Banning books is a really bad idea

[Valka D'Ur]

Didn't know that! And I really appreciate these occasional little hidden observations on out popular culture, that some people drop here
Bonanza was big back then. Interesting to see their authors got something from Shakespeare, I hadn't noticed!

I found the episode! There are years' worth of Bonanza episodes on YouTube.

Anyway, here is Bonanza's version of The Taming of the Shrew:

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes, real censorship occurs all the time in US schools without the WSJ taking any notice, but let a teacher or a school board decide the curriculum won't include some DWM and its an outrage.

DWM?

 

[Patine]

DWM?

Overseas money from German railcar-making barons shaping the American curriculum? A scandal in the making...

 

[AmazonQueen]

DWM?

Dead white male.

 

[Patine]

Dead white male.

Ah. Back to bloc, stereotyped, demographic thinking. One of the most toxic elements SHARED by BOTH Social Conservative and Far-Right-Wing and modern Progressive movements that the world would be far better off purged of entirely. Glad to know I can just dismiss it as such rhetorical poison with no productive value to the argument.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's dumb enough to just ignore, Patine.

 

[Berzerker]

Bonanza did an episode in which Adam was asked to "civilize" a fiery-tempered woman so she would be more appealing to the man she was supposed to marry.

I vaguely remember that episode. Did she fail and the man she was to marry liked her fiery temper?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I vaguely remember that episode. Did she fail and the man she was to marry liked her fiery temper?

She didn't fail, and the twist of the episode was that her husband-to-be preferred her with a fiery temper.

But there's a difference between fiery and obnoxious.

 

[Bugfatty300]

What about Shakespeare is so important to any 'culture' that it should be legally mandated to be taught?

...let's start with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare's_influence

So everyone with a peripheral wiki page must be mandated by law to be included in US public school curriculum? Or is there something in particular in that link that you believe must carry legal consequences if teachers don't cover it? Like something demonstrably harmful?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So everyone with a peripheral wiki page must be mandated by law to be included in US public school curriculum? Or is there something in particular in that link that you believe must carry legal consequences if teachers don't cover it? Like something demonstrably harmful?

Is there something demonstrably harmful if teachers do cover it?

 

[Ajidica]

Is there something demonstrably harmful if teachers do cover it?

Choosing to teach Shakespeare means the teacher (or rather, the curriculum) is choosing to not teach something else.
I certainly gained a far greater appreciation of the written word from reading A Canticle for Leibowitz than listening to some bored high schoolers read individual lines aloud from King Lear.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Choosing to teach Shakespeare means the teacher (or rather, the curriculum) is choosing to not teach something else.
I certainly gained a far greater appreciation of the written word from reading A Canticle for Leibowitz than listening to some bored high schoolers read individual lines aloud from King Lear.

Canticle for Leibowitz wasn't on my class reading list. We were assigned a different dystopian/post-apocalypse novel. To this day I haven't read that book, though I have a copy in my personal library.

And as mentioned, Shakespeare was meant to be seen, not read. If the class doesn't have access to any local stage productions, there are some decent movies that were made over the years of some of them.

The curriculum in my high school (part of the larger provincial public school curriculum) would have required the teachers to teach one Shakespeare play each year (teacher's choice from a shortlist), and one or more novels (again, from a list). I don't know why the Grade 12 English classes had to read such depressing stuff - between English and Social Studies that year, it was all to do with death, World War I, World War III, and post-WWIII (yes, I got the numerals right). We didn't cover WWII in Grade 12, or at least my class didn't.

 

[Patine]

Canticle for Leibowitz wasn't on my class reading list. We were assigned a different dystopian/post-apocalypse novel. To this day I haven't read that book, though I have a copy in my personal library.

And as mentioned, Shakespeare was meant to be seen, not read. If the class doesn't have access to any local stage productions, there are some decent movies that were made over the years of some of them.

