Who was Maya Angelou?

[VanillaGorilla]

I've heard of her but never knew anything about her. I'm pretty sure she is not required reading in Oregon public schools, at least ~5 years ago.

 

[crandc]

The fact that it is required reading in many schools shows it's not just because I like it. I am capable of speaking for myself, Vanilla Gorilla.

It should be required reading because:
1) it is extremely well written and would hold the attention of young people who don't always read a lot
2) it tells a story of pain, loss, and triumph that is timeless
3) it tells a story from a point of view often missing in school curricula
4) it has won awards and spent 2 years on top of the NY Times Best Seller list, showing it is has been recognized and honored
5) it was written by a woman who became a major literary, cultural and political influence in America

Enough reasons or would you like more?

 

[Mediocre Man]

The fact that it is required reading in many schools shows it's not just because I like it. I am capable of speaking for myself, Vanilla Gorilla.

It should be required reading because:
1) it is extremely well written and would hold the attention of young people who don't always read a lot
2) it tells a story of pain, loss, and triumph that is timeless
3) it tells a story from a point of view often missing in school curricula
4) it has won awards and spent 2 years on top of the NY Times Best Seller list, showing it is has been recognized and honored
5) it was written by a woman who became a major literary, cultural and political influence in America

Enough reasons or would you like more?

1. So would Penthouse forum
2. So does A song of
3. See Penthouse forum
4. Jane Fonda's workout book did as well
5 means nothing to me

You are describing a ton of books. You seem to single this out because it was written by a women

 

[crandc]

A lot of books were written by women. If I were to single every one out I would be singling for the rest of my life. I think you are describing yourself, well named mediocre man. You are saying it cannot be of value because it was written by a woman. Rather than debate abstractions, why don't you read it? It's not very long.

 

[MarAzul]

There is very little that should be required reading for every person. We all have different strengths and interests. For most of us, it pays far better dividends if we maximize the strenght we have and leave the weaknesses to be covered by our partners, companions or teammates.

To start this process I recommend this reading.

http://www.strengthsfinder.com/home.aspx

MarAzul

Maximizer
Learner
Competition
Individualization
Analytical

What are your strengths?

 

[Mediocre Man]

A lot of books were written by women. If I were to single every one out I would be singling for the rest of my life. I think you are describing yourself, well named mediocre man. You are saying it cannot be of value because it was written by a woman. Rather than debate abstractions, why don't you read it? It's not very long.

No I am saying it can not be of value to me because you liked it. That is not meant to be an insult, but I can't think of another person I would have less in common with

 

[crandc]

By mediocre man's logic, Damian Lillard cannot have value to him, since I like Damian Lillard.

 

[PapaG]

By mediocre man's logic, Damian Lillard cannot have value to him, since I like Damian Lillard.

Not true. I think he is saying that your "required reading" comment is ego-centric to what you think should be "required reading" for all public school students. The story resonated with you (and it's a good piece of writing, I admit), but then you say everybody should read it, because of how you feel about it. It's a Statist vs. Libertarian debate to me.

Statists tend to want to lead people in a direction of knowledge, while Libertarians tend to value more freedom in life, and in academics/learning.

 

[blue32]

Not true. I think he is saying that your "required reading" comment is ego-centric to what you think should be "required reading" for all public school students. The story resonated with you (and it's a good piece of writing, I admit), but then you say everybody should read it, because of how you feel about it. It's a Statist vs. Libertarian debate to me.

Statists tend to want to lead people in a direction of knowledge, while Libertarians tend to value more freedom in life, and in academics/learning.

That's how I understood MM as well. Her writing is of no interest to me. I don't debate that it isn't good though. So, IMO it's in the eye of the beholder so to speak.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

No I am saying it can not be of value to me because you liked it. That is not meant to be an insult, but I can't think of another person I would have less in common with

That's pretty scary. So either you don't know much or you have more in common with, say, Elliot Rodger.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

That's how I understood MM as well. Her writing is of no interest to me. I don't debate that it isn't good though. So, IMO it's in the eye of the beholder so to speak.

