Book choices in teaching English Literature in Schools

[mrbadger]

Why are so many US authors used in Literature courses in the UK rather than native or at least closer authors?

(This is specifically about the UK, I'd like to know how it is in other countries)

Avoiding Chaucer I can understand. There is an argument for leaving Shakespeare to the performing arts, but we have Charles Dickens, still, if not more relevant than ever, James Joyce, of which the same can be said, even if his work is at times sexual (heaven forbid children read about sex).
Jane Austin? No, she wrote for and about the upper classes, and is barely relevent. Her work may be good. I don't think so.

My Step daughter has been given Stephen Kings IT to read, and that has children having sex in it, which throws out the sex argument.

I was made to read Steinbeck. Which spoiled my enjoyment of his work so much I am only now thinking I should re-read it and have ordered copies of Cannery Row and Of Mice and Men and some others.

My idea of why this was done is that US authors were heavily constrained by censors, where for the most part European writers weren’t. Possibly that made them more attractive to education board committees when assembling course contents.

It doesn’t explain the Stephen King thing, but we live in a more connected world now, so maybe it’s that.

While I admire him as a writer, I’m not all that keen on much of Kings work. He may be famous and talented, but I don’t think his work is relevant to secondary school literature education in the UK.

I’d think J.K. Rowling would be a better choice. I don’t like her work myself, it can’t be denied that it strikes a chord in our society. At least her work is set in the UK.

If modern authors children will relate to must be used, why not her? (in the UK) Or other home grown talent. Not anyone from the serious literature world mind you, not for ordinary school children, it bores them. They are not the intended audience.

Steinbeck was a terrible choice for me, I totally failed to understand it.

It’s only been the last month or so as I’ve reflected on it that I’ve started to understand some of the themes in On Mice and Men and want to read it again.

[clakclak]

What would be the advantage of reading a british author over an american one?

Because I can certainly understand an argument being made against teaching a certain work because of it's content, but I fail to see favouring an author just because he/she is from the UK for anything as anything but misguided patriotism, unless what you are teaching in regards to the piece of literature is directly connected the UK (as for example The Great Gatsby would be connected directly the 1920s in the US).

Even than I would argue that for such a session to explore a certain country you don't have to necessarily read the works of someone from said country. They just have to be authentic.

For example the works of James Berry deal with Britain a lot and tell you something about a facet of life in the UK, even though he was not British himself.



So my question really is, why is the nationality important?

[mrbadger]

It's not the nationality of the author as such, but more that they are ignoring our own litarary heritage in favour of someone elses that I don't really like.

At least in government funded schools, privately funded schools (public schools) seem to have no such problem. They also cover US authors, but as part of a wider survey that includes UK, Irish, Russian and European authors.

But they aren't subject to the curse of the National Curriculum


From that we have
 reading a wide range of fiction and non-fiction, including in particular whole books, short stories, poems and plays with a wide coverage of genres, historical periods, forms and authors. The range will include high-quality works from:
• English literature, both pre-1914 and contemporary, including prose, poetry and drama
• Shakespeare (two plays)
• seminal world literature
 choosing and reading books independently for challenge, interest and enjoyment.
 re-reading books encountered earlier to increase familiarity with them and provide a basis for making comparisons.


Somehow from this my stepdaughters teacher got, for her and the other kids in the class, one Shakespeare play to read, another to watch as a movie, and the aforementioned IT to read. Hardly *seminal world literature*

[Alan Phipps]

Obviously a literature course including a final examination or qualification essay/viva has to be against set works or the test piece cannot be standardised nor focused.

However, when I was in a UK sixth form engineering college (after English Literature O level stage and as a general further education topic not amounting to an A level subject amongst the science and maths subjects that actually were) we were encouraged to browse the college library to find works or authors we liked. Then our related coursework was to critique the work, writing style and qualities of the author that we, the students, chose. It was conducted most successfully and enjoyably as I recall it (it was about fifty years ago now mind).

Nationality of the chosen author was not an issue.

