Jump to content

What's with the ads?


Photo

Shocked that this book is on the Grade 11 common core reading list. Scary!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
615 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#1 teeniebeenie6

teeniebeenie6

    Hive Mind Level 5 Worker: Forager Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 859 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 10:30 PM

I am not someone who has been scared by the common core or thought it was some evil thing. I follow some elementary teachers blogs such as Mrs. Jump and Mrs. Willis and find their classrooms are beautiful. I have even bought some of Mrs. Jumps education packs. But the following blog post makes me fearful of the high school common core: http://www.monicaboy...rning-explicit/ I graduated from high school 11 years ago, we didn't have such explicit books then!

#2 Luanne

Luanne

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3308 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 10:37 PM

OH MY STARS! :scared:



#3 farrarwilliams

farrarwilliams

    Expert Cat Herder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12030 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 10:43 PM

Sigh.

 

It's a great book.  I wouldn't hesitate to let my kids read it at that age.  I did read books with similar themes in high school, though not The Bluest Eye specifically (actually, I think I did read it in high school, but on my own).

 

My understanding of CC is that the book lists are suggested anyway.  They are included as "exemplars" so that the standards have examples and phrases like "texts of appropriate complexity" (or whatever) have meaning and aren't entirely up for interpretation.  Other grade 11 exemplars for literature include The Canterbury Tales, As I Lay Dying, The Scarlet Letter, a story by Borges, another by Jhumpa Lahiri, Hamlet, The Importance of Being Ernest, and poems by poets like Neruda, Rita Dove, and John Donne.  It's a purposefully diverse and interesting list of really complex literature, some of which has much more adult themes because the students are older.  But curriculum developers and teachers can choose other books entirely.


  • Jenny in Florida, Jill, momto2Cs and 22 others like this

#4 Moxie

Moxie

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4383 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 10:44 PM

High school?? I'm okay with it.

ETA: I think this is a silly use of the word "pornography".
  • Jenny in Florida, momto2Cs, jennifermarie and 4 others like this

#5 Cricket

Cricket

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2673 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 10:48 PM

Here we go again...   :cheers2:


  • Georgia in NC, Dana, Irishmommy and 12 others like this

#6 farrarwilliams

farrarwilliams

    Expert Cat Herder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12030 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 10:50 PM

It's Common Core + banning books.  It's like the perfect firestorm of a thread topic.


  • nmoira, Cricket, momto2Cs and 28 others like this

#7 Kim in Appalachia

Kim in Appalachia

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3792 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 10:53 PM

Since my kids have read Suetonius in 7th grade, Toni Morrison in 11th would be fine.  

 

 


  • chiguirre, nmoira, Corraleno and 1 other like this

#8 teeniebeenie6

teeniebeenie6

    Hive Mind Level 5 Worker: Forager Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 859 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 10:54 PM

It's Common Core + banning books. It's like the perfect firestorm of a thread topic.

I don't see anything about banning books but I wouldn't want my kid reading a book like that at 16.
  • Luanne, Sahamamama, Mommy22alyns and 7 others like this

#9 teeniebeenie6

teeniebeenie6

    Hive Mind Level 5 Worker: Forager Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 859 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 10:56 PM

High school?? I'm okay with it.

ETA: I think this is a silly use of the word "pornography".


I agree with you about the word pornography. I actually don't know the blogger but saw the post on facebook. I was shocked by the explicitness of the book and was interested to see what others thought.

#10 sunnyday

sunnyday

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 706 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:00 PM

My understanding of CC is that the book lists are suggested anyway.  They are included as "exemplars" so that the standards have examples and phrases like "texts of appropriate complexity" (or whatever) have meaning and aren't entirely up for interpretation.

 
From the standards: "The choices should serve as useful guideposts in 
helping educators select texts of similar complexity, quality, and range for their own classrooms. They expressly do 
not represent a partial or complete reading list."


  • Jenny in Florida, msjones, Corraleno and 5 others like this

#11 Moxie

Moxie

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4383 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:01 PM

Yes, it is explicit. No, it is not nice. Realistically, by high school, kids (even the special snowflakes) have seen and heard much worse. At least this has a point and is well written.
  • Mommyfaithe, Jenny in Florida, TeacherZee and 13 others like this

#12 Acorn

Acorn

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 775 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:04 PM

We discussed this last week but then the thread underwent a name change. I plan to read the book soon.
  • Dana likes this

#13 farrarwilliams

farrarwilliams

    Expert Cat Herder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12030 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:05 PM

I don't see anything about banning books but I wouldn't want my kid reading a book like that at 16.

