For the past couple of weeks, I've been reading the novels I'll be reading with my 9th graders next year. So far I have read Tangerine (E. Bloor), Fallen Angels (W.D. Myers), Flowers for Algernon (D. Keyes), and To Kill a Mockingbird (H. Lee).
I like everything except Flowers for Algernon. It is one of those annoying mid-twentieth-century psychotherapy-laden novels. You probably know what I mean: lots of dream sequences (more on this in another post), lots of repressed memories, lots of sexual dysfunction, and everything goes back to the bad, bad mother. The female characters are all terrible flat stereotypes; actually, so are the men.
The idea of exploring what happens for a retarded man who--through the magic of science--becomes a genius, and then realizes that his intelligence is going to fade and soon is back where he started is an interesting premise. Unfortunately, it almost seems like a gimmick to explore pop-psychology, rather than a true delving into what "intelligence" is.
It would be interesting for someone who is up on the latest cognitive science to re-examine and re-write this story with what we now know about how the brain and mind work, as well as more modern notions of what goes on in the mind of a person with a low-IQ. (The science and scientists in the novel are also ridiculous; for one thing, they perform this brain surgery on the human protagonist after doing it to ONE mouse, without even waiting to see what the long-term consequences for the mouse will be!)
It turns out that the story was originally a short story, which I believe I was moved by when I read it in sixth grade. It probably should have remained a short story. I'm going to hunt it down and see if it is worth all its glory. The novel sure isn't.
The novel has been banned and the subject of controversy across the country and the decades since it was first published in the mid-1960s. The objections seems to be the sexual content of the novel. I would never try to stop or even discourage a student from reading the novel, but it certainly doesn't qualify as good literature. I object on the grounds that it is dated, sexist, and leaves the reader feeling kind of embarrassed for the entire pop culture of the time. It smells musty to me, like double-knit polyester and synthetic hair pieces.
Have you read it? Did you love it? hate it?
Bittersweet
-
Eyal and I always knew that it would be difficult building a family from
two different countries. It is just now, however, that we have to really
put that ...
12 years ago
Posts
2 comments:
Do you have any discretion about whether to assign it or strike it from the list?
I think I saw the play once in primary school, but don't really remember much of it. It must have been a bit over my head.
Wouldn't is be an interesting exercise to do all this critiquing with the students, though?
I think I can not teach it if I want, but I'll want to find a good substitute novel.
You're right; of course, it would be valuable to guide the students through a critical analysis, but it just wouldn't be very fun for me. My negative feelings for it come from a lot of experience and knowledge that my students don't yet have (exposure to psychological theories, awareness of the cultural period in which the book came out, etc.).
I think I'd be more curious to just see what students think that chose to read it on their own than have to drum up enthusiasm to read it together as a class.
The students who will be in the class are struggling readers. Not sure why that matters, but maybe I feel like if they're going to the trouble of reading, I want it to be something really good that will help convince that that it's worth it!
Post a Comment