Gunslinger - for literature lessons

[Letti]

Altought the Gunslinger is not my favourite from the series (I do love it of course) if I were a literature teacher I am sure I would teach this book. Deeply. And not because this is the first part of the series so everyone should start here but this book is a complex and complete without the other books as well.
Someone told me King shouldn't have written all the series but the first book. Because it's so... literal. And perfect as it is.
There are so many open questions in it. I love open questions. I am sure if my studets read the book I would ask tons of questions from them to see how they see this book without the others.
I would let them fly.

Can you imagine anything like that? How would you teach it?

[Storyslinger]

The first question I would ask to someone who had only read The Gunslinger, is
"Why did Roland let th boy drop?""What might come from this?"

I wish it had been an assigned reading when I was in school. Great thread.

[Woofer]

What is the significance of Roland using the term "the boy" instead of Jake's name in his internal dialogs? How is this shown in his actions?

Why was Allie so attracted to Roland?

Why was Roland compelled to tell the story of Tull to Brown?

[Letti]

Great questions. It would be interesting to hear teeangers' opinion about them without the other books.

[Empath of the White]

Compare and contrast the characters of Roland and Walter, basically. From this you could go into white, black, and the shades of gray found in each character. Maybe ask your hypothetical students how they felt about the morality of the two.

[bandito0]

I gave this to a high school student in my study hall to read for a book review that his class does because he was struggling to find something to read. He fought with me because of the length of the book (kids today...), but he has been eating it up as of late.

Honestly, I would love to teach this book. I think I would struggle to get it approved unless I was reading with seniors, but it would be a blast to teach. I would love to hear the predictions they would make and opinions on important events and characters . Personally, I would try to read a lot of it in class, like a literature circle or something, especially the very intense/exciting parts. But, I only teach middle school. Maybe somewhere down the road I'll get a chance.

How heavily do you feel Tull weighs on Roland's conscious?
If you were in Roland's position, would you have dropped Jake?
Describe Jake and Roland's relationship, citing specific examples from the text.

[Letti]

And would you teach all the other books too or just the Gunslinger?

[bandito0]

As of right now, and depending on whether or not the series takes a nosedive (I'm halfway through WotC) I would love to in a perfect world. It would be cool to teach a series that stretches out this long and continues to be an absolute page turner (at least for me). Of course, I would need the right group of kids to do it. It would be a bummer to cut the kids off after reading only one book. I think a super unit centered around this series would be awesome. A lot of skills that students are unaware that writers possess would be shown.

In reality, no. Considering the state of American education right now with all the standardized testing, strict curriculum requirements, and the million other things that a teacher is now responsible for, there would be no possible way for me to do it and justify my choice of literature. Still, the Gunslinger would be an excellent book on its own to teach, and I think higher level literature students would love it.

[Letti]

Still, the Gunslinger would be an excellent book on its own to teach, and I think higher level literature students would love it.

I am really happy to see that we agree.

[Mark]

I'd love to study this in my lessons. Much better than anything that we would have to read. The fact that i'd read the whole series would just benefit me. Some of the questions you guys have posted, i'd love to write essays on.

[Letti]

Some of the questions you guys have posted, i'd love to write essays on.

Just do it. I would read them with pleasure. :rose:

[razz]

i wouldn't recommend it around my place. i go to the best school in the city, and most students there couldn't even spell "Gunslinger" if there was a 30 foot billboard right in front of them with the word written in 10 foot high block letters. also the fact that they're immature, in English reading aloud to get the chance to say "whore" or "ass" out loud. they couldn't handle a King book, let alone comprehend it's meanings.

[ManOfWesternesse]

....they couldn't handle a King book, let alone comprehend it's meanings.

Don't bet too much on it. We all came from somewhere to read and love this series. A good Book can catch the imagination of unexpected people I think.

[educatedlady]

I have actually thought about using this book in the classroom. Since I taught at the college level I was really tempted but I definitely think it is a book for upper level coursework and since I was only teaching freshmen it wasn't really going to work. If I ever get a job teaching upper level courses I will try to incorporate The Gunslinger. I think it would be much more interesting than some of the books that get read.

[razz]

....they couldn't handle a King book, let alone comprehend it's meanings.

Don't bet too much on it. We all came from somewhere to read and love this series. A good Book can catch the imagination of unexpected people I think.
just stating the facts in my corner of the world. to most around here, good literature is a web page about shoes, or the text message their friend just sent them.