 

The articles I've seen about this have included politicians talking about removing it from school libraries as well.  It's one of the most challenged books in America.  Removing a book from a syllabus because of objections to content is considered censorship.  I'm not sure how it *isn't* a discussion of banning books.


  • Dana, mamaraby, mommymilkies and 3 others like this

#14 farrarwilliams

farrarwilliams

    Expert Cat Herder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12030 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:07 PM

 
From the standards: "The choices should serve as useful guideposts in 
helping educators select texts of similar complexity, quality, and range for their own classrooms. They expressly do 
not represent a partial or complete reading list."

 

That's odd phrasing, but I take that to mean that they're just examples not requirements like I said, yes?



#15 readinmom

readinmom

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1768 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:10 PM

I personally did not like the book.  I had to read it in college as part of a literature class. 

 

This has been on the AP approved reading list forever.  It's not like it jumped up overnight.  Would I want my kid to read it?  No, there are enough troubling things to read about in this world, let alone a man raping his daughter in explicit language. 

 

As always, I'm sure that parents can have an out if and when the book is assigned. 


  • Luanne, Penelope, MtnTeaching and 3 others like this

#16 Forgiven

Forgiven

    Hive Mind Worker Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 394 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:57 PM

I wouldn't let my kids read it while under age. I don't care if it is well written or has some valuable lesson in it. I won't let them watch porn, so why would I let them read expllicit sex? It makes no sense to allow a child to read something that if it were in a movie s/he wouldn't be allowed to see it due to her/his age? It baffles my mind.


  • JanOH, Calming Tea, Parrothead and 13 others like this

#17 kwickimom

kwickimom

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2434 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:58 PM

I would not read it myself and would never let my kids read it while they were under my roof. I will never see a reason to read something like that. ever.
  • VaKim, Luanne, Sahamamama and 19 others like this

#18 Cricket

Cricket

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2673 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:02 AM

The articles I've seen about this have included politicians talking about removing it from school libraries as well. It's one of the most challenged books in America. Removing a book from a syllabus because of objections to content is considered censorship. I'm not sure how it *isn't* a discussion of banning books.


I don't think removing a book from a syllabus is censorship, at least not in the way you seem to mean. You only have so much time, you know? You can only cover so much material. Teachers have to make up their minds about what material they want to spend time on. If they decide that the content doesn't fit the goals of their course, that's okay. Now, if government officials were telling book stores they couldn't sell it, then that would be censorship.
  • JanOH, Luanne, Calming Tea and 9 others like this

#19 sunnyday

sunnyday

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 706 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:07 AM

That's odd phrasing, but I take that to mean that they're just examples not requirements like I said, yes?

 

Yep. You'd said it was your understanding that the standards included only suggestions and not prescriptions; it was my understanding as well, but I thought I'd strengthen that by quoting directly. :)



#20 Luanne

Luanne

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3308 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:03 AM

I'm sorry but anyway you look at it, with the words and phrases used... it IS pornography.  I am amazed at how loose some people's standards are. 


  • VaKim, Chloe, Paula in MS and 13 others like this

#21 JessReplanted

JessReplanted

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1570 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:22 AM

No. No, no, no.


  • Luanne likes this

#22 Monica_in_Switzerland

Monica_in_Switzerland

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1639 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:28 AM

I think using the word censorship to describe a parent restricting a child's access to a book is a bad use of the word.  I am not practicing censorship by not allowing my 6 year old to read Lord of the Rings yet.  I simply find that it is not age/stage appropriate.  I'm not calling for the book to be pulled from library shelves and publication to cease.  On the contrary, I love LOTR.  :-) 

 

And while I have never read The Bluest Eye, I have read other books by Toni Morrison and enjoyed them.  I probably would get something out of Bluest Eye and find it an interesting read.  HOWEVER, I would never in a million years want my teenager reading this, especially not in a classroom, where a teacher that I don't know is leading a discussion which could go any number of ways that I'd prefer it not go. 

 

Perhaps circumstances would lead me to believe that reading this with my teenager could somehow be a useful exercise.  In that case, I will do it myself. 

 

It seems clear that if you don't want your student watching these scenes in a movie (even a good movie), you would not want them reading them, either.  At least not without your close supervision.  Many parents in the PS system may be completely unaware of what book their child is reading in English at any given moment.


