Young Adult Lit/Crit

Reading I WON'T READ IT

I'd love to see some posts on Reynolds' book. She talks in ch 5 about teens' hunger for books that "reflect life." What's been interesting or important for you in Reynolds' book? I paired it with INEXCUSEABLE and LORELEI STREET intentionally. These are books that reach what Reynolds calls the "reluctant teen reader" who when assigned the classroom "classic," either pretends to read it, fakes it through class discussions and the quiz by reading the online summaries, or simply listening to the teacher talk about the book (that's what Eng. teachers do, isn't it?) or, all too often, rejects it outright. That's the kid who says, "Why do we have to read this? It's boring." I

I can't tell you how many students over years came into my classrooms proud that they had never "had" to read any of the books assigned to them. They were seniors so as Dr. Phil says, that was workin' for them just fine. If you can't quote Dr. Phil, you are no popular culture hound.

I'll bet some of you are thinking -- "yup, that's what low level readers do." No, this is what our "best" readers do. Many of them have their own reading agendas; they're pursuing them in spite of us. They get along fine without adopting our agendas. But why would we settle for being outsiders in our students' real reading lives? Not when we want to get in on the discussions w/our kids of books that Reynolds argues "lead lives."

Your turn. KES

Participating in a Socratic Seminar

In response to my post last Fri asking for volunteers to facilitate discussion, Jacqueline has offered to be the seminar leader for a discussion of INEXCUSABLE on TH night. Here is a good description of the key question that ignites the seminar:

"An opening question has no right answer; instead it reflects a genuine curiosity on the part of the leader. An effective opening question leads participants back to the text as they speculate, evaluate, define, and clarify the issues involved. Responses to the opening question generate new questions from the leader and participants, leading to new responses. In this way, the line of inquiry evolves on the spot rather than being predetermined by the leader."

Participants in the seminar must come prepared (that's what your annotations of the text accomplish) for the discussion, or in my experience it can degenerate into a general chat about any number of related topics or remain at an "amateur reader" level (that is, "I liked it, I didn't like it," etc.) instead of remaining focused on the text. Focus on a sophisticated reading of the text is our objective.

I look forward to our discussion. Just a warning. I think the class has READ this book. If you haven't finished it by TH night's class, I can't protect you from the ending's not being spoiled by your enthusiastic peers.

By asking you to read only the first half I am trying to be respectful of how much reading there will be to accomplish every week in this class, primarily your independent choice reading for book clubs, seminars and lit circles.

KES

Socratic Seminar

Hi Karen!  I am all for trying out a Socratic seminar for Inexcusable on Thursday night.  I have a few questions, though: (1) Am I supposed to post questions about it on the weblog?  (2) If so, how would those questions be different from those we might discuss on Thursday?  (3) How much am I expected to know/teach about Socratic seminar before our discussion begins?

Thanks,

Jacqueline

The Secret Life of Bees

I am in the process of finishing up "The Secret Life of Bees" by Sue Monk Kidd.  Beacause the protagonist is a fourteen year old girl struggling to find herself, I will definitely include this book in my classroom library.  As Herz mentions in "Hinton to Hamlet," students identify with characters who are facing real life struggles. Monk Kidd incorporates such issues as bigotry, depression, abuse, etc. into the novel.   I also think that students will enjoy this book beacause it has an intersting plot that keeps the reader's attention.  I'll see you all on Thursday.

Chrissy

Finished It

Ok, I finished the book. So if you haven't, don't read this post until later as I will discuss the book in toto.

First off, this wouldn't have been a useful book to me when I was a kid. I was an entirely different person from Keir in every way imaginable, and would never have ended up in a situation like he landed in. There were a few posts trying to assign blame, whether it be on Keir for being self-deceptive or Ray for not fulfilling parental duties, but what about society as an abstract force? Keir and his dad go out drinking and Keir gets served? Not only do they serve him, they know full well that he's a high school senior and condone his behavior. What about Ken's parents, who decide that it's ok to leave the house to their son for the weekend and tell him as long as they don't find out what goes on it's ok? While these may be alarmingly frequent occurences in the real world, let's not blame Keir for finding himself in a situation where he can get a wide assortment of drugs with no one telling him that it's wrong.

As for the football incident, I place no blame at all anywhere. It was an accident, these things happen. Keir can feel bad that it happened, and others can express sympathy for both the hurt boy and Keir, but this incident was not a result of any deliberate action, and was entirely an accident.

And now, to the 'inexcusable' act itself. Keir was stupid, this is beyond question. He was also drugged up quite nicely. And so was she. While his responsibility is to restrain himself and understand when 'no' means 'no', her responsibility was to either not end up in the situation or to be irrevocably firm. In that sense, they both failed. Again, we're not sure as to specifics because we get them first person. Did she in fact say 'no'? Did she in fact respond to Keir's overtures in a positive way? These are not excuses (his action is indeed 'inexcusable') but they are mitigating circumstances.