[mrbadger]

You got to choose the works yourself, that must have been nice. I didn't. Mostly it seems choice isn't a thing for UK students in govenment funded schools.

Had I chosen Steinbeck I probably would have liked his work. I might not have understood it all, but I think I resented being made to read it at the time.

This point from the Curriculum

choosing and reading books independently for challenge, interest and enjoyment.

Is absolutelly neglected, she doesn't pick up a book unless she has to for homework, and that only at the absolute last minute. I try to encourage reading for pleasure, but I'm ignored, because *books are old now* (she's 15)

[clakclak]

It's not the nationality of the author as such, but more that they are ignoring our own litarary heritage in favour of someone elses that I don't really like.[...]

How are they ignoring your own literary heritage? You just said that they are reading Shakespeare, is he not part of the British literary heritage? Would you like them to only read British works?

You also said:

English literature, both pre-1914 and contemporary, including prose, poetry and drama

So I assume the Shakespeare pieces are not the only British pieces they are dealing with, because they both fall under drama.

[Morkonan]

Why are so many US authors used in Literature courses in the UK rather than native or at least closer authors?

<muffled screams and chuckles come from the corner of the room>

(This is specifically about the UK, I'd like to know how it is in other countries)

In regular school, we were given books to read and told who wrote them and where they were from. Along with reading those books, we often received extra information about those who wrote them, what their lives were like, where they lived, what impacts their society or culture may have had on their writing and, perhaps, what impact their writing may have had in turn.

Rarely was there a great differentiation made between "US" vs "Other" English literature. There were, however, some acknowledgements of "American Classics" with unique importance, but the same was also noted for "foreign" authors who's works may have even been translated into English.

In college, on the other hand, aside from a few basic English lit course, the divides were more pronounced. English/European/etc "Literature" was divided up appropriately.

..My idea of why this was done is that US authors were heavily constrained by censors, where for the most part European writers weren’t. Possibly that made them more attractive to education board committees when assembling course contents.

Or, maybe its just a good book, no matter who wrote it or where they're from? (As far as "censors" go, you should probably rewrite it as "sensibilities." Strong Puritan movements awaken, from time to time, which could have some influence. But, despite some headlines, there is little true "censorship" in literature that isn't demanded by the discriminating public.)

It doesn’t explain the Stephen King thing, but we live in a more connected world now, so maybe it’s that.

It's a well-written story and it's easy to read, if a little slow. But, it's short enough for students to read before they get too bored of it (Unlike something like "The Stand") and has something very important to educators - It's "topical." Students may have heard of it, may have seen the movie, may have heard their parents talk about it... Anything that could possibly get them interested in actually "reading a real book" is likely considered to be an advantage. Imagine them trying to struggle through Dickens or being assaulted, once again, by the 8'th Grade Literature of Rowling? What about the Canterbury Tales? They're awesome! But, someone would have to sit and explain everything, else they wouldn't understand who the Gap-Toothed woman is and why that's important. No doubt, though, they'd eventually figure out what a "little brown eyeball" was....

At the age the kids are likely being introduced to "IT", one hopes they have a basic knowledge of what certain activities depicted, worryingly at length, in the book are. Though, honestly, I think "Lord of the Flies", "Little Women" or, for goodness sake, "Animal Farm" might be more instructive in terms of real "literature." "Madam Bovary" is good, but may be "too adult" to be of interest. ANY of H.G Wells would be awesome, though... Too bad there are so many fookin' teachers that don't think "Science Fiction" qualifies as "Literature." It has to be ancient before it even gets glanced at.

If they really, really, want a great response, they'd give them Gormenghast to read... But, that would probably set their expectations a bit too high.

While I admire him as a writer, I’m not all that keen on much of Kings work. He may be famous and talented, but I don’t think his work is relevant to secondary school literature education in the UK.

