Why the fascination with those three texts? There's more to read out there!

Well, it was a very busy/sort of chaotic Monday, but we all landed on our feet (I think). That said, how about a quiet(ish) Tuesday?

One thing I've been seeing over and over again in the AP Lit Facebook group is a real penchant for three pieces of literature, specifically. Frankenstein, Hamlet, and "The Yellow Wallpaper." I'm puzzled. Since I'm new at the AP thing, why those three things? And why do people spend a gazillion days/weeks on things that should take up maybe a week? Either I'm really going to suck at this, or maybe I'll be fine because what I've been doing for almost four decades seems to work. We'll see. 

I'm not knocking any of those works of literature, anyhow. They are all good to read/discuss. But there's a real magnetic pull (or so it seems) to these. For my two cents' worth, I will not read Hamlet with high school kids. They don't have the life experience to bring to the text, so it becomes entirely academic-- which is a huge disservice to the play. I'd much rather do the ones I focus on: Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Henry V, The Tempest, Twelfth Night, Much Ado About Nothing, Othello (on occasion)-- there are some plays that have plotlines that really appeal to kids, and the experiences they have already had in their lives (betrayal, manipulation, honor, mistaken identity, etc.) can help them understand the complexity of the characters and their relationship to the situation and each other. 

Hamlet is too deep, too introspective, too dependent on an understanding of the dark side of familial duty for kids-- at least, that's how I have seen it, the few times I tried to teach it. And for the record, I'm happy to let the freshmen do Romeo and Juliet-- it's not one of my favorites at all. And for heaven's sake-- why do people do Midsummer Night's Dream with younger students? Seriously? Weaponized adultery and oblique bestiality... yeah, I don't want to go there. And to gloss over that stuff is to purposely misread the play. So there is that, too. And never mind the failed attempt at King Lear I went through my first year of teaching...

I have my favorite texts that are anchors, ones that work pretty well, regardless of the group, things like Their Eyes Were Watching God, Hard Times, Recitatif, Frederick Douglass' slave narrative--I'll stick with those. As I see it, it's not the text that matters, it's the close reading and critical analysis skills, and the connections that can be made between and among works of literature that we are hoping to foster. Maybe I'm missing the mark with the whole AP almost-cultish worship of specific texts, but I am pretty sure I'm not wrong. We'll find out, won't we? I figure, if the kids hate, hate, hate the books/plays/stories we choose for them, then they won't learn what we are hoping they do, regardless of how much time we spend beating the snot out of a book. 

Last year, I had a tiny creative writing class, and they loved reading The Iliad- we did it aloud- and they loved the Headley version of Beowulf- also aloud- and this year, we are going to do Gilgamesh and The Odyssey. I chose texts for the kids I knew were going to sign up; and this is pretty much what I do for my other classes, too. Granted, we have a small school, and I know the kids I'm getting pretty well. But still, if a book doesn't look like it'll be a good fit, then I switch it out. I'm always going to focus on the kids first, the texts second-- and I think that's what bothers me the most about this fixation people seem to have on the texts I mentioned at the start. No matter how many monster sculptures, character games, illustrated this and thats you do-- if the book doesn't sell, then they won't buy it. And then, they won't learn it. 

Okay, end teacher rant. I hope your day is a good one. Hug your favorite people super tight. 

C