Set texts at school

[MillyR]

Sorry that this is a bit of a thread about a thread, but in education there is a thread discussing Of Mice and Men still being a set text at GCSE. Nobody has mentioned in that thread that it is a book about a man killing a woman. As Steinbeck wrote:

She is 'not a person, she's a symbol. She has no function, except to be a foil ? and a danger to Lennie.'

This is in addition to 'Atonement' and "To Kill A Mocking Bird' both being set texts. In both of these a woman makes false accusations about who is the rapist. So in all three books a woman is harmed but we are pushed towards sympathising with a male character.

I am just wondering if this has a bit of an impact. When I was at school we did 'The Color Purple' and it had a major impact on me. I know these books must be looked at critically in schools, but criticising the books doesn't really cancel out the impact of the stories. Of Mice and Men is particularly sentimental and melodramatic so designed to move the reader to care about the killer.

Did anybody study these books at school, or teach them?

Oh, sure. I don't disagree, I just think this is a massive complex issue and I was picking at one little bit of it.

I would say, though - from my limited perspective of teenage boys, the ones I know seem often to be quite capable of reading and writing plenty if it's in the right context - try getting them to stop chatting online with their mates. But how to translate it into another context?

Anyway, I'll shut up for I have now very thoroughly illustrated !FeminismFail101, turning a thread about girls into an issue about boys.

I don't think it is a fail because many people on here will be parents as well as feminists, and we will want to bring boys and girls up with less gender stereotyping. Getting rid of the gender stereotypes around boys is also important; it can't all be about changing girls. I think the issue around new media applies just as much to girls as to boys. The rise of fanfiction is a female literary response to film (and books as well), and gives girls a way of subverting texts. The feedback to that activity has been swift in the way tv programmes are made, but not in books, perhaps because of the immediacy of tv shows, while books are less temporary.

Er, loads of kids read. Loads.

Yes, who suggested otherwise? But the number of children who read has declined, as has the frequency of reading.

One of the things that struck me about the list of books in your OP Milly is that they are exactly the same books that I studied for O'level over a quarter of a century ago. And the issues that you brought up are the same ones I thought about (but only partially raised, and that feebly) when I was a student.

If that's supposed to be post 1914 fiction why on earth is it all from the first quarter of that time period (and two books about early 20th century America )? Is there nothing newer that might better reflect the lives and relationships we have now? Not to mention - has 25 more years of feminism really done absolutely nothing to impact the discussion of rape and domestic violence in the class room? :(

I studied Charlotte Perkins Gillman and Sylvia Plath at school.

In fact there was an audible groan as another 'feminist' text was plonked on the desk - not just from the boys

"has 25 more years of feminism really done absolutely nothing to impact the discussion of rape and domestic violence in the class room?"

I'm sure the discussions are fascinating and very different to the sort of discussion (although there wouldn't be any) of these issues on 1965 when violence against women was a cultural norm.

I think these texts when discussed in context can show children how some attitudes have changed (and how some haven't changed enough)

That must have been weird for you, NT, being one of the few people interested in feminism in a room full of people who weren't interested in it.

Our English dept (run by a man) was very progressive on feminism and on race issues.

But I think the boys were a bit fed up with 'wimmin's issues' and for some of the girls it wasn't cool to be seen disagreeing with the boys.

I'm not sure the feminism talked about in the classroom translated to the playground.

And I would not have identified as a feminist at 15. Or even 20. But I am grateful to my teachers now. Teachers are brilliant sometimes.

NT they weren't that fascinating in the 80's either. My school was supposed to be v. progressive and feministy. Most of our English teachers would have called themselves feminists I think, but they were still apparently blindsided that I could think Lenny was better dead if he was unable to stop himself from killing women. We were supposed to take the line that he was some kind of gentle() giant who was unfortunate and misunderstood but I just thought he was a scary brute who was unable to tell the difference between a woman and a rabbit.

I also recall someone making the case that Mayella in To Kill a mocking Bird might not have been making it up. An argument along the lines of - just because she came on to him, liked him, etc. doesn't mean she consented to sex (my memory is fuzzy though, it was a long time ago) - hardly revolutionary for feminists you would have thought, but it wasn't even considered a reasonable suggestion, because, well, she came on to him.

Sorry about the rant. Maybe I shouldn't have started this - my English lit O'Level completely put me off studying literature even though I loved reading - really annoys me to think back on it now.