[Brainslinger]

I remember when I was in the sixth form a kid asked to write on a Stephen King book in A level English. The teacher wouldn't allow it, didn't think it was the right material. I don't know which book the guy had in mind, but I imagine it probably wasn't the gunslinger.

I disagree though. I think many King books would be very suitable, The Gunslinger especially.

A level English was my favorite subject, but the books they made us study weren't that great. I.e. It brings to mind what Ted Brautigan tells the kid in Low Men in Yellow Coats, that some books have great language, others are good stories, some are both. Most of the books we did in A Level English were the first, analyzing the metaphors and similes was genuinely interesting. But they were pants stories. The only books that were any good were the novels I did for my Extended Essay, 2 Dickens novels Great Expectations and A Tale of two Cities, and I chose those myself.

It's a shame. I'm all for good language, and I think Schools should make an attempt to choose decent stories if possible. And King's books, would fit this well. Besides, it would encourage the kids to continue reading after they leave. I wouldn't be surprised if it were bad stories studied at school which put many kids off (although to be fair, bad is subjective.)

[John_and_Yoko]

I remember when I was in the sixth form a kid asked to write on a Stephen King book in A level English. The teacher wouldn't allow it, didn't think it was the right material. I don't know which book the guy had in mind, but I imagine it probably wasn't the gunslinger.

I disagree though. I think many King books would be very suitable, The Gunslinger especially.

A level English was my favorite subject, but the books they made us study weren't that great. I.e. It brings to mind what Ted Brautigan tells the kid in Low Men in Yellow Coats, that some books have great language, others are good stories, some are both. Most of the books we did in A Level English were the first, analyzing the metaphors and similes was genuinely interesting. But they were pants stories. The only books that were any good were the novels I did for my Extended Essay, 2 Dickens novels Great Expectations and A Tale of two Cities, and I chose those myself.

It's a shame. I'm all for good language, and I think Schools should make an attempt to choose decent stories if possible. And King's books, would fit this well. Besides, it would encourage the kids to continue reading after they leave. I wouldn't be surprised if it were bad stories studied at school which put many kids off (although to be fair, bad is subjective.)

I agree--I have to be honest, I'm in agreement with Orson Scott Card and others that Stephen King occupies a similar niche in the literary community to that which Shakespeare, Dickens, Poe, Twain, etc. occupied in their own times. It was only after the fact that they tended to be considered "great" literary masters and they're the names we remember today, rather than their "great" contemporaries.

Stephen King's works, in my opinion anyway, come closer than most writers I've read to creating "literature" in the sense that I could see people reading them a hundred years from now and teaching them in Literature classes--I've even imagined the idea of "Bowdlerized" Stephen King works in the future.

[LadyHitchhiker]

What was Zoltan's significance?

was it a mule or a horse?

[John_and_Yoko]

What was Zoltan's significance?

was it a mule or a horse?

Um...Zoltan was a raven, if I recall--unless you meant those to be two separate questions, unrelated to each other....

If so, then: 1) I don't know, and 2) I don't remember.

Sorry to have wasted your time.... :blush:

[Brainslinger]

What was Zoltan's significance?

That would be an interesting essay subject. Especially if it were expanded to include that entire scene in Brown's hut. Each time I read it, I wonder if there is more significance than simply an excuse for Roland to tell the story of Tull. It turns out not to be the trap that Roland suspected, but there is always that sense of surreality, in an apparently simple situation (couple of guys in a hut smoking and talking), something other.

Wizard and Glass spoilers:
Marry that with what we find out about Brown in later books too, and it becomes all the more intriguing. Roland is ultimately confessing to a man who was partly responsible for a terrible wrong in Roland's own past. (Although I don't think he recognized him at the time.) Interesting isn't it?

Two men, branded by death, speaking of death under the gaze of a bird of death. And in this case I'm not sure 'never-more' ever truly exists on the wheel of ka.


was it a mule or a horse?
This one not so much an interesting topic. Hee, hee. Although if one thinks hard, one might see some metaphorical significance with the fact 'Zoltan et it's eyes.'

[Letti]

What was Zoltan's significance?

was it a mule or a horse?

Darling, it's high time to reread this book. ;)

[Whitey Appleseed]

I read the revised several times before I knew there was an original. I'm reading that one now, the original. Haven't come to any conclusions, as yet, but one thing that jumped out was what Roland said to the boys. 'How's it hanging?' in the original became 'Long days and pleasant nights.' in the revised. 'You dudes live in town?' in the original became 'you fellas live in town?' No answer in either case.

