Posts by Jamie Davis9

James Perez54 said:I am one of those people who pointed out how vital it is to have a high-quality, dedicated teacher if you want kids to actually love reading, yet you mocked that by bringing up math, calculus, underachieving students, and how parents always end up blaming the teachers and all that nonsense.

Now you're just contradicting yourself.🤷

I am not retracting my position; rather, it seems you are approaching these posts as if they were required reading for a literature exam. My point remains exactly what I stated: parents most frequently blame subpar teachers for everything that goes wrong, conveniently choosing to ignore their own failures and the inherent limitations of their children.

Larry Walker24 said:Honestly, I think the Gleam family story works way better as a movie than it ever did as a book.

Sure, maybe Laura wasn't played by anyone legendary, and Ljubica Jović didn't quite nail the Barunic role like Ena Begović might have, so there's a question of whether it would've hit as hard without them.

But hey, why not just run an experiment? Let them adapt a classic into a series or a film, and if people actually want to read the original, they can do that and then compare the two.

Well, my students actually watched Gatsby for their required reading assignment. I have to admit, it really is a cinematic masterpiece. 👍

Peter Doyle2 said:Not quite.
I've read through both the process and the transformation—I guess you could say I've seen the whole evolution.
A standard high school.
The transformation was easy enough to follow. Personally, I thought it was actually quite good—though I know it wasn't everyone's cup of tea. To each their own, I guess.
But the process...
I’m so lost right now—honestly, I’m at the point where I’d probably track down Kafka just to rip his fingernails out. 🤣 Man, I was only 17 back then. 🤣 I guess a whole lot of people seem to agree with me when it comes to how this process works—especially regarding how it's treated as some kind of staple for a seventeen-year-old.

Over the last decade, they've been pushing *The Transformation* pretty hard, even showing up on AP exams. But forget *The Process*; this year, one of the essay prompts was actually about Hemingway’s shorter works. Truly complex literature, I’ll give you that—perhaps a bit too dense for your average high schooler. But here is what I did: I read them aloud to the class, fully committing to "performing" every single character😁, and let me tell you, they were floored. They loved the stories and the style. It really goes to show how little effort some teachers put in.
If they hadn't tackled those classics in school, there's a massive chance ninety percent of them would never have voluntarily picked up anything that profound or beautiful. It's hardly a loss, though, because I certainly won't be recommending it to anyone who hasn't already experienced it.
And that's my answer to your second question.

Peter Doyle2 said:Peter Doyle2, you seem to be an English professor, or maybe something along those lines.

Could you please answer the question from the thread title?
What is the actual purpose of required reading?
I mean—is there even a concrete definition for it?

Assigned reading exists solely so that Jamie Davis9 and their little group of colleagues can pretend they possess actual intelligence. 🙂

Peter Doyle2 said:If that’s the case, then what’s the point of reading these works in their entirety? (Most people just skim excerpts from massive stuff like the Bible, the Iliad, or the Odyssey...)

Why don't we just assign more contemporary books for school reading lists? I mean, books actually tailored to a kid's age group—don't give me that excuse that a seventeen-year-old's biggest life experience is dealing with the DMV—books where they can actually relate to the characters, or stories that tackle issues they could seriously benefit from understanding (there are plenty of great books out there about abusive relationships, for instance*) 🤷 the classics aren't really doing much for them here 🤷

*I have to admit, everything I've read lately has been in English; most of it is pretty recent, so I'm not even sure if there are American translations coming out anytime soon. But regardless, the point is that these are topics teenagers would find way more relatable and engaging.

Domestic abuse! 🙄 😁Even Laura was being abusive to Ed, for God's sake. 🤣

The whole idea is to examine the process, to witness the transformation. Transformation is a much simpler concept to grasp. Honestly, I think it would be a crime to strip Kafka from the curriculum.
Fortunately, they don't bother asking parents. 😛

Peter Doyle2 said:How can you say that?
Let's—and this is what I’ve been saying all along, even if nobody really listens to me—let's focus on the era we actually live in. We need to look at the media surrounding us, which, especially for kids and teenagers, is way more engaging and attractive than books.
In that context, shouldn't the required reading be adapted to the times to actually encourage kids to read? Why not offer them stories that are actually relevant and interesting to them—something they *have* to read, unfortunately—so they can see that reading has its own charm, rather than just mindlessly staring at a screen?
Do they really think they'll get that from reading the Iliad, the Odyssey, or Proust? Seriously?
No.

