In a message dated 11/28/2000 7:51:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< My views are not outdated, they are correct. >>

There goes that chasm again.  Not lots of room for discussion.

How do you distinguish between multicultural "trash" and "lit-ra-chure"?
(Just curious - do you view _Huck Finn_ as a classic or an antecedent to the
"Ebonics" literature you were castigating?)

If my kids won't read _Lord of the Flies_, but will read _Scorpions_ (Walter
Dean Myers), do I do them any service by making them read LOF because it's a
classic?  The themes in both books are similar, and the setting and dialogue
in _Scorpions_ are more familiar to most students today than LOF.  It seems
to me that by forcing the classic-for-classic's-sake on them that all I have
done is taught them that English Lit is obscure and boring, and that books
should be avoided at all costs.  (AND this message is getting across - some
studies show numbers as high as 70% NEVER willingly read a book after
finishing school.)

It seems to me that you are arguing in favor of going back to the traditional
canon, as if English lit has been frozen and only those works that have been
marinated in time are worthy.  This ignores the fact that language and
literature evolve.  You can't stop it by calling the voices from other
cultures "trash."    Gary Soto's stories about growing up in Fresno are just
as valid as Charles Dicken's tales of growing up in Victorian England.  To my
kids here in San Jose, they are a lot MORE valid.  And with a lot of
scaffolding, one may lead to a reading of the other.

The important thing I do with literature is to hook my kids on reading.
Practice is hugely important in developing literacy.  The more they read, the
more experience they bring to each book, and the better they get at it.  They
are willing to take risks on "harder" books. They also need to learn from
books, and for that they need to connect to them.  Some can connect to the
hero's quest in Beowulf; others need Star Wars - but the end result of both
is, with luck, a life examined.  Connections are made, and a young adult's
world view is altered.

Setting literature up as an either/or (multicultural vs. classics) argument
is faulty logic. Personally I think the approach taken by Joan Kaywell in her
series _Adolescent Literature as a Complement to the Classics_ is the best of
all worlds.  While your kids read _Julius Caesar_, they also read _Killing
Mr. Griffin_ or _Downriver_ to help them relate to the classic themes in
Shakespeare.  Kids apply the insights they get from accessible novels to
those that would otherwise be obscure or "boring."  Once they start making
the connections, they get excited and become self-motivated.  That's how you
make lifelong readers.

Gretchen in San Jose
[log in to unmask]

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/