Books you had to read at school

[chrisqqgx4]

As part of my English Literature 'O' Level in England in 1982-83, I had to struggle through Henry IV, Part I, The Importance of Being Earnest, and a Thomas Hardy, maybe The Mayor of Casterbridge.

This is aged 15-16 years old for anybody outside the country.

I remember them them all as a chore, and I failed the exam because I didn't read and study the books as I couldn't stand them. Why would you read a play when they are only meant to be performed?

This was a few years ago, and I wonder what anybody younger is studying now, or what your childrens' set texts are for this level, either in the UK or anywhere around the world.

Here's what I would give them:

Melville, Moby Dick
Sebastian Faulks, Birdsong
Tom Sharpe, Indecent Exposure

<edited for embarassing typos in a literature thread, and to add what I would teach>

 

[Walter Wayne]

I never got great marks from English class but usually liked the books that we read. Romeo and Juliet was one of the few I disliked, seemed to much like a Shakespearean soap-opera at the time.

What can I remember from high-school (Age 14-18)

Romeo and Juliet
Merchant of Venice
Julius Ceasar
King Lear
Oedipus Rex
Heart of Darkness
Lord of the Flies
Shoeless Joe
To Kill a Mockingbird
Beowulf
Chaucer's Tales (come to think of it I wasn't fond of those either)
Some Farly Mowat (a couple more bad books)
A couple of Iris Murdoch books
...

More I can't remember

Walt

 

[Ove]

Had to read "The Catcher in the Rye" - "Lord of the Flies" - "The Pearl" and similar and to this day i HATE "social realism". I was at the same time reading "Stalky & Co" for my pleasure (and was rolling with laughter).

It seems to me that most of the books they forced us to read back then was about miserable people, living miserable lives, i wanted (want) to read about people living fun lives.

 

[H3LL]

The Mayor of Casterbridge

I can't bear the thought of ever reading another Thomas Hardy novel.

Wuthering Heights

I have never opened any of the Bronte sisters books since, which is probably a good thing.

Kes

They also made us watch the movie...Aaaaah!


On the plus side, we had The Hobbit read to us by the teacher when I was about 8ish.

 

[Bikewer]

In Catholic high school in the 60s, I recall fighting my way through Silas Marner, The Scarlet Letter, Heart of Darkness, and similar fun fare.
And me a stone sci-fi freak even then....

 

[epepke]

It seems that people are mostly posting horror stories.

I can't think of a thing in High School that I was exposed to unwilling in an English class that I found really valuable, and I had a really good English teacher. The standards like The Jungle and The Octopus were only mildly interesting in a historical way. I did enjoy a Shakespeare class I took, but that was because I liked Shakespeare. I was surprised to see someone mentioning To Kill a Mockingbird, becuase I had read that book to the point of wearing out the paperback by the time I was 10.

What we kids traded around outside of class was more interesting. Finnegan's Wake, First Blood, "In the Penal Colony," and The Weapon Shops of Isher come to mind.

University was a different story. The stuff that was rammed down my throat was actually good.

 

[Ove]

and I had a really good English teacher

I think this is the key word.

My teacher was a raving Steinbeck freak who just couldn't understand why we didn't share his love for this great Bard but somehow drunks, fisherman and very poor people in USA was not characters we could recognize or even sympatize with.
I haven't read a Steinbeck book ever since. A shame really but that's how it is.

 

[epepke]

I think this is the key word.

Yeah, but my point is that it still sucked, and I still didn't emerge from High School with much decent mainstream literature.

I'm still trying to figure out how to crack that nut.

 

[Ove]

Hmmmm, then i'll redefine. A good teacher must understand what can capture his pupils and choose books after this, at least in the beginning. When you're hooked you'll swallow anything. I read "The 3 Musketeers" in the full version when i was 12. It took me ages but i was really hooked.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

I'd suggest Justine and The Story of O, but that's only because I want to see what would happen to all the more conservative-think-of-the-children advocates if that happened.

 

[epepke]

I'd suggest Justine and The Story of O, but that's only because I want to see what would happen to all the more conservative-think-of-the-children advocates if that happened.

