more "wiggle room." For example, Aircraft Carriers are named after Famous Navy ships OR Presidents OR Admirals OR Politicians. In any case the naming of Naval ships is considered a great honor. Among the short list of name sources for Nuclear Submarines is cities. 

The lucky city honored by having a nuclear submarine named after it? Corpus Christi, Texas. Seemed like a good idea, I suppose. I've never been to Corpus Christi. But, when reading an original news story it took me less than a second to wonder whether naming a nuclear submarine the USS Body of Christ was such a good idea. I wasn't alone. Protests were immediate. And sometime after the ship's "christening" it became the only Nuclear Submarine to have its name amended to the USS City of Corpus Christi in order to "placate protestors."

Whoa, that was a long side trip wasn't it? The point being attempting to control the variables in  a testing situation for phonics skills by precluding "contamination" of the results that might be caused by previous word recognition awareness does sound like a good idea. That is until one considers that the way sounding out words works is that as a child sounds out the letters in a word he or she begins to hear sounds that increasingly sound similar to words he or she already knows. And, it is the very fact that the child begins to hear sounds that become more and more like known words until there is no need to continue "sounding out" the rest of the word because the child has recognized the sounds that "add up" to a known word.

Essentially, or at least metaphorically, the experience is similar to mentally discovering a Venn Diagram with one circle representing a known word and a second circle representing burgeoning decoding skills. The child is sort of struggling to push the circle of unknown code towards the circle of known words. 

And there my old friend Vygotsy's wisdom comes into play. Phonics works because the zone of proximal development is that zone where words are known, but decoding text is not so well known.

Therefore, as well intended as it might have been to use "pseudo words" broke the very spine of how sounding out words works. Phonics is a system for narrowing down the possibilities of a piece of "the code" until the "ah ha" moment when the child sees solves the riddle of decoding.

Smiling, "Oh! I get it. That's how you write my name!"

vs

Baffled, "Huh? That can't be right (as in I must be wrong) because there's no such word as "flarp."

And even more problematic than having a correct answer be baffling rather than reassuring, is the secondary backlash caused when the public takes "contaminated findings" as gospel and concludes, not that the test might have been faulty, but that the test results somehow provide evidence of the shortcomings of phonics instructions.  

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

It only makes sense doesn't it?

What if this was adapted ever so slightly so that it would fit on 3M 3 1/3 x 4 inch permanent Adhesive shipping labels (same size as Avery 8164 / 5164 labels) and laid out in a pdf so 6 could be printed on a shingle sheet?

Where might these stickers or labels be placed to get the greatest bang for the buck with both students and parents?

And don't miss the Teachers and Technology graphics a bit lower on the same page.

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

Missing the point?

I remember a lesson I learned during my 3 decade stint teaching a high school satire course. It sort of matched what I had discovered about several great satirists including Swift, Twain, and Vonnegut all of whom became increasingly bitter as they aged; Swift in fact, winding up insane in the end.

The lesson? "In far too many cases satire fails because those who get it, don't need it and those who need it don't get it."

Yes. I know. That's a HUGE overstatement to say the very least. I just wish that it was a whole lot less true than it is.

I remember when I first ran across the line, "...to the chagrin of humanity." Somehow the students at such a prestigious University as Princeton; a university that no one gets into without having done remarkably well on his or her standardized and college entrance exams, enjoying a celebration of decadence is different from the high school prom with its limos and rented pants pretendings. 

But, these Princess and Prince-tonians are not alone. 

Here's only one list of hotels offering a Great Gatsby package, hoping to cash in on living a decadent moment or two being what Fitzgerald, who was no better at believing his own criticism, criticized.

http://www.today.com/travel/hotels-offer-gatsby-gilded-deals-6C9807330

One example?

"The Plaza

The legendary New York hotel is abso-tively, posi-lutely ga-ga over Gatsby. In addition to speakeasy-style cocktails, 1920s-themed brunches and a display of costumes from the new film, the hotel is debuting a new suite dedicated to its famous patron. Located on the 18th floor, the 900-square-foot Fitzgerald Suite will feature Art Deco décor, period-inspired furnishings and images of its namesake. Rates start at $2,795 per night."

Really? That crazy 3%!

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

It is both an art and a science.

Here's to the noblest profession of all!

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

It's pretty hard to not find articles about The Great Gatsby these days. For those of you who teach the book, this article takes a rather bold "YES-I'm-talking-about-the-pachyderm-in-the-canon" attitude.

When I saw the title of this article, I was immediately reminded of my favorite essay topic, "What's So Great About Gatsby?"  I only taught the book a few times. The most recent was decades ago (which is my way of saying, "At the time I liked the design of the topic I imposed upon my students because I felt that a very thoughtful case could be built whether a student's position took a stance for or against Gatsby's greatness.Though I should say that it was almost as long ago that I stopped imposing topics on my students,

Nevertheless, whether one appreciates the story's position on one of the pedestal of sacred texts or not, it is interesting to read an articulate opposing point of view to the media blitz preceding the grand opening of the newest Hollywood interpretation. Personally, I look forward to seeing the Hollywood elite either at some grand opening "news" coverage on one of those TV shows that specialize in diverting our attention away from important news to the goings on of the Kardashians, and the Paris and Perez Hiltons of the glitterati

in their tuxedos and and gowns as they're interviewed about which designer paid them to mention the designer's name.