In the original, Roland comes across as one kind of character, one more in tune with who and what King was at the time. In the revised, Roland says almost the same thing, but his words are more in line with who he became in the story.

I don't know about literature. Seems like you could make a point about story-telling in general. 'How's it hanging?' probably dates the story and after reading the revised, it's discomfiting to think of Roland using those words.

Having watched a bunch of Westerns, including TG,TB, & TU, it's not hard to visualize the emptiness of that world. Maybe that enriches the characters, and their actions, simple and declarative, from the guy walking away holding the coin up at eye-level, to the piano player leaving 'in long comic-opera strides' makes for a good read. There's not a lot of extra baggage there, just good clean story. You can hear the corn grow.

[Ste Letto]

Of the series, I think book 1 "The Gunslinger" is the only one worth teaching.

Don't get me wrong, I love most of the others, I've said elsewhere I disliked W+G, but The Gunslinger has a resonance, a depth, a mystique far beyond the rest of the series.

Questions such as "How does the song Hey Jude come to be played in Tull?" come to mind.

In The Gunslinger, you could get students to debate and discuss Roland's personality, morality and motivations. Is he hero or villain, or something else? (Is he a force of nature?)

Is he moral, amoral or immoral?

To me he is an amoral force of nature, which is why it conflicts with me so much when Sai King reduces him to a simple tragic hero. The central character of The Gunslinger is so much "other" than that. The book is a treatise on "otherness", on confusion and breaking of common conceptions. That is why I disliked Drawing of the Three, although it has grown on me now.

Dot3 was SK realising he couldn't continue/complete the surreal fiction that is Gunslinger, so he turned it into something he could complete. (Honest, I do love the series mostly, I just have to ignore the loss and betrayal of what the first book was, what it suggested and what it could have been.) Just as Roland dropped the boy, SK dropped the essence of the Gunslinger.

Sorry if I've wandered off topic a little but this is the first time I've come close to explaining/understanding my reaction to the DT's development over the 7 books.

[EdwardDean1999]

I think Gunslinger would be a great teachable book. I know in my town it wouldn't fly for the moral short-sight of the community. My friend (He's a SK fan who teaches HS English) got flack from a parent because of his "Catcher in the Rye" unit. They decided it was best to give the kid some bullshit reading assignment instead. He was going to parallel the innocence lost lessons by showing the movie "Stand By Me". He backed down from that because of the whole parent complaining fiasco.

But to answer the question, the best literary lessons I can find are the concepts of archetypes, antagonists, and protagonists.

[EdwardDean1999]

Would anybody here teach a moral? Like with "Of Mice and Men": "The best laid plans often go awry." What's the gunslinger's moral?

[mystima]

i think that the Gunslinger would be a good book for high school seniors to read. i also think that Eyes of the Dragon would be a good book to look into also.:thumbsup:

[Letti]

I love Eyes of the Dragon but it's a quite simple book. It's very well written but you can feel it was written for children so I am not sure how much it could move the people's fantasy at high school.

[Ste Letto]

You could link it with Kes or A kestrel for a knave as I think Roland's relationship with David derives from this.

[Delacroix]

Roland let jake fall to his death because he is Roland, because Roland lves for the Tower and nothing else matter. He's a relationship timebomb, you want to like him but he can let you drop anytime, no matter who you are and what you do. That's what I love, the powerfull fight between his obsession and the feelings he has...and the obsession always ends up winning.

I think the Gunslinger would be very good book to study, but not as a main subject, and not with young students. School should stick to the classic and introduce some books like this one.

[Brice]

School should stick to the classic and introduce some books like this one.

I'd have to disagree with this. Schools should not limit themselves. I'd prefer that they teach children a love of books and reading then to make them read a bunch of books because they were "great" or "classics". If you help them to find stuff they want to read then hopefully they'll appreciate those classics later on on their own. If not they won't appreciate them much either way. Now I personally love much of what is considered classical literature, but I also remember the teacher who was able to make me hate Dickens when I was young. Now I absolutely love him, but being forced to read a book and then go over it again and again with coerced discussions and testing is senseless to me.


And let us remember classical literature brought us the abomination that is Jane Austen . Surely we don't want that for our children. I say let them decide for themselves what is great and what isn't.

[flaggwalkstheline]

I started reading stephen king's stories when I was ten years old
one day I came to class with my paperback of the girl who loved tom gordon, the teacher took it away because of the author and I had to get my parents to get it back from the bitch

public schools may want to teach kids to love reading but they go about it in a retarded, assbackwards hypocritical way

[Brice]

No, they don't want to I don't think. Occasionally a great teacher does, but on the whole...