Justine is hilarious. The Story of O is pretty boring, though.

 

[epepke]

Hmmmm, then i'll redefine. A good teacher must understand what can capture his pupils and choose books after this, at least in the beginning. When you're hooked you'll swallow anything. I read "The 3 Musketeers" in the full version when i was 12. It took me ages but i was really hooked.

I don't know. I think he was a good teacher, but I think he chose pretty bad books. I think he was a good teacher because he reversed my original poisoning against writing that was due to innumerable essays on topics such as "My Least Favorite Sport."

 

[c4ts]

Moby Dick is awesome. I'd make my students read Descartes first.

 

[Ove]

I don't know. I think he was a good teacher, but I think he chose pretty bad books. I think he was a good teacher because he reversed my original poisoning against writing that was due to innumerable essays on topics such as "My Least Favorite Sport."

Good "teacher" - bad "litterature teacher", one thing doesn't rule out the other.

I'd suggest Justine and The Story of O, but that's only because I want to see what would happen to all the more conservative-think-of-the-children advocates if that happened.

Personally i'd choose "Fanny Hill" also because it is a hillarious satire over English "Upper Class", ..... today that is, i don't know if it was intended that way.
I agree, "O" is boring and Justine is... well too "Kinky" for my taste (im NOT into S/M) but the most famous "dirty book": "Lady Chatterley's Lover" OTOH os also pretty boring.

 

[Zep]

At one stage we had to read Anthony Trollope's The Warden. GOD WAS IT BORINGGGGG!! AAARGH! I cringe even today at the thought of going near Trollope again.

An Angry Young Man was another - not quite so boring, but fairly dull.

Some of the Shakespeare, I'm afraid to say, was dull too. King Lear especially...

We had an excellent time learning Chaucer though. An actor came to our school and actually performed some of the poems in the manner of a travelling balladeer or minstrel of the time - belled cap, coloured clothes, etc, complete with acting of the parts. In the original Middle English too. Would you believe we understood and enjoyed it thoroughly (especially the bawdy bits).

 

[c4ts]

The Miller's tale was the best.

 

[Bikewer]

It's unfortunate that so many kids are exposed to Shakespear by way of reading through the plays. Meant to be performed, after all.
Our english classes tried manfully, I suppose, by assigning each part to a student and having us read them out loud, but it's not quite the same thing...

We did get a couple of local companies putting on Twelfth Night and Much Ado About Nothing in the school's very nice theater; much better.

 

[RSLancastr]

In Catholic high school in the 60s, I recall fighting my way through Silas Marner, The Scarlet Letter, Heart of Darkness, and similar fun fare.
And me a stone sci-fi freak even then....

I remember an English class in which we had to read Silas Marner and a book of our choice, and write a paper comparing the two.

I found it a great opportunity to read the LoTR trilogy during class.

All I recall of the resulting paper was that I compared the effect that Silas Marner's gold had on him with the effect that The One Ring had on Gollum and Frodo.

And for whatever reason, more than thirty years later, I still recall the first line of the paper:

"At first glance, Silas Marner and The Lord of the Rings trilogy would seem to have about as much in common as, say, a bull moose and a relief map of North America."

Believe it or not, the paper got an A, and the teacher read it to the class, much to my embarrassment.

 

[Ove]

It's unfortunate that so many kids are exposed to Shakespear by way of reading through the plays. Meant to be performed, after all.

You are right. I saw an interwiew with one of the great Shakespeare actors (can't remember who i'm afraid, -Olivier???) where he said that it was utterly stupid to make the works cumpolsory reading in scool. Most of his works was NEVER intended for reading but is stage manuscripts and should be treated as such.

 

[Mr Clingford]

The BBC recently produced some of the Canterbury Tales and The Miller's Tale was very enjoyable! Why, though, did they make us study the Knight's Tale at school (yawn) and not that one!

I studied English at uni and should, therefore, say that I think that Shakespeare is marvellous, but I still haven't got over my dislike of him having had to study him at school; the only good things I can remember are Juliet's breasts in the Zefferelli film and the Polanski Macbeth which had naked women and blood and gore (I have since matured into a cultured intellectual )