  • Lucidity, Luanne, Sahamamama and 14 others like this

#23 KatherineTheGreat

KatherineTheGreat

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1658 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:46 AM

I just want to know why this book?  Why does one have to read it?  Why would they want High Schoolers to read this book?  What merit does it have? What discussion should/would/could it provoke that would add to their learning and development?  What purpose does it serve on the syllabus?  

 

I thought common core regulated the discussions the teacher was supposed to have as well.  What are the talking points?  The discussion questions?  The follow-up activities?  What about the other books?  Does the book exist in a vacuum on the proposed syllabus or is it used in conjunction with other books of a like style?


  • TXMary2 and kristi26 like this

#24 Sadie

Sadie

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4977 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:16 AM

Reading is a very different beast to viewing. I've got no problem with my 14 year old reading the Game of Thrones books, but there's no way I'd let her lay eyes on the TV series.

I trust my kids to self-censor their reading, meaning that if they find a book too emotionally difficult or confronting, they generally put it aside for six months or so.

My 15 yr old has read much of Toni Morrison. She finds her books well-written and thought provoking but Morrison isn't one of her favourite authors. She's fine :)

How old are kids in 11th grade ? 16 ? 17 ?
  • chiguirre likes this

#25 kubiac

kubiac

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1043 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:59 AM

Sigh. I'll speak up for The Bluest Eye. It's a dark and beautiful book, and young people will benefit from experiencing the lives of the characters. Most neurotypical, mentally healthy 16-year-olds will find the book harrowing before they find it titillating.

 

That said, like so much other assigned reading, I dare the average 16-year-old to make heads or tails of the language and the story in under five complete readings. Toni Morrison's fiction is absorptive and immersive, and the average American teenager reading her words will have no idea what she is talking about on the first read or three. The reader will be able to decode the words, like a kid doing early phonics, but comprehension and understanding will not result immediately. No, first they will have to stretch their brains and ask questions and research other worldviews and reread the paragraph, the page, the chapter, the book. And that's why this book is recommended reading (which is not to say that it should be forced reading for anyone). It stretches reading comprehension and lit-crit muscles, not to mention developing empathy.

 

I actually seriously question the entire AP English worldview and all their BS reading lists, but taken on its own terms, The Bluest Eye is a valuable book.

 

If not this one, then other books of similar depth and challenge are appropriate at this age.

 

Sex and violence inform a great deal of the human condition and are therefore endemic in great literature.

 


  • Allearia, Corraleno, AlmiraGulch and 13 others like this

#26 kiwik

kiwik

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2619 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:41 AM

It sounds like this book was on approved lists before common core so linking them is inflammatory. It does sound like the sort of book a person should get a choice about reading though. It would be a bit harrowing for someone who had been a victim of incest and/or paedophelia.
  • Mandy in TN and zoo_keeper like this

#27 Monica_in_Switzerland

Monica_in_Switzerland

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1639 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:46 AM


 

Sex and violence inform a great deal of the human condition and are therefore endemic in great literature.

 

There are many, many, many complex, deep literature selections already in existence, and probably already on these lists, that do not contain graphic scenes of child rape.  Why keep this book on an approved list for minors?  If it takes 5-6 readings of this book for its full meaning to sink in, then leave it for a college class focused on the subject, rather than throwing unprepared teenagers at it. 

 

There is SO MUCH great literature out there.  There are even other books by the same author that are considerably less graphic, though equally dark and complex. 

 

No one is calling for the book to be "banned" in some kind of global sense of the word.  But surely even the author herself did not aim the book at a teenage audience when she wrote it! 


  • JanOH, Lucidity, Sahamamama and 14 others like this

#28 elfknitter.

elfknitter.

    Shiny. Let's be bad guys.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2621 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 05:06 AM

No one is calling for the book to be "banned" in some kind of global sense of the word. But surely even the author herself did not aim the book at a teenage audience when she wrote it!

Actually, because of all this CC bruhaha bs, there are places that are looking to ban it outright: http://www.theatlant...schools/68884/.

It's literature, not porn. Regarding these poor YAs that are on the brink of adulthood, SOME, not all, are ready to analyze works LIKE THIS. Should all Juniors? No. Those possibly in an AP class where maturity level tends to be higher would probably do fine. I tend to think a Senior level class is better. But if it's like my high school lit experience, American Lit (which obviously this is) was junior year, while World Lit was Senior. So it would fall to a junior level.