General culture and knowledge? I think standard literature covers that well enough. In an age where reading habits are dying out, the current state of high school reading lists—which has been like this for a long, long time—just makes kids want to run away from reading even faster.

I agreed earlier that the curriculum needs a serious modernization, but blaming the reading list as the primary reason why kids hate reading is a complete miss. Kids don't want to read because they struggle to focus on a single thing for long enough; their brains are wired for multitasking, and books generally fail to hold their interest because they demand a level of concentration and patience that is increasingly rare.
I agree that this is something we should address, and I certainly agree that some books are deathly boring, but I disagree that the selection offered to them is inherently bad or unnecessary. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

Peter Doyle2 said:Fair enough.
But we aren't talking about English as an entire subject here, we're talking about required reading lists. What exactly is so vital and absolutely essential about these specific works that every single one must be read in its entirety? I mean, why can't most of them just be summarized through a certain passage and discussed during class?
To really grasp the point or the motivation behind Dante's Beatrice or Petrarch's Laura, is it—I guess—really necessary to read their complete works? Why?

and I suppose you're just tossing out information claiming that isn't how things are done?

Peter Doyle2 said:Man, I finished high school and even wrapped up college, yet I still have no clue what dialect Equinox was written in. I guess I should've stayed in tenth grade.

That’s basically how much interest a teenager has in stuff like that. ☕

On a side note—back when I was in high school, we actually had music appreciation classes. We studied different historical eras of music and listened to period pieces. We even had exams where we had to identify a specific musical work just by listening to our teacher play it.
At the end of class, if there was any time left—which there usually was—our teacher would encourage us to bring in our own tapes (I mean, I went to school back in the era of cassette tapes 🤣), and every single period we'd listen to whatever one of the students picked.
So why is that impossible to do with American literature and those required reading lists or short stories?
In my entire life, I haven't heard of a single high school teacher asking for or allowing something like that during their class. I saw it in middle school, sure, but never in high school 🤷

There you have it. 🙂

Regarding the second point, the American English and Literature curriculum is incomparably more extensive than music education, which, as its name implies, is categorized as an elective. English is one of the core pillars of the SATs, meaning every single student has to tackle it, requiring a massive amount of effort just to cover the necessary ground. There is a heavy burden on the instructor to properly address everything within the syllabus; otherwise, they’ve failed their students, potentially costing them admission to their preferred universities.
Furthermore, a cassette is a format you can actually finish listening to during a single class period, whereas reading a book is quite another matter entirely.

Perhaps if they weren't so sheltered, they might actually learn that the Equinox wasn't written in some archaic dialect from the coast.

Learning is an incredibly individual journey, and honestly, trying to apply a one-size-fits-all set of metrics to everyone is a fool's errand.

I don't think these students are failures by any means. It’s just human nature—especially for a child—to resist things they're forced to do. Most kids only engage with learning because they have no other choice.
It’s perfectly valid to question whether our entire educational system is obsolete; forcing this top-down, authoritative style of teaching in the 21st century feels outdated, though I realize that's a much larger issue than what we're debating right now.

A truly great professor can inspire a student to do meaningful, productive work, but if they find themselves fighting that battle entirely alone, all that effort often ends up being wasted.

I have no idea who you people are or what kind of nonsense you're peddling, but I fail to see a single logical reason why a kid wouldn't pick up Harry Potter on their own without some teacher breathing down their neck about it.

The focus remains on postmodernism, though if time permits, we might touch upon 21st-century literature. Honestly, that era feels far too raw and unrefined to be studied through any rigorous lens of representative patterns—whether you're looking at theme, style, or linguistic nuances.