I started reading King at about 9. If a teacher had had the audacity to take a SK book from me she'd/he'd have likely caused me to beat her. At the time books were all I really had going good in my life.

[Delacroix]

It depends on where you are. I remember starting to study classics at 12 and loving it. Of course you have to choose carefully what you give to study and how much of it. We had books with a lot of different extracts from many classical authors and it was really intersting. The point isn't to make the kids swallow at once a huge classical book.

The real challenge is to make children love classical so that they can grow up with a nice overviesw of litterature, knowing pretty much the top.

Of course you can introduce extracts from books such as The Gunslinger, but I dont' think making it the main study of a year is a good idea. Well, in france it would be the perfect book for an english teacher to study over a whole year no doubt...but as for making it a main course...

[Brice]

I don't personally like extracts or abridged books at all. And I do understand the point of them and having children read the classics, but I feel this is an outdated and less effective idea. If you find what the children love they will learn to love or at least like reading and there is plenty of time for the classics later on. I just don't think they're gonna' love the classics without a love of reading first. I had to read many of those so called classics for school, but I was reading many on my own even before that. I read them because I liked them much more than whatever I was required to read for some meaningless grade. In fact I was often reading books on my own that were far more advanced than what was being taught for my supposed "reading level".

Of course here you would generally only study any book over the course of a whole year in college, if then.

[Letti]

If you find what the children love they will learn to love or at least like reading and there is plenty of time for the classics later on. I just don't think they're gonna' love the classics without a love of reading first. I had to read many of those so called classics for school, but I was reading many on my own even before that.

I totally agree. Shame on me I didn't read much until I got 12 or 13. Then I started to read the books I liked and I tried to avoid the classics as much as possible. I needed 4 years or so to be able to pick up classics with pleasure.
So I had to find my own way to get to love reading.
My teachers didn't help me much.

[Sickrose]

School should stick to the classic and introduce some books like this one.

I'd have to disagree with this. Schools should not limit themselves. I'd prefer that they teach children a love of books and reading then to make them read a bunch of books because they were "great" or "classics". If you help them to find stuff they want to read then hopefully they'll appreciate those classics later on on their own. If not they won't appreciate them much either way. Now I personally love much of what is considered classical literature, but I also remember the teacher who was able to make me hate Dickens when I was young. Now I absolutely love him, but being forced to read a book and then go over it again and again with coerced discussions and testing is senseless to me.


And let us remember classical literature brought us the abomination that is Jane Austen . Surely we don't want that for our children. I say let them decide for themselves what is great and what isn't.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I have always thought that schools teach books rather than a love of reading. It is difficult getting into a book you dont like or have any interest in.

A lot of the 'classics' come with so much baggage you feel like a right chump if you don't like it or feel like your are not 'getting it' somehting like the Gunslinger would be really interesting for a kids I reckon. Plus King uses so many different genres and ways of telling the stories that it could be studied as well.

I do like Austen thought :)

[Delacroix]

I don't personally like extracts or abridged books at all. And I do understand the point of them and having children read the classics, but I feel this is an outdated and less effective idea. If you find what the children love they will learn to love or at least like reading and there is plenty of time for the classics later on. I just don't think they're gonna' love the classics without a love of reading first. I had to read many of those so called classics for school, but I was reading many on my own even before that. I read them because I liked them much more than whatever I was required to read for some meaningless grade. In fact I was often reading books on my own that were far more advanced than what was being taught for my supposed "reading level".

Of course here you would generally only study any book over the course of a whole year in college, if then.


Well, if you want to cover a certain number of author and a certain number of categories, you have to go through extracts. otherwise it's impossibe.

Of course, and you're right, nobody should start with classics! When you begin studying it, you've already red a lot of "children books" and a lot of other books you love (The Gunslinger why not). Loving reading isn't -unfortunately- something you learn at school, you have to do it on your own. I was reading a lot before starting classics as well.

The fact is that you have to study and grasp a lot of aspects of litterature during a year, that's the program the teacher have to follow. Sometime this program includes a whole book, sometime it doesn't. At 12 we've studied novels of Maupassant such as Le Gueux, plays like Andromaque of Racine and some novels from Edgar A. Poe. I enjoyed it, and nearly everybody in the class enjoyed it the same way.

But you're right on the fact that forcing kids that don't like to read, or just read what they like to, to study hard classics is not a good idea. Yet I think, hat if you don't start with classic at 12 or 13, it's much harder to be interested in them later on.