And for those who keep yammering on about how the CC list is the end all be all and thus all these works must be mandates, PLEASE READ THE DAMN THING: http://www.corestand.../Appendix_B.pdf

The following text samples primarily serve to exemplify the level of complexity and quality that the Standards require all students in a given grade band to engage with. Additionally, they are suggestive of the breadth of texts that students should encounter in the text types required by the Standards. The choices should serve as useful guideposts in helping educators select texts of similar complexity, quality, and range for their own classrooms. They expressly do not represent a partial or complete reading list.

So no. No junior in an American high school has to read The Bluest Eye unless their district or school decides so. Even then, I can't see why a parent couldn't opt out for their child.
  • Dana, Corraleno, AlmiraGulch and 4 others like this

#29 elfknitter.

elfknitter.

    Shiny. Let's be bad guys.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2621 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 06:20 AM

/banghead

Why do we have posts in threads when no one bothers to reads them or just bothers to flippantly comment without reading?
  • AlmiraGulch, unfrumpable., Sadie and 1 other like this

#30 teeniebeenie6

teeniebeenie6

    Hive Mind Level 5 Worker: Forager Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 859 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 06:29 AM

It sounds like this book was on approved lists before common core so linking them is inflammatory. It does sound like the sort of book a person should get a choice about reading though. It would be a bit harrowing for someone who had been a victim of incest and/or paedophelia.

Actually if you google it the common core was written to include this book. They didn't just adopt the old list.

I looked at the common core document and found they only recommended 19 stories for Grade 11. Since teachers feel pressure and stress to adapt to common core the likeliness that children in 11 grade are going to read this book is high. The fact that parents can opt out is moot to me. Many parents would never imagine that such a graphic book is a suggested to their 11th graders. My Dad didn't pre-read my books but would have been furious if he knew I was reading such a book.
  • Sahamamama, MtnTeaching, Forgiven and 3 others like this

#31 elfknitter.

elfknitter.

    Shiny. Let's be bad guys.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2621 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 06:45 AM

nm

Edited by Moderator, 02 September 2013 - 11:14 AM.
Take a deep breath and try again.

  • nmoira, Corraleno, Lune and 4 others like this

#32 mothergooseofthree

mothergooseofthree

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 08:52 AM

I have not read the book, but did read a few of the explicit excerpts.  They were so repulsive that I chose not to finish reading them.  It was enough to convince me that not only do I not want my dc to ever read it, but I don't need to read it.  When I read, I mentally picture what is happening.  I don't need those images on my mind.  I wouldn't want them there if the story was about two consenting adults due to the fact that it is pornographic.  But to involve an abused child is certainly an image that I don't need in my head.   The author could have told the story without the explicit scenes and still gotten her point across, just as so many movies today could be made without the cursing and half dressed actors/actresses and be just as entertaining.  Our society seems to thrive on things that are shocking.

 

I also read that the author was wanting the reader to see the abuser's point of view.  Why would I want my dc to see child rape from the view of the rapist?  


  • Calming Tea, Mommy22alyns, MtnTeaching and 11 others like this

#33 NicoleMarie

NicoleMarie

    Hive Mind Larvae

  • Members
  • 26 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:26 AM

Sigh. I'll speak up for The Bluest Eye. It's a dark and beautiful book, and young people will benefit from experiencing the lives of the characters. Most neurotypical, mentally healthy 16-year-olds will find the book harrowing before they find it titillating.

 

That said, like so much other assigned reading, I dare the average 16-year-old to make heads or tails of the language and the story in under five complete readings. Toni Morrison's fiction is absorptive and immersive, and the average American teenager reading her words will have no idea what she is talking about on the first read or three. The reader will be able to decode the words, like a kid doing early phonics, but comprehension and understanding will not result immediately. No, first they will have to stretch their brains and ask questions and research other worldviews and reread the paragraph, the page, the chapter, the book. And that's why this book is recommended reading (which is not to say that it should be forced reading for anyone). It stretches reading comprehension and lit-crit muscles, not to mention developing empathy.

 

I actually seriously question the entire AP English worldview and all their BS reading lists, but taken on its own terms, The Bluest Eye is a valuable book.

 

If not this one, then other books of similar depth and challenge are appropriate at this age.

 

Sex and violence inform a great deal of the human condition and are therefore endemic in great literature.

 

Thanks for this!!!