The curriculum in my high school (part of the larger provincial public school curriculum) would have required the teachers to teach one Shakespeare play each year (teacher's choice from a shortlist), and one or more novels (again, from a list). I don't know why the Grade 12 English classes had to read such depressing stuff - between English and Social Studies that year, it was all to do with death, World War I, World War III, and post-WWIII (yes, I got the numerals right). We didn't cover WWII in Grade 12, or at least my class didn't.

In Grade 12, we had to do "Death of a Salesman." I hated that play! Every single character except the title character's successful, but deceased, and never formally seen except as a memory and a hallucinatory phantom, "Ben," was a whining, irritating loser...

 

[innonimatu]

Canticle for Leibowitz wasn't on my class reading list. We were assigned a different dystopian/post-apocalypse novel. To this day I haven't read that book, though I have a copy in my personal library.

And as mentioned, Shakespeare was meant to be seen, not read. If the class doesn't have access to any local stage productions, there are some decent movies that were made over the years of some of them.

It's worth reading. And - relevant to the discussion - when I read it I got this 1960s/70s vibe from it. Like it was a book that could not have been written in another time period, because people were concerned with those issues (civilization destroying itself, looking into spirituality for a possible salvation from war, pessimism). Are is very much a document of its time and place. Which is why banning old works is complete folly! It reduced the exposure to this diversity that is necessary for good critical thinking and indeed socialization in out very enlarged world.

The only hope of answering those 70s fears of self-destruction positively is learning to live with others peacefully, by understanding different worldviews and being able to negotiate mutual understanding. There is no escape into the stars, not for states not for mystics or for billionaires. Human civilization needs proper education to endure, with all the power for destruction it has unlocked. The very worst thing that can be done is pushing people to live in group bubbles mutually incapable of understanding each other because it's "uncomfortable" or "irrelevant" to learn different views. This is why I am so opposed to the idea that is criticized in this thread, that it would be good and proper to ban teaching older books because... whatever.

 

[Gorbles]

"because... whatever" suggests you haven't actually read the posts properly. I understand, because it's exactly the kind of thing you're fearing in your post. It's uncomfortable to consider this different view; that there is worth in looking at books from different times. It's uncomfortable to consider the impact on time on the definition of a "classic", because it means things are no longer as they were when you were younger.

Teaching has to reflect the times. Teachers can do this however they see fit. They don't have to restrict older material. They can choose to. It's up to them. And there's no "banning" of anything, because these books still exist, often even in school libraries!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

In Grade 12, we had to do "Death of a Salesman." I hated that play! Every single character except the title character's successful, but deceased, and never formally seen except as a memory and a hallucinatory phantom, "Ben," was a whining, irritating loser...

Yeah, that's a depressing play.

I'm trying to remember if we actually did any plays in high school that weren't utterly depressing, and coming up with "zero."

Thank goodness I got involved in musical theatre and my first live Shakespeare play was a comedy.

It's worth reading. And - relevant to the discussion - when I read it I got this 1960s/70s vibe from it. Like it was a book that could not have been written in another time period, because people were concerned with those issues (civilization destroying itself, looking into spirituality for a possible salvation from war, pessimism). Are is very much a document of its time and place. Which is why banning old works is complete folly! It reduced the exposure to this diversity that is necessary for good critical thinking and indeed socialization in out very enlarged world.

The only hope of answering those 70s fears of self-destruction positively is learning to live with others peacefully, by understanding different worldviews and being able to negotiate mutual understanding. There is no escape into the stars, not for states not for mystics or for billionaires. Human civilization needs proper education to endure, with all the power for destruction it has unlocked. The very worst thing that can be done is pushing people to live in group bubbles mutually incapable of understanding each other because it's "uncomfortable" or "irrelevant" to learn different views. This is why I am so opposed to the idea that is criticized in this thread, that it would be good and proper to ban teaching older books because... whatever.