I agree in the sense that certain "literary" subjects wouldn't be easy to teach using his work as reference. There are such inclusions, of course, but they're not really as clear as they are in more studied works. There are clear principles to point out that are truly "special" in "The Cherry Orchard" but a drooling dog watching from a dark cave doesn't have real depth to explore. King's "style" may be important, though, and that could be interesting to talk about, but I think the reason they may have recommended it is only because it is topical, not because it has tremendous literary value. For that, they'd be better off with "The Stand" or "Christine" or even "Needful Things," all of which I consider to be better than "IT" in that sense.

I’d think J.K. Rowling would be a better choice. I don’t like her work myself, it can’t be denied that it strikes a chord in our society. At least her work is set in the UK.

What do you value, the literary application of a chosen title or just whether or not it was written by a writer in the UK? Rowling's work, though popular, is a "See Jane Run" book. Sure, it sold bajilions and launched a bajillion-monies worth of franchises. But, its "Young Adult" fiction with, IMO, little in the way of any "literary" value. Is it even "imaginative?" Meh... "Halloweentown" in print form. A collection of "Goosebumps" novellas might work. For very young readers, and old farts like me, books like "The Boxcar Kids" or the "The Flying Wizards" or even any of Beverly Cleary's wonderful childrens books, like "The Mouse and the Motorcycle" or "Ribsy" would be better.

Or, maybe just throw caution to the wind and give them "Where the Red Fern Grows" or "The Red Badge of Courage?" I guess since they're "American" they shouldn't be considered?

We may not speak the same language, but at least we can converse in it.

Why not just go balls-out and hand them Tolkien? (Well, they may get tired of hearing how important every rock the Hobbits stumble across is...) Again, H.G. Wells! Or, let's just throw caution to the wind and get Jules Verne on board! He's French, though, so may surrender unpredictably... (It's a joke, no offense intended to any French patriots that may be visiting. Though, you are aware this site is hosted by Germans, right? )

[mrbadger]

Why not Tolkein? Young people can easily understand that.

Apart from the singing... That always made me cringe.

Chaucer is a bit too distant for secondary school children to relate to without support that unfortunatelly isn't present outside the intent of the National Curriculum, which few schools can match. Really they shouldn't touch him.

Of course Shakespeare is a british playwrite, but I imagine the intent was that pupils did more than learn enough to pass tests on him by learning answers to the tests, discussing one play for a couple of lessons and having some bits of homework on one play.

They watched one movie of a play, but they also watched Finding Dory. Movies replace lessons far too often. and I'm told hers is a good school.

Why not JK rowling though? What objection is there to her that would stand up. Yes she wrote for children, but who are the target audience? Children. The target demographic perfectly matches her books.

It would be lovely to say let them cover a wide range of authors, but I think it would be overly optimistic to expect that they even covered Kings IT in detail. Or any of the Shakespeare they did.

I encounter these kids after they've finished secondary school, and their level of literary knowledge is universally poor, even for the better ones.

[pjknibbs]

I assume there's some specific reason they chose to use "It" for their course materials, and only the people who assigned the curriculum can tell you what that is. Tolkien is probably not a great choice for teaching literature--it's very much of its time, so there are no independent female characters, most of the backstory is transmitted via an absolutely enormous infodump early in the first book, and so on. If you were teaching a course in how to write literature Tolkien would probably be on the "Don't do any of this!" list.

[Morkonan]

...Apart from the singing... That always made me cringe.

Read them the first time, skipped those passage for the rest of the times. Though, Tolkien was a surprisingly adept lyricist..

Chaucer is a bit too distant for secondary school children to relate to without ....

!!!! My brain just exploded!

A "Modern Day Chaucer!"

There has to be one, right? Surely someone wrote something that parallels it, right? Think of the possibilities! A bunch of people on a train? Plane? Maybe immigrants on a ship or a bunch of hippies walking to some stinky hippy-fest thing? THERE MUST ALREADY BE ONE, SURELY?

...They watched one movie of a play, but they also watched Finding Dory. Movies replace lessons far too often. and I'm told hers is a good school.

