What was the dumbest "classic" mandatory reading book you suffered through in high school and why?

Ian Fleming wrote:

The fundamental objectives of HS English class should be to first teach students to write in a clear, concise, and grammatically correct manner and second develop their critical thinking thinking skills. In practice, most English teachers spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to teach bored students how to tease out meaning from dated novels with little limited context to their day to day lives. Most kids would be better served reading simpler novels so they can develop their ability to structure and write coherent paragraphs rather than grasp for meaning. All you need to do is read LetsRun to realize how poorly most people write.

My vote goes for Wide Sargasso Sea. Flaming turd of a book.

Reading great novels and learning to write are not mutually exclusive. Between homework and class time, a student is spending at least an hour per day on their English course. In that amount of time, one should be able to read a few thousand pages per year with plenty of time left to practice their own writing.

Your argument is akin to saying that kids shouldn't do sports because they should focus on academics. Well, a kid with the least bit of ambition can excel at both. Running a fast 800m never stopped me from doing well in the classroom, and reading Great Expectations didn't prevent me from learning to write. I'm glad I did all of those things.

Whether you become an English lit professor or a medical doctor, you're going to be reading challenging material all your life. There's no benefit to putting off challenging reading until undergrad.

Beyond the vocational side of learning, I think that a part of education should involve learning to enjoy what the world has to offer. This is why music and art classes are important. This is why athletics are a part of the educational system. It's also a damn good reason that great writing should be a part of the curriculum. Is every kid going to fall in love with Shakespeare? Of course not. But the kids who do will have their eyes opened to something that will bring them joy for years to come. While every kid won't like every book, hopefully every kid will discover something they enjoy through the process of trying out a number of different types of literature.

Anyway, by your logic, people who read a greater number of difficult novels in high school should be worse writers than students who read fewer difficult novels. I would guess that just the opposite is true.

do both wrote:

a kid with the least bit of ambition can excel at both. Running a fast 800m never stopped me from doing well in the classroom, and reading Great Expectations didn't prevent me from learning to write. I'm glad I did all of those things.

.

I wrote a paper on Great Expectations on pure hate.

jane eyre

Thank you! The Good Earth immediately came to mind when I saw the title of this thread. This is from someone who loves to read.

gold counter wrote:

The Good Earth by Pearl Buck. As I recall it's about 600 pages of feudal farming in China. The last 100 or so pages are decent but the 500 you read to get there is pure torture.

I've read TKAM and Catcher in the Rye and believe me this is much, much, worse.

Johnny rotten wrote:

I'm an English teacher, so I've read most of the insufferable stuff--and I've assigned some of it, too.

I can't stand Catcher, either. Holden Caulfied just annoys me.

Most of all I cannot tolerate Gatsby. Not only do I not give a rat's ass about Gatsby himself, but Nick Carraway, the narrator, seems not to have a soul. He's not showily repugnant like Tom Buchanan; he just can't seem to make himself care about anything. The only thing he does of any value is to attend Gatby's funeral and tell his story.

We read "Thanatopsis" just so I get a chance to make fun of it.

Yes, I find Romeo to be melodramatic and silly. Shakespeare wrote a number of better tragedies, Macbeth and Othello especially. I have no particular investment in Hamlet or King Lear.

So, yeah, we can do better.

So you don´t like books because you don´t like the characters in them? You must like really boring books, filled with likable, nice people. How the hell did you manage to become a teacher?

So much is wrong with your summary...Did you read the book?

good book wrote:

A book has to be pretty powerful to elicit an emotion as strong as hatred. If a book is really bad, you don't care about the characters at all.

Hating a character doesn't mean you care about them, it means it's a bad character. Remember this thread is about mandatory reading.

Someone on this thread insulted Flannery O'Connor? What the...she is America's greatest writer.

pogo wrote:

The Scarlet Letter was the most insufferable book I've ever held, not just the worst dumbest from high school. I'd rather read Social Realist propaganda than Hawthorne.

Same here. By far the worst thing I ever had to read for a class. Followed by The Joy Luck Club.

Best was probably The Power of One.

Someone on This wrote:

Someone on this thread insulted Flannery O'Connor? What the...she is America's greatest writer.

To each his own. I greatly enjoy Faulkner's southern, gothic themes, but I find O'Connor's treatment a little...I guess banal. While her situations and characters are believable, it's just not enjoyable. I'm not "insulting" her; it's just not fun to read. America's greatest writer? That's a bold statement. I'd personally go with Faulkner, or the case could even be made for Cormac McCarthy or Philip Roth...I digress.

Many books I read in HS were pretty boring. The Great Gatsby was the only one I could not even finish, so I read the Cliff Notes and got a B. Dickens got paid by the word, so that explains a lot.

But like some have said, historical relevance is important. If you understand the time a book was written, it will make more sense and have more meaning.

Teachers are usually not to blame for the reading list. It is the school/system/state curriculum. However, my 11th grade English teacher gave us a list of the 25 most banned books. I read all of them. Some great, some crap, but I am a better reader/writer/person for it.

Reading is a waning discipline and it shows in people's ability to write coherently and express ideas. The more you read, the more you learn how to use language to paint a picture in the mind of your reader/listener. So even the garbage I have read has helped me.

BTW, I am an Engineer so English and Literature were not my Forte, but I am a much better writer and communicator than most people I meet (he said humbly), largely due to a lot of reading.