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 My views are not outdated, they are correct.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/