I remember when I first heard that my first, no make that my second, experience with the story left me appreciating, though at a relatively low level, the 97% versus the 3% sort of condemnation of the "haves." Yet, it was remarkably confusing to me when I discovered during that second reading that Fitzgerald's lifestyle pretty much mirrored in disturbing ways the very lifestyle I had come to understand he had criticized so harshly in the story.

 I can't help but wonder if the Hollywood folks behind the current production aren't in many ways very similar to Fitizgerald. While the country is deeply agitated over the distribution of wealth and its associated influence, the time is certainly right to cash in on the lessons of The Great Gatsby. 

Does this mean I agree with Schulz's negative appraisal? Not really. She certainly makes several good points in her criticism. But, she also mentions in her criticism the many reasons why the book is so "teachable" in its pretty accessible use of symbolism. Her argument that the character development is pretty flat is probably true, but perhaps if read as an allegory or parable, it is that very flatness that makes it a great vehicle for accessing the deeper messages of the story.

Truthfully, I don't intend for this commentary to even address whether Gatsby is great or not or whether Schulz's criticism is convincing or not. 

My concern is Schulz's underlying question of the canon being sacrosanct. Once published a story is fixed. It is appreciated or not in its time as The Great Gatsby was not. And, sometimes appreciated posthumously. It is the audience that changes. And the individuals within the audience change with every reading, providing they have not thrown their intellectual anchors overboard between readings. But, something happens when a story somehow makes its way to the canon. It's not okay to question the greatness. By default, those who don't like a book must be wrong. When perhaps it's not the reader who is wrong, but the time and place of the intersection of the reader and the writer. That's why we can read a book multiple times and discover the "the book is much better than it used to be;" or, much worse.

It's a lesson Siddhartha learned and taught us. It's a lesson Vygotsky recognized. 

As educators and book lovers we have two passions that are very similar, but not quite identical. In the Venn diagramming of teaching others and loving literature ourselves it is good to keep in mind that a piece of literature may have reached us in different ways than it reaches our students. We are in different places now than our students are and were in different places than they are even when we were their age and first encountered the story.

Remember Gallileo, Martin Luther and Martin Luther King jr, Picasso, Elvis, Bob Dylan and Dylan Thomas. All considered great in retrospect. They were all both loved by some and reviled by others for their canon-busting impact in their own time. Most came to be appreciated over time. 

Just wondering who the Bob Dylan's are for today's youth? Who is making music that I just don't get that may be moving today's youth in the way that Bob Dylan moved me to become a bit more thoughtful; a bit more concerned about my place in the universe. 

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

Sigh!

What would Atticus Finch do?

Though innocent until proven guilty, I certainly hope justice is served.

I'd hate to hear that the accusation is true and that Harper Lee lost the case anyway.

This saddens me as much as it saddened us all when Atticus lost his case.

Why do bad things happen to good people?

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

I wonder if it is even possible to read this article while steadfastly maintaining an unbiased curiosity about it's impact upon literary analysis?

There are so many trigger points that challenge my own ability to be unbiased, that I actually found myself becoming more and more intrigued by the concept of "'Macroanalysis' the anti-sentimental and technophile attitude toward literature defines how scholars understand the literary field, rather than how authors imagine it. 

The bottom line? Data Crunching as a literary analysis tool.

One of the many intriguing challenges to my effort to restrain any pre-existing biases, came in the reference to "distant reading" rather than our typical adoration of "close reading." I suppose this references a completely different set of valuable purposes served by distancing literary analysis from our natural tendencies to want to interpret from within our inherent biases because, "Text-crunching methodologies offer the possibility of establishing verifiable, quantifiable, exact results in a field where, otherwise, everything is interpretive, hence interminably disputable."

Lest you dismiss this entire concept too quickly, the article is describing the work of Matthew L.Jockers, an assistant professor of English at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln based upon the work of Franco Moretti who teaches English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University.

Check out this link to see what literary analysis based upon data crunching looks like.

But, be forewarned, Paradigms may be shaken; or perhaps "rattled" might be a better verb.

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1248-the-methodology-of-moretti-graphs-from-an-iconoclast-literary-scholar ;

It seems as though Anne Frank is making the news quite a bit recently.

From Justin Beiber's self-centered and shallow note left in the guest book at the Anne Frank Annex. 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/14/showbiz/bieber-anne-frank

To what I assumed was well-intentioned, but questionable and certainly insensitive assumption behind the Mormon Church baptizing Anne Frank posthumously.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/mormons-posthumous-baptism-anne-frank_n_1292102.html. ;

I don't know, but neither imposing one's"beleibes" or one's beleifs on another without consent just seems a bit audacious; well-intended or not.