The books that are "of no interest" to people are exactly the ones that should be required. This is called expanding your mind. Kids can read what's "of interest" to them in their spare time.

It's funny: there was a bit of a furore in England this week because the education minister said that To Kill A Mockingbird (and others) should axed from the curriculum because they weren't English. Pretty stupid stuff.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

By mediocre man's logic, Damian Lillard cannot have value to him, since I like Damian Lillard.

As somebody who occasionally teaches logic, I demand that you use a different word.

 

[julius]

The books that are "of no interest" to people are exactly the ones that should be required. This is called expanding your mind. Kids can read what's "of interest" to them in their spare time.

It's funny: there was a bit of a furore in England this week because the education minister said that To Kill A Mockingbird (and others) should axed from the curriculum because they weren't English. Pretty stupid stuff.

If they were to limit the books kids read to what interests them, they'd be reading all those stupid pokemon books, the graphic novels (and not the ones that are age appropriate either) or simple dumbed down books that simplify history/sports/cultures/whatever.

Had it not been assigned in my english class in high school, I never would've read Shakespeare, or Native Son, or Catcher in the Rye. And I'm glad I did. All of the books I read as a senior I'm glad I did. Even if, admittedly, I've probably only read 3 or 4 books since I graduated from college.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I only read obscure german drug fueled isolationist philosophy manifestos. You've probably never heard of them

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Bros need to get wasted and bang chicks, do you think bukowski read books? No, he got wasted and banged chicks.

 

[crandc]

Well, OK, maybe I was using the word "logic" loosely.

I am not dictating what others must read. I did say that I think people should read a certain book and that it should be taught in schools. Do others honestly believe that no school (or college) should have assigned reading? That just let everyone read joke books or teen romance novels or somesuch? Yeah, some kids will read serious stuff on their own, but many don't, and shouldn't school be about learning? And shouldn't learning sometimes make you a little uncomfortable? Make you have to think about things, be they Southern segregation, or Nazi holocaust, or internment camps for Japanese-Americans, or cruelty to animals, or Black Death, or whatever (long list) that you really would rather not think about because Kim and Kanye's wedding is sexier?

My biggest objection to assigned reading in school English classes was that most of the books assigned I'd already read on my own years before. I guess the downside to having a mother who was an English teacher.

 

[julius]

I only read obscure german drug fueled isolationist philosophy manifestos. You've probably never heard of them

I did my thesis on obscure german drug fueled isolationist philosophy manifestos.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Well, OK, maybe I was using the word "logic" loosely.

I am not dictating what others must read. I did say that I think people should read a certain book and that it should be taught in schools. Do others honestly believe that no school (or college) should have assigned reading? That just let everyone read joke books or teen romance novels or somesuch? Yeah, some kids will read serious stuff on their own, but many don't, and shouldn't school be about learning? And shouldn't learning sometimes make you a little uncomfortable? Make you have to think about things, be they Southern segregation, or Nazi holocaust, or internment camps for Japanese-Americans, or cruelty to animals, or Black Death, or whatever (long list) that you really would rather not think about because Kim and Kanye's wedding is sexier?

My biggest objection to assigned reading in school English classes was that most of the books assigned I'd already read on my own years before. I guess the downside to having a mother who was an English teacher.

You said it should be "required reading", so if you were in charge, you would be dictating what others read.

 

[Mediocre Man]

The books that are "of no interest" to people are exactly the ones that should be required. This is called expanding your mind. Kids can read what's "of interest" to them in their spare time.

It's funny: there was a bit of a furore in England this week because the education minister said that To Kill A Mockingbird (and others) should axed from the curriculum because they weren't English. Pretty stupid stuff.

So should atheists be required to read the Bible?

 

[RR7]

So should atheists be required to read the Bible?

I dunno about "required" but I think it's always beneficial to read an opposing viewpoint. And in that situation, it's not like there's thousands of books you'd need to read, just one important one.

 

[blue32]

The books that are "of no interest" to people are exactly the ones that should be required. This is called expanding your mind. Kids can read what's "of interest" to them in their spare time.