 

Great literature is a reflection of the history at the time it was written. The Bluest Eye is a beautiful book about a young girl who, in addition to being molested, was mentally and physically abused. A person who reads this book will learn empathy and may even be able to relate better to others who have dealt with abuse. That being said, we can always choose to not include this book in our child's work. I own the book along with many others like it because I'm a fan of Morrison and others like her.

 

Whether or not my daughter will read it in hs will depend on her maturity level. I didn't read it until I was in undergrad for a literature class. I did read others like it in high  school by Zora Neale Hurston that I don't think had the language Morrison uses. I also highly doubt that Morrison intended this to be a children's book. I've never seen it advertised as such.

 

As to common core... I'm not a fan at all. I worked with them in the classroom and its connection to Agenda 21 disgusts me, but that is another thread topic.



#34 Dory

Dory

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2968 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:31 AM

That isn't a book I would read, it isn't a book that my dh would be ok with me reading or my kids reading, I certainly wouldn't allow it in our house. That is porn. When sex is spelled out that explicitly, it's porn. The only thing missing is pictures for the visually inclined learners. If my kids were to read about pedophilia in any other way people would be horrified, why is it ok in a school book.


  • Sahamamama, I.Dup., PentecostalMom and 4 others like this

#35 Chrysalis Academy

Chrysalis Academy

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4974 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:33 AM

I'm curious about something.  This question is specifically directed at people who express horror at the idea that their child would read a book with this kind of content at age 16 or 17.  I notice that a lot of you have pretty young kids.  Are you thinking that when your kid is 16 or 17, you will have control over the content of all the books they read?

 

I'm just curious.  This certainly wasn't my experience as a teenager - when the adults (parents, teachers at a parochial school, ministers) tried to control us and keep us from reading specific books, that just made them more desireable.  And had zero effect on keeping us from reading them.  I just wonder if maybe you aren't kidding yourselves about how much control you will have over your almost adult's environment?

 


  • Elm in NJ, Laura Corin, momto2Cs and 18 others like this

#36 Dory

Dory

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2968 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:47 AM

I'm curious about something.  This question is specifically directed at people who express horror at the idea that there child would read a book with this kind of content at age 16 or 17.  I notice that a lot of you have pretty young kids.  Are you thinking that when your kid is 16 or 17, you will have control over the content of all the books they read?

 

I'm just curious.  This certainly wasn't my experience as a teenager - when the adults (parents, teachers at a parochial school, ministers) tried to control us and keep us from reading specific books, that just made them more desireable.  And had zero effect on keeping us from reading them.  I just wonder if maybe you aren't kidding yourselves about how much control you will have over your almost adult's environment?

 

When I was a teenager I did a lot of things that I shouldn't have done. Oddly though, books were one thing my mom actually talked about with me. Books weren't forbidden so much as my mom wouldn't buy them for her house or take them out of the library. She actually talked to me about why she wouldn't though. We talked about morals, and what reading can open the mind up to whether that be good or bad. Being selective about what I read. Sometimes a controversial book can be good to stretch the mind, but there are some things that a healthy mind just shouldn't have in it. At least that's how I was taught. I chose not to read those books. Brave New World was the most controversial book I read as a teenager. I've seen a few families around here do the same and I'm hoping that's where it goes with my kids. When things are just avoided without an explanation as to the why, I think that's when it becomes something the kids just 'have' to have or read. Explaining the why to my kids doesn't make me uncomfortable. They'll be aware enough of their world by then that we can discuss what is in the book and why I wouldn't be ok with reading it myself. That teaches them to guard their own mind and heart, not just suffer through me over protecting them until they can do whatever the hell they want to do.

 

It worked with me doing it that way with my little brother in this house. We talked  a LOT about the why's behind my choices. There are many things that he has done differently than me, but he has been amazingly careful about what he allows him for reading and viewing material.


  • ElizaG, I.Dup., mothergooseofthree and 1 other like this

#37 cbollin

cbollin

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2742 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:56 AM

I'm curious about something.  This question is specifically directed at people who express horror at the idea that there child would read a book with this kind of content at age 16 or 17.  I notice that a lot of you have pretty young kids.  Are you thinking that when your kid is 16 or 17, you will have control over the content of all the books they read?

 

I'm just curious.  This certainly wasn't my experience as a teenager - when the adults (parents, teachers at a parochial school, ministers) tried to control us and keep us from reading specific books, that just made them more desireable.  And had zero effect on keeping us from reading them.  I just wonder if maybe you aren't kidding yourselves about how much control you will have over your almost adult's environment?