However, does the same imposition by parents of their beliefs upon their children, or the children of others fall into a different area of concern?

It is the parents' duty to raise their kids as best as they can, and whether we as educators or neighbors or strangers may recognize that it may not be within our purview to impose contradictory influences. We've already recognized that parents have a right to approve or not approve the viewing of videos they do not want their children to see. We don't have to agree, however, I don't think it's right for any educator to believe they have the right to trump the parent's right to make such decisions.

We've also for the most part accepted the notion that providing alternative options for that child is a professional obligation. However, the touchy edge of this issue is whether or not a parent has the right to make such calls for the children of other parents.

There is a sort of Venn diagram between censorship and professional judgment. There were books I chose not to teach due to professional judgment. And, while teaching  The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn ALOUD, I chose to replace the "N-word" with "N-word." Yet we would also discuss the controversy over the use of the word both in the book and in contempory times. 

And by the way, I happen to think that Mark Twain's use of the original term was quite intentional. And, that the intention was to be abrasive to ethical ears. The book is awash with examples of the negative impact of what many people at the time believed was acceptable behavior. Huck was raised within that society where slavery was defended in churches.

And, the whole point of the story comes down to Huck's coming to realize that his default upbringing was faulty in many ways. Why else did Mark Twain have Huck decide, after spending time with Tom who had not had Huck's experiences, decide that he didn't want to go back to Tom's world?

So, back to the article. The references objected to dealt with Anne's wondering about the vagina and it's role in reproduction. The entire passages is as follows:

"Until I was eleven or twelve, I didn't realize there was a second set of labia on the inside, since you couldn't see them. What's even funnier is that I thought urine came out of the clitoris…When you're standing up, all you see from the front is hair. Between your legs there are two soft, cushiony things, also covered with hair, which press together when you're standing, so you can't see what's inside. They separate when you sit down and they're very red and quite fleshy on the inside. In the upper part, between the outer labia, there's a fold of skin that, on second thought, looks like a kind of blister. That's the clitoris."

Read more: http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/22056965/northvillle-mother-files-complaint-about-passages-in-the-diary-of-ann-frank#ixzz2Ry5am8tl

What would your call be? But, before you answer too quickly...

There's certainly no doubt that it wasn't the writer's intention to titillate. If anything, it was more in the nature of  simplly expressing a pubescent curiosity in the biological structure of the female genetaila. With this in mind I don't see the issue here of being whether the passage is pornographic. However, even if we excuse the loose use of the word "pornographic," there is still the issue of parents' rights to determine what they believe is the proper approach to sex education for their children. And, again this is not the purview of educational systems to feel they have a right to trump the parents' decision in this regard, whether we feel it is justifiable or not.

The two elements and perhaps a third, that I think might be of most concern here have to do with the grade level at which the protest is being made. The parent in this case is objecting to the passage which only appears in a "Definitive Edition" (unedited). This is apparently not the traditional edited edition that has been in standard practice for years. If this the case, the question becomes are all 7th graders ready for this level of "condoned" exposure to the description Anne gives? In my own recollections of my readiness for "sex ed" information when I was a 7th graders, I think my own response would have still been a bit on the "Yuck! That's disgusting" level and certainly not at all as being titillating. Heck, when I was in the 8th grade I could not get through my oral report on the plant Uranus! And, even when I was a sophomore I was really nervous about even listening to my biology teacher say the words "penis" and "vagina." 

Yet, I knew a lot of "dirty jokes" about everything sexual, most of which in retrospect were disrespectful and sexist along the lines of those blonde jokes only a bit more sexually focused.

I suppose also that girls in middle school are already quite aware of the biological changes they're going through and might be less "harmed" by the passage.

But boys really are a different animal at that age, many boys are still much more like "big little boys" than like "young men." Some might be less ready or incapable of sufficient maturity or more than ready and/or mature to read such passages.

I would not see the teacher's role in this case as having to "tolerate or take a stand against" censorship. I would see this as an issue regarding professional judgment. 

Like showing films in the gray area, if the professional judgment is that the "unedited" version of the book is justifiable, then I don't see an issue with parental permission slips being required, and alternative assignments being available. It would be inconvenient and perhaps even resented, but the question is not whether the parent is right or wrong, but whether the parent has the right to make certain decisions about what their child are exposed to.

So would the traditional edited version be a suitable compromise?

Does the unedited version provide a learning experience of such value that compromising on the traditional version is unacceptable?

I hesitate to mention the last concern that arises in my mind about this objection. Though there is no evidence in the story to suggest that the parent in this article is in any way an anti-semite, we live in times when racism, anti-semetism, anti-immigrationists, gun control advocates and anti-gun control advocates have taken to using "code" language to express their positions.

 I will just leave it at that. You either already know what I mean or you haven't been paying attention lately.

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~