Kids have the freedom to dive into whatever they want, regardless of what's assigned in class. Who is actually stopping them from reading? The fact that only about ten percent of available content gets vetted through required reading lists doesn't restrict their ability to pick up whatever catches their eye.

James Perez54 said:Believe it or not, most kids develop a hatred for a subject simply because they had incompetent teachers—people who either couldn't teach or just didn't care enough to actually reach their students.

It seems most children are naturally wired to push back against anything that feels forced upon them. I suppose I really should have said something earlier, though I’ve always been a bit too slow to catch my own mistakes. It’s just one more thing that needs doing, isn't it?Most kids find scrolling through Facebook for hours endlessly more entertaining than actually picking up a book—any book, for that matter. And let’s be honest, most parents just enable this by letting them rot their brains on social media all day, mostly because those same parents spend their own lives glued to a screen too. It’s rare to see a parent who actually reads anything of substance anymore. Instead, you have entire families sitting around in the evening binge-watching Turkish soap operas, only to switch over to some other trashy foreign drama during their lunch breaks. When these kids show any lack of interest in anything outside this mindless cycle, their parents always jump to their defense, blaming some lazy, incompetent teacher for their failure to focus. They'll even go as far as to claim Faulkner is garbage and that Proust is nothing more than a pretentious hack. 🙂

Look, I'll grant you that there are terrible teachers out there—just like there are incompetent waiters, dentists, or crooked politicians—but your post makes it sound like they make up the vast majority. I simply can't bring myself to agree with that assessment.

No, what I’m actually trying to get at is that if someone doesn't enjoy reading, they aren't going to enjoy it regardless of what's on the syllabus. On the flip side, anyone who actually likes getting lost in a book will always find something that resonates within the rich, diverse tapestry of an American English curriculum, and even the mandatory assignments won't be so overwhelming that they'll make them want to quit reading for the next decade. 🙂

As for my second point, I think it should be perfectly obvious that those examples were meant to illustrate the fact that the curriculum doesn't mandate a specific list of ten authors or their works; there simply isn't such a fixed roster.
Sure, Faulkner isn't everyone's cup of tea, and Proust is even more niche, but then again, neither are algorithms, wave interference patterns, or dispersive systems, so I fail to see why that should be treated as some sort of crisis.

Peter Doyle2 said:Great.
That's exactly why we have different types of schools and specialized programs; otherwise, everyone would just be stuck in prep school.
But tell me—why is it that about 90% of the required reading list is identical across all high schools?
I mean, back when I was in prep school, I only had to read specific chapters of the Iliad, the Odyssey, or the Bible... meanwhile, my cousin in vocational school was actually forced to read the entire Iliad and Odyssey from cover to cover. 😕

Look, let's be realistic here: the SAT might set some general boundaries regarding what's prioritized within the curriculum, but we’re talking about maybe fifteen core works. Since that list shifts every single year, there is absolutely zero guarantee that the potential essay topics we're looking at this year will even matter by next season.
When you really step back and look at the reality of the situation, there isn't actually any regulation or formal mandate that would force you, in your capacity as an instructor, to prioritize someone like Slobodan Novak over Ranko Marinković—or, if we're looking at the classics, choosing Faulkner over Proust, or maybe Goethe instead of Lermontov. 🤷

While the curriculum in academic high schools tends to be more extensive than what you see in vocational schools, there are certain incredibly dedicated and hardworking teachers—some of whom I actually know personally—who have gone out of their way to coordinate with their students to expand the vocational syllabus. They do this specifically so that when it comes time for the national standardized exams, those vocational students aren't left at a disadvantage and can stand on equal footing with the academic crowd regarding the material they've mastered.

I honestly can't wrap my head around why your little brother was forced to slog through the entirety of the Iliad and the Odyssey; it seems like an utterly unnecessary burden to place on a kid.
Either there’s a complete lunatic running the lecture hall, or he simply lost his grip on reality and made a massive blunder. 🙂

Peter Doyle2 said:how yes no.

