Gove kills the mockingbird with ban on US classic novels ...what do you think?

[mrz]

www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1414764.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_05_24

I didn't like Of Mice and Men at school but after reading some of your comments I might give it another go.

Confession: I've managed to do an English Literature GCSE, A Level and degree, only reading three Dickens novels. I don't think that's right. Although I've also only ever read one Austen, and I don't have a problem with that. :o

So you could argue that the English syllabus has been wrong for 20 years...

Strawberry- you can't know rape was lied about unless you were actually there.

Rapists don't have horns you know.

Even if you take the view that Mayella was coerced into lying that still perpetuates the rape myth.

What about court cases where the defence argues that the victim was coerced into lying about rape by a friend/partner/father?

These rapists go free because people believe these myths.

MN had a 'we believe you' campaign to highlight these issues ffs!

English Lit is meant to study how a book is written, not the context or the story - TKAM is not well written, although is a good book.

I suspect if Gove lived in the Southern States 70 years ago he'd have been a paid up member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Oh what a giant idiot the man is. What about all the other writers in English, are kids going to miss out on them to - Indian, Canadian, etc.?

By the same token no one else should be allowed to study Shakespeare, so I hope he's making sure that happens

weatherall [sigh] I've started a post about 10 times ready to argue your logic and I just. can't. be. arsed.

Ha! I have an English degree and I've only read one Dickens novel - Great Expectations. I've read Mansfield Park but no other Austen because that was the most depressing waste of time ever and it made me rage as a feminist. I have a fondness for 20th C sci-fi (Orwell, Huxley, Atwood etc), feminist literature (Atwood is my fave), kitchen sink dramas and post colonial novels and American Literature.

I have to say when I read the Dickens novel at college we had a fabulous teacher who broke it down into chunks and we read it as it would originally have been published (ie serialised with gaps until the next edition was published in a magazine). I LOVED it like that and found it much funnier and entertaining than when I'd had to plough through the whole bastard thing at school. It was like a different book.

weatherall it's a novel. It is made up so nobody was there you numpty!

iK8, interesting concept!

Bleak House is my favourite Dickens (of the three) but my god it's loooong...

I have an English degree and TKAMB was my favourite out of all the books from o'level to degree that I studied.

Doesn't he realise kids need a mixture.

I realise my dc are younger but dson 10 is G&T at literacy and adores US literature.Wonder is his favourite book ever.Clearly his US heavy diet hasn't held him back.His twin loves Lord of the Rings,dragon and mythology type stuff that would bore my other son and I to tears.Dd 9 is a Goveite and loves the classics like The Secret Garden etc.

Surely courses need a variety to get the best out of and attract all students.

Ik8 read the thread - that was in response to strawberry's post about real life.

Please don't call me names.

Surely not having TKAM on the syllabus is only an issue if the books on the new syllabus are a bunch of arse?

People saying 'I don't like Austen so it shouldn't be on the syllabus' are basically the same as Gove apparently saying that he doesn't like Steinbeck.

It's not about your personal preferences but what kids will learn from studying the books. If the new books are of value, then what's the issue?

The Crucible should also be banned as it perpetuates the witch myth.

I don't think anyone has said Austen shouldn't be on there nobelgiraffe? I think the concern is that if we strip out lots of books that aren't of a particular type we end up with a lack of variety and it is that lack of variety that is the concern. It also happens that it is likely to be weighted towards 19th C novels.

Personally I think everyone should read at least one Austen, even if just to decide you don't like it much!

But noble I haven't read the article as I can't get in but from what the op said it's a whole genre and people do like different types of literature.

Did said article say why he's decided this?

Is there a lack of variety on the new syllabus? What is the new selection?

Also I go to a book group and we've discussed a huge breadth.You can learn and get amazing discussion from the least likely books.

Yes what is the new section?

Selection

Most of what I can see is 'omg he's got rid of X and I love X'. But if Y is equally good then there's no issue.

And the article posted above said there was still some international literature.

noblegiraffe regardless of actual texts studied do you believe limiting study to books written by pre 20thC English authors provides a good education in literacy?

even if there is a small token representation of international texts

From www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10855068/American-classics-axed-from-GSCE-syllabus-on-Goves-instruction.html:

Michael Gove’s intervention means three-quarters of the books on the government directed GCSEs, which will be unveiled this week, are by British authors and most are pre-20th century.

The exam board added: "In the new syllabus 70-80% of the books are from the English canon."

We'll have to see exactly what's on there but it certainly looks like lots of English 19th C novels. Which is a shame because even if you love them a diet purely of those types of books is quite limiting both in terms of style and criticism. Also if you consume enough of one thing it will eventually make you sick!

do you believe limiting study to books written by pre 20thC English authors

But without seeing the new selection is this actually true?

This is only at GCSE too, so nothing stopping schools studying Steinbeck earlier, presumably?