While I would agree with you in general about these authors (although maybe quibble about whether Bradbury and Vonnegut should trade places ) I do think that once you take the best of their work, you have a more even playing field (ie, Vonnegut might have more literary stories, but the best works by King will still be classics, at least within the genre.)

I personally don't think King is the best writer around, but I still think he's an important writer in modern horror and will be seen as a major influence on American culture years from now (and studied as such). I also think some of his stories have literary value and will be on 12th grade reading lists--especially in schools large enough to have specialized English classes (say, a survey of modern lit, or survey of spec. fiction).

tasha
p.s.--sorry Al Infinitum if you thought my post was dismissive in a disrespectful sense (didn't know what meaning you gave "dismissive" there). I was just heartily disagreeing with you. :P

Just to entertain myself:

"Grammar" is one of those words that keeps me honest. Obviously, I never spell check my posts, for the same reason that I try to do math in my head whenever possible. Unfortunately, I run into mistakes far more frequently in my writing than I do in my math. It would have been funnier if I'd misspelled "vocabulary," but we'll have to make due.

tasha1

No offense taken. Generally, the best way to deal with me is by dismissing me. If I get too much attention, my posts become even more obnoxious than those you've read to this point.

I think reading any book helps someone develop as a reader. Although they might not be reading what others consider quality, they are still doing something that exercises their mind.

Quote:

I could easily write a novel about Jack the Ripper, but the simple fact that the subject matter is mature does not mean it should be taught in a High School class - I'm a terrible writer.

I can't comment on this one as I don't know you that well.

I assume you were speaking about symbolism, among other things, when you wrote this. If so, I partly agree with this statement. Certainly both Flies and Mice can be comprehended on multiple levels, but so can The Stand.

If you have ever read The Stand you would find a whole mess of symbolism in the book. I.E. Flagg as pure evil and Abagail as pure good.

After taking numerous English and Creative Writing courses in college (many years ago ), one thing I remember is you can find symbolism in just about anything that is written down. All you need is your imagination or a good discussion group.

I think sometimes double meanings/symbolism/etc. are found in books when they were never intended to be there. It's subjective to the reader.

-Steve

Any fresh insights from our newer readers?

Or additions from those who were here originally?

I've argued here before that there are only a handful of good movies made in any given year, and the rest are pretty much junk. If you want to watch good movies, you can't simply watch this year's releases. A handful of good movies every year for a century makes a substatial number, but you have to watch older movies. The people who won't watch movies from before 1980 are missing most enjoyable movies.

In this discussion, we have 3000 years of literature to choose from. I thought the English translation of Caesar's Commentaries on the Gaelic wars was fascinating, Lysistrata was a hoot, and Gawain and the Green Knight was exciting. Sophocles is still read 2500 years later because he has something to offer us, not because all those generations of schoolteachers are requiring it.

Also, lot of literature is assigned in schools for didactic reasons. Lord of the Flies teaches kids that they're barbarians. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar teaches kids that the mob is stupid and easily swayed. The Scarlet Letter teaches kids that standing up to society is punished, and hypocricy is rewarded, even if life shouldn't be that way. Ivanhoe teaches kids that you might be intelligent, courageous, and faithful, but the hero might still marry the dumb blonde because society won't let him marry a Jew. It's not that much different than teaching The Rake's Progress.

I think the reason the "classics" remain the same in most teaching curriculems is that teachers want you to have to suffer through the same boredom that they had to suffer through. Why should you get to read something written in the last 20 years if they had to settle for early 20th century fiction?

Mostly I think they have to have books that the quasi intellectuals of the world can pick apart for all the hidden meanings and sub plots. Not that they are neccessarily there, but because scholars over the years have told us they were there.

So, in your opinion, teachers have no higher aim than to inflict boredom. I have a poor opinion of public schools in general, but I hope that they're better than that.

Generally, the books assigned to high school students have pretty clear subplots and hidden meanings. I doubt that there's any question if they're actually there. People need to be taught to recognize them, like anything else. Whether they ever use that knowledge in the future is up to them. I know people who never read anything more sophisticated than series romances, and they have no use for subtleness. But it is the job of educators to give people the tools, should they ever want to use them.

Why would books written in the last 20 years be better than books from the early 20th century? What would you choose for your book list?

If the book is about a dystopian society it is generally considered a 'classic' by most professors and teachers.