 

I express shock/sadness/horror at this. However, I have a daughter who is turning 18 this month.  If this book were recommended in her classroom (at 11th grade, last year for her), I don't think it would be appropriate for adults to request a minor to read it based on the quotes from the book with the graphic descriptions. 

If I were a public school teacher, I'd be nervous assigning the book so that I wasn't being accused of setting up an environment that might be classified as harrassment, or a message to a student.

 

From my perspective, this isn't about control over content of all books they read. It is about content of assigned material and adults requesting minors to read this in order to take a required English course.  If the children sneak around and read it, that's different.  But when an adult assigns this book to a minor....   that's a different issue.   If an adult sent an underage student a text with the quotes from this book, that would cross some lines.  


  • momto2Cs, Susan in TX, MtnTeaching and 3 others like this

#38 mothergooseofthree

mothergooseofthree

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:58 AM

Thanks for this!!!

 

Great literature is a reflection of the history at the time it was written. The Bluest Eye is a beautiful book about a young girl who, in addition to being molested, was mentally and physically abused. A person who reads this book will learn empathy and may even be able to relate better to others who have dealt with abuse. That being said, we can always choose to not include this book in our child's work. I own the book along with many others like it because I'm a fan of Morrison and others like her.

 

Whether or not my daughter will read it in hs will depend on her maturity level. I didn't read it until I was in undergrad for a literature class. I did read others like it in high  school by Zora Neale Hurston that I don't think had the language Morrison uses. I also highly doubt that Morrison intended this to be a children's book. I've never seen it advertised as such.

 

As to common core... I'm not a fan at all. I worked with them in the classroom and its connection to Agenda 21 disgusts me, but that is another thread topic.

 

 

That isn't a book I would read, it isn't a book that my dh would be ok with me reading or my kids reading, I certainly wouldn't allow it in our house. That is porn. When sex is spelled out that explicitly, it's porn. The only thing missing is pictures for the visually inclined learners. If my kids were to read about pedophilia in any other way people would be horrified, why is it ok in a school book.

It may be a beautiful story and teach a valuable lesson, but the explicit description of the sexual acts is unnecessary to the plot and crosses the line of vulgarity.  I read  Redeeming Love by Francine Rivers.  The main character was a prostitute.  In the reading, you knew the pain of her life: the acts she committed, the shame, the degradation.  However, no act was ever explicitly described.  And, in the end, you come away knowing the lesson the author has for the reader.


  • Mommy22alyns, MtnTeaching, I.Dup. and 13 others like this

#39 kwickimom

kwickimom

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2434 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:05 AM

My kids are young and when they are older I will still not allow this book to be read. Yes, they might read it elsewhere but I will NO WAY allow it or be a part of them ever reading it. I will do what I can to not have it read while they are still under my care. What they do when they leave is up to them but I sure hope I will raise them to do and read things that are not disgusting and explicit.

I DO NOT care how "good" this book or others like it are. There is never ever a reason for anyone to ever read in detail a man r*ping a little girl. That doesn't ever need understood or explained in detail. I can sympathize with anyone that said they were abused without needing the details. NO teenager needs to read it. No adult needs to read it.

How is it we do all we can to keep our children safe from predators and then turn around and put garbage like that out there for them to read?!?!? So we keep our kids safe and then let them read that so they can see what they missed??? DISTURBING!


  • I.Dup., mothergooseofthree, Forgiven and 4 others like this

#40 Sahamamama

Sahamamama

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5944 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:07 AM

Reading is a very different beast to viewing. I've got no problem with my 14 year old reading the Game of Thrones books, but there's no way I'd let her lay eyes on the TV series.

I trust my kids to self-censor their reading, meaning that if they find a book too emotionally difficult or confronting, they generally put it aside for six months or so.

My 15 yr old has read much of Toni Morrison. She finds her books well-written and thought provoking but Morrison isn't one of her favourite authors. She's fine :)

How old are kids in 11th grade ? 16 ? 17 ?

 

But if the book is assigned in PS English class, then it's more difficult for the student to self-censor the reading, and less likely that parents will even know what is going on emotionally with their child, and why. You can't put the assignment aside for six months when you are required to read it and discuss it in class.