There are more of us who have already pointed this out in this thread, but take me as an example: back in elementary school, I absolutely devoured books and read anything I could get my hands on. Some assignments were great, others were boring, but none of them made me hate reading

High school, however, totally wrecked me.
Literally. The mandatory reading lists made me loathe reading so much that I didn't touch a book for ten years—mostly because I simply didn't have to!

And honestly, a ton of people in real life will tell you the same thing. From the person working at the local newsstand to highly educated professionals... ☕

In this era we live in, where digital media and online content are becoming increasingly dominant in our daily lives, sticking to these traditional reading lists feels like doing a disservice to students.

Whether experts agree or not, that's just how it is.

For the seventeenth time now, there is no such thing as a fixed reading list. There are countless classics from American and world literature out there, and you can always—no, you absolutely should—find something captivating within them. As a student, nobody is restricting you; you should be free to reach for whatever sparks your interest and feels worth reading.
It’s clear you just can't stand reading, and honestly, there's nothing wrong with that.

From a professional standpoint, it's quite irrelevant whether you, La_Luni, have zero interest in books. My expertise actually supports your right to embrace whatever makes you happy as an adult, regardless of how much you avoid literature. 🙂

Jason Ortiz5 said:Oh, come on... 😲 How can you pin the blame on educators just because some kids aren't interested or simply struggle to learn? 😁

.....

So, we're saying the required reading list is basically a perfect cross-section of everything great, based on what—exactly? Are we really claiming these specific books are the absolute best, and there isn't a single other piece of literature out there that's just as good, or even better, and actually more engaging for kids today?

And honestly, schools should be doing their part to get kids excited about reading. I mean, think about the kids who don't have parents at home who prioritize books or even have the chance to be well-educated themselves. If they don't grow up loving stories, what are we supposed to do? Just say "too bad" and leave them behind?

The reality is that some children, much like certain adults, are simply ill-equipped to handle certain subjects or complexities. It is perfectly legitimate to find oneself incapable of grasping certain things.
Of course, having a talented teacher matters; dedication and quality are vital in any profession. However, a passion for reading is also a matter of individual inclination, personal capacity, and the habits formed during one's formative years—which ultimately falls on the shoulders of parental guidance and how they nurture their child's interests. 🙂

amberskipper3 said:Actually, I disagree.
The whole point of required reading is to give students a roadmap of literary movements, history, theory, language, and the specific styles that defined different eras.
We pick these specific works because they’re the clearest examples of those concepts in action. It's about teaching the fundamentals through representative classics.

Actually, it is.
The teacher chooses the curriculum, keeping in mind about fifteen titles designated for the SATs, a list that shifts from year to year. Given that, as a teacher, you actually have quite a bit of freedom to select many other works within the prescribed syllabus. As anyone working in American education knows, that syllabus is incredibly vast and rich; it certainly includes a wide array of stimulating, masterfully written pieces that leave lasting impressions on readers. For more ambitious or curious students, the curriculum can even be expanded with additional, equally or even more high-quality content. 🙂

James Perez54 said:Unfortunately, that's exactly right.

A significant portion of the blame lies with incompetent professors who simply lack the ability—or the desire—to make classic literature resonate with their students...

Exactly—it’s just like how people who struggle with math often face the brunt of the blame when their teachers failed to properly introduce them to basic intervals.
Honestly, I don't understand where this obsession comes from regarding whether children "must" love reading; some kids will enjoy it, and others won't, and that's just life.
Children who already possess an affinity for reading will naturally find the curriculum easier to navigate than those who don't, but you can't force that spark.
The required reading list isn't to blame for a lack of interest in books.
When I talk about high school reading lists, I'm referring to a curated collection of the finest literary works ever produced, organized chronologically so that any true lover of literature can always find something profound and engaging.
In elementary school, the selections are age-appropriate—some might be dull and others fun—but I find it utterly baffling that people think school holds more influence over a child's interest in books than, say, their own parents do.
At its core, required reading is just a monthly assignment to be completed, and there is no logical way it could serve as the primary or most decisive driver for a lifelong passion for reading; I hope it's clear to everyone just how absurd it is to expect such a thing.

p.s. I should also mention that the death of Smail aga Cengica is an exceptionally well-written epic.

northerncrane4 said:You have absolutely no idea just how much havoc my friend and I are capable of wreaking when we decide to go to war.