It's funny: there was a bit of a furore in England this week because the education minister said that To Kill A Mockingbird (and others) should axed from the curriculum because they weren't English. Pretty stupid stuff.

Yeah, uh, okay... That is opinion really.

And just because it's of no interest doesn't mean that they couldn't read it (if they so chose to) and "expand their mind" as you so put it.

 

[blue32]

If they were to limit the books kids read to what interests them, they'd be reading all those stupid pokemon books, the graphic novels (and not the ones that are age appropriate either) or simple dumbed down books that simplify history/sports/cultures/whatever.

Had it not been assigned in my english class in high school, I never would've read Shakespeare, or Native Son, or Catcher in the Rye. And I'm glad I did. All of the books I read as a senior I'm glad I did. Even if, admittedly, I've probably only read 3 or 4 books since I graduated from college.

Really? Pokemon? lol.

I'm more supportive of the idea that you gather a group of books, present to the class the books, and have them pick one they might find more interesting than another. Write a report or whatever about it and call it good.

But required reading and force feeding that shit down a students throat so to speak... meh, not really my idea of proper teaching. But who knows, I'm probably wrong.

 

[RR7]

Really? Pokemon? lol.

I'm more supportive of the idea that you gather a group of books, present to the class the books, and have them pick one they might find more interesting than another. Write a report or whatever about it and call it good.

But required reading and force feeding that shit down a students throat so to speak... meh, not really my idea of proper teaching. But who knows, I'm probably wrong.

That's a pretty solid idea. If you want a set time or author, give the kids a list of 5-10 books. Then they'll have made a choice instead of being forced and might show more interest.

 

[crandc]

So, mm, you honestly don't think schools should assign books? Serious question. Do you disagree with my opinion that I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings should be assigned reading or with the whole concept of assigning any books? Shouldn't students be exposed to what is not familiar or comfortable?

Should atheists read the Bible? Absolutely. It is an important literary work with, obviously, major historic consequences. I think every reasonably educated person should read the Bible and the Quran.

Julius, when/where did you attend high school, if you don't mind my asking? Because for us Catcher in the Rye (with no sex and mild cussing) was still considered a communist plot. Native Son? Forget it! We read some Shakespeare, mostly Julius Ceaser, because while regicide was OK sex was not. So no Othello, Richard III. And taught boringly.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

So should atheists be required to read the Bible?

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” - Isaac Asimov

 

[MarAzul]

Does the required reading list for high school continuously grow or does the next book to be added, push one book off the list?

If Maya Angelou was added since I went to high school, whom did she displace?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Required reading doesn't work.. Very few kids will read the books anyways. Most people I know haven't finished a book since middle school.

 

[MarAzul]

So, mm, you honestly don't think schools should assign books? Serious question. Do you disagree with my opinion that I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings should be assigned reading or with the whole concept of assigning any books? Shouldn't students be exposed to what is not familiar or comfortable?

Should atheists read the Bible? Absolutely. It is an important literary work with, obviously, major historic consequences. I think every reasonably educated person should read the Bible and the Quran.

Julius, when/where did you attend high school, if you don't mind my asking? Because for us Catcher in the Rye (with no sex and mild cussing) was still considered a communist plot. Native Son? Forget it! We read some Shakespeare, mostly Julius Ceaser, because while regicide was OK sex was not. So no Othello, Richard III. And taught boringly.

Oh my! Everyone should read the Koran! It doesn't seem like many in this forum have been willing to do that task.

 

[crandc]

Of course reading lists must continually revise - otherwise every generation would read things that were 60 years old!

As to what a new book would replace, that would be a decision made by the school collectively; not knowing what was on the list I can hardly hypothesize.

 

[MarAzul]

Of course reading lists must continually revise - otherwise every generation would read things that were 60 years old!

As to what a new book would replace, that would be a decision made by the school collectively; not knowing what was on the list I can hardly hypothesize.

But by strongly advocating her book, you must realize you also would push some other book off the list? How do you weight the relative value if you only know half the transaction?