Zooze the Horse roams around the pasture near Lamar State College. Zooze thinks about problems in academia. Zhe wants proffies to submit posts (blog posts, not fence posts).
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
school
“I never learned anything at all in school and didn't read a book for pleasure until I was 19 years old.”
On the other hand, although great literature for children does exist, it needs to be selected carefully. A common observation is to go back and re-read something you were forced to read in middle school, and be astonished by how good it is.
A prime example is "The Pearl," by John Steinbeck. At age 12, I simply didn't have the life experience to appreciate its sublime beauty. This was very much my problem, not the story's. Still, I suppose that having to read it at that age did help toward solving the problem.
My problem was quite the opposite. It was how my schooling got in the way of my education, and it happened MANY times. One thing I learned as a precocious child was that my elders did not always have my best interests in mind.
I'm sure most of us here know what Kubrick was missing all those years. I learned to read at a very young age, became instantly addicted, and haven't stopped since.
You're right, Frod—one never reads the same book twice. I read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" for the first time at age 12 (on the recommendation of a teacher, but still, waaay too young). I remember it in particular because it was the first "adult" book I read on my own. Every time I've read it since then, it was a different book because I was a different person.
And à propos of children's literature: the best children's books are the ones that grownups can also read without puking. There's a reason why adults read things like "The Chronicles of Narnia," "Harry Potter," "The Giver," "Tangerine," even "Alice in Wonderland": while they can certainly be read with pleasure and profit by ten-year-olds, they're far more sophisticated than the average ten-year-old can fully appreciate.
On the other hand, although great literature for children does exist, it needs to be selected carefully. A common observation is to go back and re-read something you were forced to read in middle school, and be astonished by how good it is.
ReplyDeleteA prime example is "The Pearl," by John Steinbeck. At age 12, I simply didn't have the life experience to appreciate its sublime beauty. This was very much my problem, not the story's. Still, I suppose that having to read it at that age did help toward solving the problem.
My problem was quite the opposite. It was how my schooling got in the way of my education, and it happened MANY times. One thing I learned as a precocious child was that my elders did not always have my best interests in mind.
I'm sure most of us here know what Kubrick was missing all those years. I learned to read at a very young age, became instantly addicted, and haven't stopped since.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, Frod—one never reads the same book twice. I read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" for the first time at age 12 (on the recommendation of a teacher, but still, waaay too young). I remember it in particular because it was the first "adult" book I read on my own. Every time I've read it since then, it was a different book because I was a different person.
And à propos of children's literature: the best children's books are the ones that grownups can also read without puking. There's a reason why adults read things like "The Chronicles of Narnia," "Harry Potter," "The Giver," "Tangerine," even "Alice in Wonderland": while they can certainly be read with pleasure and profit by ten-year-olds, they're far more sophisticated than the average ten-year-old can fully appreciate.