I suppose that's about right.

northerncrane4 said:Oh, please. As if personal responsibility is even a real concept anymore.

Look, I am perfectly willing to take full accountability for my own mess, but I have to ask—are you actually prepared to step up and own yours?

northerncrane4 said:Could you please point me toward which PDFs contain the posts from Week, Cyan, and Slayn?

I honestly don't even know where to begin with you.

northerncrane4 said:Primitive? How exactly are my posts primitive? I’m not even claiming yours are anything like what you're describing mine to be; frankly, your contributions are just pure garbage. I find it incredibly rude when one thread is intentionally flooded with trash while another is used by people to constantly whine about the good old days.

It’s honestly quite primitive how you attempt to force this level of communication on us by constantly dragging filth and sewage into discussions about the two of us; it is frankly vulgar and distasteful. A man of your age really ought to have learned by now that there are far more sophisticated ways to express an opinion without resorting to such gutter language.
I know our posts aren't inherently primitive. If they come across as garbage, it’s only because they serve as a perfect reflection of what this entire forum has devolved into, so we’re just leaning into the joke. It isn't causing any real damage since we aren't actually hurting anyone. Do you honestly think the high-quality discussions we used to have are being jeopardized by this? Just cut us off and move us to a separate thread, or don't move us anywhere at all—just delete the content. Do whatever you want, but please, just moderate properly. Just don't act like a coward by swooping in like this without giving us a heads-up that you didn't want our nonsense cluttering up your PDF moderation movie.
Nobody shed a tear for those wonderful days we used to have, even though we all voiced our frustrations hoping things might actually start looking up. Personally, I felt the need to mourn them immediately and offer an apology, mostly because I don't consider myself such a high-and-mighty member of this forum that I should be pointing fingers at anyone else—not that I think they’re the ones to blame, either. But if I still believe that the movie chat used to be a great place to hang out while it certainly isn't anymore, am I really not allowed to say that?

northerncrane4 said:There’s this little cove out near the Florida Keys that hasn't seen a soul in years, at least until my buddy and I stumbled upon it and decided to make it our regular spot to dump the waste from our boat. Honestly, if it weren't for us showing up, that whole bay would probably just rot away into nothingness.

No, that island out in the Keys has been a complete disaster for years anyway, so a few pieces of filth from you and your buddy would just vanish instantly into the massive pile of garbage already accumulating there.
And that’s just it—this whole mess is exactly what happens when you hand over the keys to those responsible for maintaining a tiny island off the coast of Maine.

northerncrane4 said:Life has scattered them all across the country.

This line of reasoning is incredibly telling—attempting to justify pure garbage by bringing up things that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual issue. The real question isn't why Silajn, Cyn, or the Week regulars have vanished from the forum; the real question is why you and your supporting staff feel such an intense, inexplicable need to produce such low-quality trash in the first place. That’s the real question here, dear. You see, true problem-solving only happens when you actually identify the root cause instead of dancing around it.

That isn't actually the case; he just redirected them to some other PDF moderation films.
And honestly, nothing that the staff or I have posted in the chat comes anywhere close to being as crude, malicious, or downright primitive as your last few entries, Moderator. 🙂

Hey there! 🙂
The literature chat had been completely humiliated for years, and honestly, it was high time the two of us decided to jump back in and have a little fun with it. It’s hard to argue that our joking around actually damaged anything, considering the chat hasn't seen any real action in ages. If anything, that literature chat is probably the most lively part of that dead, tedious PDF you manage alongside Haralampije.

I also have to wonder, where are all those forum regulars you praise so much? Why did they stop showing up to the chat on your PDF—did they all suddenly decide to vanish just now, right when Terry Scott34 and I supposedly ruined everything?

😍

I already knew ☕