Movies have their place, one supposes. For one thing, they're quick. For another, everyone can be assured of keeping the same pace of consumption. But... they are not "literary." There's too much "movie stuff" in them for that. Though, some common principles like symbolism, foreshadowing, simile, etc, can be easily pointed out. Still, the most important aspect of "literature" is, IMO, it's cultural value and social commentary. Where the heck is that in "Finding Dory?"

Then again, I have to remember these are young students, so they may really just need the basics like character, plot, a few archetypes, antagonists, and certain ideas about "theme", perhaps going as deep as "structure." So, maybe "Finding Dory" suffices for that?

Why not JK rowling though? What objection is there to her that would stand up. Yes she wrote for children, but who are the target audience? Children. The target demographic perfectly matches her books.

I agree, now that I have thought more clearly about your intended target audience. I just don't favor propping those books up as... <ahem> "Literature." (Though, don't mistake me - I value them, based on the reactions of their fans, for their entertainment value for others and the fact that they helped launch a whole knew wave of "reading" for young people. THAT makes them very worthy of praise.)

Or any of the Shakespeare they did.

There is some value in seeing film productions of Shakespeare. His is the written word for voice... So, it's a much more natural medium to move them into than it would be for many "books."

AND, for this, I have a wonderful recommendation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollo ... TV_series) (Darnit, forgot the embed code for non-alphanum)

This was wonderful! I loved every bit of it! A truly great bit of work! If you/she hasn't seen it, then go get it. (On Netflix, atm, or do like me and own the DVD box!)

I also really like the BBS Television Production of Othello, with Bob Hoskin's playing Iago, my favorite "character" of all possible "characters," ever... Though, the movie starring Lawrence Fishburn (Othello) with Kenneth Bragnaugh (Iago) is worth watching, too.

The point here is that it is sometimes difficult for young readers to grasp the finer points of a production or even a story. Will they "feel" Iago's sense of betrayal and jealousy if they just read "Iago - I feel jealous and betrayed" ? But, if they see Iago on "the stage" in one of his wonderful soliloquies... Well, then, a good actor can make them feel those things. A good actor can, using Shakepseare's artistry, evoke those feelings from an audience in no less a spectacular manner than a symphony.

I encounter these kids after they've finished secondary school, and their level of literary knowledge is universally poor, even for the better ones.

Then, assign them a book to read... Let them pick it, if you must. And, when they ask "But why" you can point right at their puzzled faces and say "That! That is "why!"" The dumb ones won't understand, so you'll know right off the bat who isn't worthy of your best efforts.

I assume there's some specific reason they chose to use "It" for their course materials, and only the people who assigned the curriculum can tell you what that is. Tolkien is probably not a great choice for teaching literature--it's very much of its time, so there are no independent female characters, most of the backstory is transmitted via an absolutely enormous infodump early in the first book, and so on. If you were teaching a course in how to write literature Tolkien would probably be on the "Don't do any of this!" list.

The teacher probably thought that since "IT" was topical and "modern," and all kids love "modern" 'cause... Heck, I dunno, "reasons." And, with their enthusiasm for their "bright idea" they convinced whoever approves the equivalent of Lesson Plans there.

"They'll want to read this, for sure!"

"Timmy hollowed out the book in shop class and made an Arduino case out of it."

"Give him an "A" for his Computer Science and Shop Class, but an "F" in Lit."

Timmy will not be pursuing an undergrad degree in the Arts...

Tolkien's work is the perfect example of an embellished tourist's pamphlet.

"The rock you are standing beside was once trod upon by the mighty and mightily armored, foot of Huibiliogythulia'loli'aura'gut'an, the Mighty Warrior Chief of Cylibimbolzolizunimeniommur, the fabled city of the Lords of the Branklifyylunch Elves, who fought valiantly against the Evil Lord Gauthorimorgothlkelor during the Third-and-a-Half War of the Finding of the Thing That Did the Thing.

It has little regard for you. It is a rock."