[Brice]

If you find what the children love they will learn to love or at least like reading and there is plenty of time for the classics later on. I just don't think they're gonna' love the classics without a love of reading first. I had to read many of those so called classics for school, but I was reading many on my own even before that.



I totally agree. Shame on me I didn't read much until I got 12 or 13. Then I started to read the books I liked and I tried to avoid the classics as much as possible. I needed 4 years or so to be able to pick up classics with pleasure.
So I had to find my own way to get to love reading.
My teachers didn't help me much.

Mine didn't either. I mean some of them really intended well, but if you don't like to read or have no particular interest in what they want you to read at the time you are not going to care. I think the best thing a teacher can do is let the children pick the books. They might even surprise you.




School should stick to the classic and introduce some books like this one.

I'd have to disagree with this. Schools should not limit themselves. I'd prefer that they teach children a love of books and reading then to make them read a bunch of books because they were "great" or "classics". If you help them to find stuff they want to read then hopefully they'll appreciate those classics later on on their own. If not they won't appreciate them much either way. Now I personally love much of what is considered classical literature, but I also remember the teacher who was able to make me hate Dickens when I was young. Now I absolutely love him, but being forced to read a book and then go over it again and again with coerced discussions and testing is senseless to me.


And let us remember classical literature brought us the abomination that is Jane Austen . Surely we don't want that for our children. I say let them decide for themselves what is great and what isn't.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I have always thought that schools teach books rather than a love of reading. It is difficult getting into a book you dont like or have any interest in.

A lot of the 'classics' come with so much baggage you feel like a right chump if you don't like it or feel like your are not 'getting it' somehting like the Gunslinger would be really interesting for a kids I reckon. Plus King uses so many different genres and ways of telling the stories that it could be studied as well.

I do like Austen thought :)

You have my sympathies. :couple: I am willing to overlook this as some of my favorite people here share this flaw. Just realize that any debate on any subject at all can be ended with a "...but you like Jane Austen." :P

Seriously though I wouldn't like to force children to read any particular book...including The Gunslinger. I suppose this begs the question would you prefer they just didn't read and the answer is yes, but in most cases I think something can be found which they enjoy.



I don't personally like extracts or abridged books at all. And I do understand the point of them and having children read the classics, but I feel this is an outdated and less effective idea. If you find what the children love they will learn to love or at least like reading and there is plenty of time for the classics later on. I just don't think they're gonna' love the classics without a love of reading first. I had to read many of those so called classics for school, but I was reading many on my own even before that. I read them because I liked them much more than whatever I was required to read for some meaningless grade. In fact I was often reading books on my own that were far more advanced than what was being taught for my supposed "reading level".

Of course here you would generally only study any book over the course of a whole year in college, if then.


Well, if you want to cover a certain number of author and a certain number of categories, you have to go through extracts. otherwise it's impossibe.

Of course, and you're right, nobody should start with classics! When you begin studying it, you've already red a lot of "children books" and a lot of other books you love (The Gunslinger why not). Loving reading isn't -unfortunately- something you learn at school, you have to do it on your own. I was reading a lot before starting classics as well.

The fact is that you have to study and grasp a lot of aspects of litterature during a year, that's the program the teacher have to follow. Sometime this program includes a whole book, sometime it doesn't. At 12 we've studied novels of Maupassant such as Le Gueux, plays like Andromaque of Racine and some novels from Edgar A. Poe. I enjoyed it, and nearly everybody in the class enjoyed it the same way.

But you're right on the fact that forcing kids that don't like to read, or just read what they like to, to study hard classics is not a good idea. Yet I think, hat if you don't start with classic at 12 or 13, it's much harder to be interested in them later on.

And yet, if the thing done were to predominantly teach along their interests and maybe introduce one or two of those classics don't you think more would want to read, both in school and out. I do realize teachers don't generally have these options though. The system is flawed and has long been so in my opinion or at the very least it is not right for here. Why not cover less books per year and study the whole books. The only reasons we cover the books they do in schools is because some out of touch administrator liked them or thought (even worse, IMO) that they were "important: and that everyone should read them. They thought wrong. None of these great works are important if people don't want to read them. Authors generally write without a thought of ever being considered important or even making a dollar. They write because they love to write or because they must. I think we do them a disservice by not reading for the same reasons and I don't mean you must because of being told you must, but because you feel you must. Now I do realize that schools are not designed to teach a love of reading, but I think this (along with many other things) just means it's time to throw out our curriculums and programs and start anew. Yes, I realize that's just not going to happen (and definitely not in any public school system), but I am sure it's what needs to be done. I would SO be fired if I were a teacher. :(

[Delacroix]

Actually, what you're saying is to be done by parents rather than teachers. School cannot learn to love reading indeed.