  • SunnyDays likes this

#41 Mandy in TN

Mandy in TN

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3868 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:08 AM

It sounds like this book was on approved lists before common core so linking them is inflammatory.

The Bluest Eye has been controversial for its inclusion on reading lists long, long before the common core.
  • nmoira, kitten18, mamaraby and 2 others like this

#42 momma2three

momma2three

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2142 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:12 AM

The Bluest Eye has been controversial for its inclusion on reading lists long, long before the common core.

 

Yes.  It was on AP reading and college board and "important books to read before you finish high school" reading lists when I was in high school.  Somehow, the world has not crumbled, and there were not roving bands of high school students raping little children.  In fact, child abuse is much more frequently spoken about, and there is greater awareness that it exists and ways to protect your children.  It's almost as if, and maybe this is crazy, but learning about and talking about a problem is the first step on the road to awareness and action.


  • nmoira, TeacherZee, Dana and 9 others like this

#43 mamaraby

mamaraby

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 881 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:13 AM

I'm sorry but anyway you look at it, with the words and phrases used... it IS pornography. I am amazed at how loose some people's standards are.


In short - Different values. Different standards.

And no, it's not pornography. Not even close.

The long version? I agree with farrar and the rest who find this a non-issue.
  • Dana, Hypatia., suzybluecheese and 1 other like this

#44 kwickimom

kwickimom

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2434 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:22 AM

In short - Different values. Different standards.

And no, it's not pornography. Not even close.

The long version? I agree with farrar and the rest who find this a non-issue.

Explicit sex is pornography. It is pedophile pornography. What the heck is your definition of porn? 


  • NicAnn and Forgiven like this

#45 momma2three

momma2three

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2142 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:27 AM

Explicit sex is pornography. It is pedophile pornography. What the heck is your definition of porn? 

 

The one in the dictionary.

 

http://www.merriam-w...ary/pornography

 

1. the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

 

2. material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

 

It is most certainly not pornography by any standard use of the word.


  • Mandy in TN, TeacherZee, Dana and 7 others like this

#46 NASDAQ

NASDAQ

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1569 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:27 AM

It's a suggestion. It's not appropriate for every community, but let's be realistic here -- there are large swaths of the country where pupils this age have been sexually active for several years.

 

Unless a parent has been exceedingly diligent in imposing limits on what their children read and view, this is not going to be anything new to a pupil of this age.

 

Personally I don't really impose limits for written material, although I would not _suggest_ this to my seven-year-old.


  • Corraleno, unfrumpable., Wildcat and 1 other like this

#47 nmoira

nmoira

    Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis and hypocrisy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15889 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:28 AM

Explicit sex is pornography. It is pedophile pornography. What the heck is your definition of porn? 

 

pornography
Syllabification: (por·nog·ra·phy)
Pronunciation: /pôrˈnägrəfē/
noun
  • - printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.
 
The Bluest Eye is not pornography.

  • Mandy in TN, Corraleno, Lune and 4 others like this

#48 Mandy in TN

Mandy in TN

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3868 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:29 AM

I graduated from high school 11 years ago, we didn't have such explicit books then!

Of course you did. Either you were not in advanced classes, or you had teachers that didn't hand out those important-book, high school book lists compiled by colleges and instead only assigned those books with which they were comfortable. I promise if you had checked around important-book book lists have always contained books that others feel should be banned. :) And, it isn't as if The Bluest Eye was published yesterday.
Mandy
  • nmoira, Dana, Corraleno and 9 others like this

#49 readinmom

readinmom

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1768 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:31 AM

Okay, I'm going to say it.  Sorry. 

 

The one phrase describes him having sex with his daughter.  His daughter.  His daughter. 

 

My school's required reading for 11th grade is The Crucible and Of Mice and Men, The Great Gatsby is teacher's option. 


  • kwickimom and Danielle1746 like this

#50 NASDAQ

NASDAQ

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1569 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:33 AM

Pornography generally refers to material created for the purpose of arousal. So if a police officer is writing a report of something vile that happened to a small child, he has not created child pornography, since his purpose is to convey information for legal purposes and not to arouse some sick person who might read it.

 

The legal definition of pornography is some gloss on "sexually explicit material without redeeming social value." So literature, police reports, that sort of thing, they are not pornography. This is somewhat narrower than the common definition above, since it arguably lets in, say, the Coppertone ad or photos of a kid in a bathtub.

 

Neither definition admits The Bluest Eye.


  • Delirium likes this


What's with the ads?