I can see quite clearly how this is supposed to resonate with younger readers. They are assumed to be in a world surrounded by temptation, bereft of moral guidance, and thrust into situations where they aren't able to make rational decisions. Parents are conspicously absent. Ray, the most present parent in the book, has fallen into the trap of trying to make friends with his kids before they have grown up. The very fact that Keir calls his dad 'Ray' indicates a level of informality and a lack of authority possessed by Ray over Keir's life. I of course know my parents' names, and those of my friends' parents, but it would seem horribly awkward and inappropriate to call any of them by their first names. Keir has no moral compass, no authority figure pointing the way, and thus he becomes excellent at rationalizing all that he does. After all, no one is telling him differently.

Well, that's enough for now. There's sure to be some good discussion in class Thursday!

-NJP

Invisible

Hi there!  I read Invisible over the weekend.  Definitely a quick read.  The narrator is a "troubled" teen who lives in an imaginary world -- on many different levels.  He's an outsider, which I think my students would appreciate, but has one close friend that he really trusts.

This narrator is funny in a sense.  At the beginning of the novel, I found myself annoyed by him; by the end, I had a sort of detached empathy for him.  I cared about what happened to him, but couldn't quite picture myself in his shoes.  This is often the case with the students that I work with.  When they first come to my school, I often am surprised (and sometimes annoyed) by some of the things they do or say.  It's usually not until I hear their stories that I can truly empathize with them.  I think it's safe to say that everyone has a story, it's just that most people never take the time to learn it before they judge.  I have to continually remind myself of this.

A Late Hello...

Hi there,

Because I missed class on Thursday (bball game - we got killed), I was not able to meet all of you... so now I will use this forum to introduce myself.  I teach English and coach at CNS (today we had a loaded gun in school - but really it is a great district). This is my second year, so I am no old pro.  As far as YA titles in the classroom go, I would love to be able to introduce many more -- at least for companion pieces to go along with the classics.  My trouble there is getting board approval, then getting the books. 

Anywho, that is really about it.  See you all on Thursday.

Laura

Part one con't

Karen - I am not sure how to attach my comment to your comment.  But as far as your question concerning Ray, I believe that Ray is a big part of Keir's problem.  He is an alcoholic, or as he states a "quasi alcoholic."  He has never completely gotten over the loss of his wife, Keir's mother.  Rather than give Keir guidance concerning his questionable actions, he soothes Keir's conscience with comments such as "you're a good boy".   I'm only at page 69, so I'm not sure of Ray's reaction in the end.  I don't see him as a bad guy, but simply a troubled man that loves his son dearly.  He can't stand the thought of Keir being in trouble.  Keir also could not stand to be seen as a bad kid in the eyes of his father. 

Part One

Chris Lynch's protagonist, Keir, exemplifies inexcusable behavior.  As the story of his life unfolds, we see that Keir has difficulty expressing remorse due to his inability to see the error of his ways.  Lynch uses a Jekyll and Hyde complex to successfully demonstrate Keir's propensity toward violence.  Keir is unaware of any wrong doing on his part until he must come face to face with the hard truth (ie. the video tape of the soccer incident).  He then goes into several speeches on how he could not be part of these incidents, due to the fact that he is a well liked guy.  He has a distorted view of right and wrong, as Lynch illustrates with the silences that are present during an intense conversation with his sister Fran.  Keir' s statement "I hate it when people I love...", lets us in on how important it is for him to be liked by those around him, especially his father and sisters.  Lynch takes the reader on a journey through through Keir's disillusioned acts of adolescence - the crippling of the football player, the destruction of the town statue, even the abuse of his soccer teammates.  However, the date rape of his friend Gigi is the ultimate unspeakable act.  I'll be curious to see if even Ray can forgive Keir's "inexcusable" behavior.

Prelimary Thoughts

Greetings all-

I had three thoughts to share after the first 44 pages.    1) The first scene echoes, for me, Lennie's "accidental" murder of "the tart" in Of Mice and Men.  I think ones class could have an excellent discussion on culpability, agency, and sorry versus guilty.  2) The first person narration is pretty intriguing.   As with all first person, we want to empathize with the narrator.   But unlike most 1st person voices, Keir relies on other characters (on 3rd person accounts, as it were) to establish his reliability.   This is problematic, especially when Keir and his sisters struggle to communicate about the football "accident."   As with all teenage first person narrators, I'm reminded of Holden.  Holden largely establishes his reliability through his self-hatred, and while he overtly lies to other people, he almost always lets us in on the lie.  I think another interesting inter-textual link is the theme of mourning that appears to underlie both novels.  3) My last observation (warning: for now) is the way Lynch uses tense and secretion to create suspense.   I find these are productive literary concepts to incorporate in the classroom (as opposed, nod to Professor Stearns, to onomatopoeia) because a) most students can see how the method impacts the reading experience and b) most students can consciously try to incorporate experiments in secretion and tense in their own writing.

Okidokee,

Chris