The studied books are introduced following themes:Naturalism with Zola, fantastic with Maupassant or Poe etc... If you decide to go through a whole book for each, you'll need more than 2 years.

I don't think I red some of Zola's books for the same reason he wrote it...

[Sickrose]

You have my sympathies. :couple: I am willing to overlook this as some of my favorite people here share this flaw. Just realize that any debate on any subject at all can be ended with a "...but you like Jane Austen." :P

Right back atcha - any debate with you can be ended with ''but you dont like Austen''! :P


. Now I do realize that schools are not designed to teach a love of reading, but I think this (along with many other things) just means it's time to throw out our curriculums and programs and start anew. Yes, I realize that's just not going to happen (and definitely not in any public school system), but I am sure it's what needs to be done. I would SO be fired if I were a teacher.

I think this is a good idea - I am training to be an english Literature teacher so maybe I will give it a go and let you know how I get on :)

Although Delacroix I agree that parents need to hel as well. Some of my most favourite books were recommended by my parents.

I have gone way off topic now - ! (quickly looks at the start of the thread) ahem, I think The Gunslinger would be a really good text to teach. The narrative styes the characters etc would all create interesting essay questions. I would enjoy studying it.

[overhoser]

I think The Gunslinger would be an excellent choice for a literature class. In the United States it would probably fit best maybe in an Advanced Placement course, or maybe first or second year college level.

As far as the classics go, a lot of schools don't really teach them any more. The Great Books curriculum has really fallen away. Although that does depend on some extent on the state requirements and the teacher. In my high school English class, we read The Grapes of Wrath (so good....) and works by Vonnegut and Salinger. While they may be classics, they are not capital-C Classics. Modern classics, if you will. And I think The Gunslinger could fit into that mold. Of course, my teacher called SK "a hack," but that's beside the point.

I've seen in bookstores where they have tables full of books for high school students (I know this what they are for because school reading lists are posted next to them) more recent works, the titles of which I am blanking on. But I remember thinking that they were not the kind of books I would expect to be assigned. Why are there no classics? I asked. The classics just really aren't being taught.

EDIT: I knew I'd think of some. Life of Pi, The Almost Moon, Hitchhiker's Guide, Catch-22, and Ender's Game are the titles I can remember. So, recent work, modern classics, but no big-C Classics.

[Sickrose]

When I was school I studied mostly Shespeare and Dickens which I do appreciate now. I would have loved to have studied Salinger and Catch-22.

[Delacroix]

I was thinking about a friend who happened to be a huge fan of Harry Potter when she was 16. Her english teacher took a Harry Potter for a year-long study and eventhough she loved that book, the scolar approach ruined it.

So I really think it depends on how the teacher work of the book... Maybe sometime we should be glad to keep the book we love in the personnal area. I think of people for instance that would be introduced to the book in class. As a first conctact it may be not a good one, and screw the interest other student could have had for it.

[overhoser]

I was thinking about a friend who happened to be a huge fan of Harry Potter when she was 16. Her english teacher took a Harry Potter for a year-long study and eventhough she loved that book, the scolar approach ruined it.

So I really think it depends on how the teacher work of the book... Maybe sometime we should be glad to keep the book we love in the personnal area. I think of people for instance that would be introduced to the book in class. As a first conctact it may be not a good one, and screw the interest other student could have had for it.

That's a good point. The Good Earth might be a real standout book, but being introduced to it in 9th grade English class, I'll be happy to never read a page of that schlock again. It does have to do with the teacher. For a book read in class, especially in high school, the teacher has to enjoy and love the book or it's going to be painful. I am a firm believer that if the teacher is passionate about what they are finding in the book then the students will likely follow. Part of the problem is that teachers are no longer passionate about the so-called classics they are now teaching. Give me a teacher that thinks Jane Austen is the bees knees and teaches her over one that thinks Stephen King is a hack and teaches him any day.

[Sickrose]

I agree with this it is down to the teacher - I want to be a lit teacher one day and hope I can pass on my enthusiasm to the students.

Some people just like to read the books and find the scholary approch ruins it for them so that's a good point Delacroix.

Regarding 'The Classics' I think there needs to be a re-think and they can add stuff like the DT books.