[mrbadger]

I assume there's some specific reason they chose to use "It" for their course materials, and only the people who assigned the curriculum can tell you what that is. Tolkien is probably not a great choice for teaching literature--it's very much of its time, so there are no independent female characters, most of the backstory is transmitted via an absolutely enormous infodump early in the first book, and so on. If you were teaching a course in how to write literature Tolkien would probably be on the "Don't do any of this!" list.

I wouldn't know why they chose "It", possibly because of the film. Apparently they have covered Of Mice and Men too, I asked her today. Some things just don't change.

I'm wrong though, she has read two post 1914 UK authors at school, although she hasn't been at all interested by them, so it hasn't been taught well. It took several attempts to get a list of books out of her. Pleasure in reading has not been acheived.

Only the one Shakespeare play however. The other may have been considered dealt with by the movie.

I agree that movies can be a good way of showcasing plays if done well, but not as the only way of doing it in school. That will only promote surface learning

Secondary School teachers don't design classes too much any more, they have a little freedom, but not much, the National Curriculum lays down the national policy, and regional exam boards specify content that must be taught. Schools buy complete lesson plans and the teachers follow them, the less good ones allowing no deviation for fear of dropping down our infamous league table of schools. It must be so demoralising.

They miss the point that the schools at the top allow their teachers complete freedom in the classroom, asking only that the final requirements be met.

I can't understand how "It" fits in to that, so it might be one teacher expressing a little individuality in an otherwise restrictive environment. There could be better choices.

!!!! My brain just exploded!

A "Modern Day Chaucer!"

There has to be one, right? Surely someone wrote something that parallels it, right? Think of the possibilities! A bunch of people on a train? Plane? Maybe immigrants on a ship or a bunch of hippies walking to some stinky hippy-fest thing? THERE MUST ALREADY BE ONE, SURELY?

If there is I'm unaware. My knowledge of conventional literature is sadly lacking. I'm working to correct this at the moment, and chastising myself for missing out on such great works for so long.

Still, if there is a modern Chaucer they are making films or writing songs, not writing books.

Then, assign them a book to read... Let them pick it, if you must. And, when they ask "But why" you can point right at their puzzled faces and say "That! That is "why!"" The dumb ones won't understand, so you'll know right off the bat who isn't worthy of your best efforts.

I did in one year, a non fiction paperback the cathedral and the bazaar

As far as I'm aware only about ten of sixty students even looked at it. Two discussed it in class, and the discussion was interesting. After such an expensive faliure I went to providing a link to the free version.

It's in my coursework that they have to refer to it, but I'm under no illusion that most students do any more than google for summaries.

[Bishop149]

What I remember studying at school in English (in the UK), perhaps rather old school as we stuck exclusively to the "classics". As an adult I met an English teacher who was giving her kids "The Wasp Factory" to read and was struck by an immediate jealousy in relation to my rather stodgy English literature education in which I recall:

Shakespeare - Obviously, and admittedly very good. But needs to be taught in the format it was meant for: the stage. Teaching them with written material only entirely misses the point.
Lord of the Flies - William Golding went to my school so . . . . but its a decent choice.
My Family and other Animals - I remember very little about it.
To Kill and Mockingbird - The only US authored book, and definitely solid choice.

So not much American in there, but as an adult I have chosen to read several "classics" of American literature.
- Moby Dick
- Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
- The Great Gatsby
- The Catcher in the Rye
And I've found them all insufferably dull, the choice my school gave me was by FAR the best of the bunch.

[mrbadger]

The Catcher in the Rye was banned in lots of parts of the US. Not sure why.

They do love to ban books.

I agree about the not using Shakespeare to teach literature. They are plays to be enjoyed. Take kids to see them. Hold forums to discuss them, anything but make them read them.

But the people deciding policy on such matters mostly went to public schools. They don't get it.

I had a friend once who whenever he had a little to drink and the mood took him, would complain at lengh about the many faults (as he perceived them) of Thomas Hardy and Chaucer. And the evils of forcing them on unprepared children who just wanted to read comics.

