Literacy in Schools?

[andy]

I think simplified texts are brilliant and more than hindering literacy, they help it. Literacy is the ability to read and write, not the ability to read and write 'worthy' or 'valuable' texts as texts written by dead white Western males are made up to be. The high school kids who really have problems with reading and writing just can't read complicated texts in original and simplified versions allow them to enjoy some fantastic stories and even take advanced literature classes (because, obviously, the ability to read has nothing to do with the ability to carry out intelligent conversation or even with a passion for literature). All that horribly ableist comments suggesting that if you can't read a certain kind of text, you're 'stupid' or 'not trying hard enough' are going to do is alienate them even more from reading.

[rayyychul]

Isn't an integral part of learning being challenged? If these students are truly having that much trouble with reading and writing, it would (in my opinion) make more sense to "work your way up" to novels that require a bit higher reading comprehension; there are plenty of "worthy" and "valuable" texts out there that are more easily understood than Gatsby. That's how everyone else learnt to read at they level they're reading at now. We started with Seuss. When Seuss got too easy, we moved along to Berenstein.

I don't see how it's possible to reap the most of an advanced literature classes when the novel is watered down. It seems like a cop-out and rather insulting to those who wish to be challenged in their advanced literature classes. Certain classes just aren't for certain people. Should we also water down calculus so people can experience a calculus class, even though they can't do complicated maths problems?

[badger]

Wow. There's a difference between abridging and completely butchering the language of a book. I can see why students might find Gatsby hard to read, but it's not that difficult; they're not going to learn anything if they don't read something at least a little challenging.

I suppose it depends on what age group this is intended for. I could see the benefit of giving these to younger kids who've just started to read full-length novels, as long as they know it's not the full book. It'd encourage at least a few of them to go out and get the full versions when they're older and more able to understand the concepts and language. Any older than 12 or so and I think they should be able to read the full text. There's nothing wrong with consulting the dictionary from time to time, or with having to reread something to fully understand it. I had to read A Clockwork Orange twice before I understood half of what was going on.

That said, I learnt almost nothing about grammar, spelling, and word meanings in school. My dad made sure I could spell and write, and there was always a lot of books around. He let me read whatever took my fancy (within reason - I wasn't allowed to read any of the gorier novels mum liked) and if I didn't understand something and couldn't figure it out, he'd explain it to me. He didn't dumb anything down and expected me to try and find out what things meant by myself before asking. I learnt a huge amount from it, and I gained some research skills. Parents are a big part of a kid's attitude to reading. If they don't show them how to enjoy reading or at least try to teach them some literacy skills, there's not too much more a school can do.

[KatjevanLoon]

Jul 6, 2011 22:35:34 GMT -5 Dodger Thirteen said:

Jul 6, 2011 22:18:13 GMT -5 onlyaworkingtitle said:

... I have no words.

Though I do want to point out that this is hardly the first case of "dumbing down" a classic -- there are editions of Shakespeare with the original text on one page of the spread and a "translation" (in modern, American English) on the other. Those are atrocious, but this... takes it to a whole new level.

Hey, I like those.

My opinion of the NoFear Shakespeare editions are this: they are great for when you are just starting to study it. For a higher level, no. But if you're just doing a cursory reading of the text, then having the modern English equivalent makes it easier to understand.

Then again, most people probably don't do a line-by-line comparison of the two versions like I do. *sigh~*

This. And I also read a line-by-line comparison of the two versions.

It's very hard for me to understand Shakespeare if I'm just reading it and haven't seen it performed. Those NoFear versions are pretty awesome for allowing me to understand it the first read through.

[Inquisitive White Rabbit]

Jul 6, 2011 22:58:21 GMT -5 andreaisabbbw said:

Maybe I'm like an old geezer, but I like everything better in its original version. Deviating from the original just cheapens it.

Amen to that.

[Inquisitive White Rabbit]

I actually do have a problem with abridged classics. When a person abridges a classic, he/she is retaining the most popular portions of the story and removing what he/she dons "unnecessary" or "unimportant." I feel that the original way a book is written is how it is meant to be read, and should not be altered in any way. If a person has difficulty with vocabulary then they should consider investing on a good dictionary.

Another thing I don't like about the idea is that in the end it is all a matter of opinion. What is important in a novel for me is not necessarily important for someone else reading the same book.

[tosney]

I'm with Rayyychul in that advanced books = better reading skills. One of the reasons I became the advanced reader I am was by reading books I could only half understand. I believe these boosted my reading. I also love reading these books later and re-understanding them. This is why I read authors like Orson Scott Card when I was only ten or eleven and Harry Potter at the age of six. And then when I read them again later, I loved them even more cause I could understand the other half.

That said, I can still understand 'diluting' a classic for a less advanced readers for the various reasons mentioned here, but at the very least you could stay true to the meaning of the story (or at least the meaning that most people tend to agree on). The Great Gatsby examples I was reading didn't show the intention of the story at all, which is the real shame. "Some unpleasant people became part of Gatsby's dream. But he cannot be blamed for that. Gatsby was a success, in the end, wasn't he?" is horridly absent of the painful longing and struggle implied in the original text, and it's nowhere close to what was written.

This diluted copy would not be useful for students who want to be able to read and interpret fantastic stories, but cannot read well. All they would get was the general plot. If I wanted to make the ending easier for people to read, why not use the same metaphors and such in simpler language? For a quick example: "Our lives are like a boat struggling against a current. We are held back by the past when we try to move forward."

So basically, though I would encourage use of the original, I could approve use of 'diluted' versions in certain instances if they stayed true to the meaning of the original text.