Yep. Something I've noticed as the years go by is that there seems to be an attitude that the world of the Cold War and pre-internet is something that's no longer relevant, that it's hopelessly old-fashioned and should be discarded.

Some of those post-apocalypse stories scared the hell out of me because considering some of the things going on at the time and how easy it would be to make a mistake (ie. a flock of birds for a missile), things could get very bad, very fast.

"because... whatever" suggests you haven't actually read the posts properly. I understand, because it's exactly the kind of thing you're fearing in your post. It's uncomfortable to consider this different view; that there is worth in looking at books from different times. It's uncomfortable to consider the impact on time on the definition of a "classic", because it means things are no longer as they were when you were younger.

Teaching has to reflect the times. Teachers can do this however they see fit. They don't have to restrict older material. They can choose to. It's up to them. And there's no "banning" of anything, because these books still exist, often even in school libraries!

I suggest that you're the one not reading the posts properly. I've already pointed out that if teachers don't expose the kids to certain books (due to their own prejudices against particular authors or themes or genres), the kids may not ever have a reason to seek out the books on their own.

It's not a ban in the strictest sense, but it's certainly not any good-faith attempt to show kids a wider variety of literature.

 

[Gorbles]

I suggest that you're the one not reading the posts properly. I've already pointed out that if teachers don't expose the kids to certain books (due to their own prejudices against particular authors or themes or genres), the kids may not ever have a reason to seek out the books on their own.

It's not a ban in the strictest sense, but it's certainly not any good-faith attempt to show kids a wider variety of literature.

I was responding specifically to inno's argument, which I read. Yours is another argument, which we had plenty of back and forth over.

Anyhow, your argument here. You're assuming that because children aren't exposed to certain literature that they won't go looking for it. That's exactly what I said earlier in the thread. The difference is the choice of books, is all.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I was responding specifically to inno's argument, which I read. Yours is another argument, which we had plenty of back and forth over.

Anyhow, your argument here. You're assuming that because children aren't exposed to certain literature that they won't go looking for it. That's exactly what I said earlier in the thread. The difference is the choice of books, is all.

Moreso, if they're not exposed to it, they won't know it even exists to be looked for.

Mind you, sometimes kids do run across stuff themselves. Or their parents might encourage them.

When I recall how I got where I am today in terms of interests and reading choices, it's actually a case of "if that one incident hadn't happened, my life would be totally different today."

 

[Gorbles]

Moreso, if they're not exposed to it, they won't know it even exists to be looked for.

Mind you, sometimes kids do run across stuff themselves. Or their parents might encourage them.

When I recall how I got where I am today in terms of interests and reading choices, it's actually a case of "if that one incident hadn't happened, my life would be totally different today."

I mean, this is where the argument of famous authors (and playwrights) works against your criticism, but in favour of mine. We're both suggesting that children should be exposed to a range of authors and literary works. However they're more likely to have heard of Shakespeare, or even Dickens (especially in the UK), than any number of excellent but less-mythologised authors in the decades (and centuries) since.

The argument about "banning" is fiction, right? It never happened. We're discussing the relative worth of literary works in education, and I'm trying to point out that you can provide a number of alternative choices that will give children as good a grounding as they're currently getting.

And this is without pointing out the real dangers to education, which I'm sure you'll agree with (relatively uncontroversial, haha) - the ongoing lack of support for teachers, through lack of funding, outright obstruction, and other methods. It seems international at this point - though I don't know what it's like in Canada. My frame of reference is the US and UK.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Moreso, if they're not exposed to it, they won't know it even exists to be looked for.

Mind you, sometimes kids do run across stuff themselves. Or their parents might encourage them.

When I recall how I got where I am today in terms of interests and reading choices, it's actually a case of "if that one incident hadn't happened, my life would be totally different today."

A mandated reading list concentrating on "classics" is only going to narrow the range of literature children are exposed to, not widen it.