One might argue the relative merits of comics. Is any reading valuable, or only certain forms of reading. I read comics avidly and felt no dulling of my intelect. My vocabulary is expansive. Possibly not as much as had I read Dickens as a child, but in my case I was never introduced to Dickens at school.

I have always disliked Thomas Hardy. His books universally bored me from the first few pages.

[Morkonan]

...I can't understand how "It" fits in to that, so it might be one teacher expressing a little individuality in an otherwise restrictive environment. There could be better choices.

I bet you're right. There's probably a list of suitable selections. That list may be of largely contemporary works, to help pique the student's interest. "IT" is a bad choice, though. There are plenty of better contemporary choices, I'm sure. What is needed at that level is something that has more directly demonstrable examples of literary techniques.

But... "Literature" is, one supposes, just another word for "stuff made by writing words" as long as it's not in an entirely other genre, like lyrics, poetry, playwriting/scripts, essays, etc..

So, I went hunting and found this wonderful essay: Harper's - What is literature.

I think I've been illuminated a little bit. (Just an itch on my brain, probably.) I can visualize someone applying some of the ideas presented in this essay to "IT." As someone who is not a Lit teacher with students depending upon them for their knowledge, I find it a bit of a daunting task to take "IT" and use it as an example. It's just not... that important of a work. It's a great story, but I can't see it as true "Literature." A reading experience, to be sure, and possibly entertaining if not instructive, but not "Literature." Still, I now see how it could maybe be possible to use it... briefly.

Still, if there is a modern Chaucer they are making films or writing songs, not writing books.

There might be! I did a brief search and didn't find anything directly referenced as such, but then "Thieve's World" came to mind. It's a collaborative setting, with great authors taking their characters through it during a shared timeline. One of my favorite series, to be sure. The similarity is that there is a wide variety of very unique characters and each of their portions are focused on their viewpoint, sometimes with interaction with others, but most often just "their own story." And, since it's a shared setting, much like Canterbury Tales, it meets the mark for similarity.

...I did in one year, a non fiction paperback the cathedral and the bazaar

As far as I'm aware only about ten of sixty students even looked at it. Two discussed it in class, and the discussion was interesting. After such an expensive faliure I went to providing a link to the free version.

It's in my coursework that they have to refer to it, but I'm under no illusion that most students do any more than google for summaries.

Good for you! I can see that book/essay being an important one. Though, I wonder if they get exposed to the more broad aspects of their chosen line of study. Coding is "important" and one person's revolution in that can have a world-wide impact, considering how quickly such a thing can be translated, used, exploited, built upon, etc.. Would some more popular titles and essays bring to them something they may overlook in their normal course of study? I don't mean things formally assigned, but perhaps a "suggested reading" list that they might independently pursue. Or, perhaps, some list offered up as "extra credit?" Or, maybe you put an SSD drive on the desk and tell them that the student that submits the best review of one of the "suggested reading" list books wins it at the end of the course period? Give 'em a list of twenty books with technical, cultural and social relevance involving general computer-science subjects and see what happens. One student may decide to produce "the next great thing" inspired by one of those books. Or, not...

One might argue the relative merits of comics. Is any reading valuable, or only certain forms of reading. I read comics avidly and felt no dulling of my intelect. My vocabulary is expansive. Possibly not as much as had I read Dickens as a child, but in my case I was never introduced to Dickens at school.

Comics are great at demonstrating a person can be inspired by printed media. But, they're a combination of visual and written beasts and the "writing" part isn't really that great. The "art" is what is always lauded in comics, as it should be. Comics can be a precursor to deeper and more intellectually significant experiences, IMO.

Manga and anime worry me, to be honest, when fans insist on their appropriate substitution for... "reading."

"I read manga and anime!"
"No. You consume it. You experience something from it. But, it ain't "reading."

<prepares to be assaulted, constructs his bastion solely from stacks of books, confident in his security due to the enemy's inability to comprehend his defenses, but all in good spirit, since he is willing to reward assailants with suitable praise for their efforts>