The Book Thief

Despite the 550 pages, there's no way I could complain about having to sit down and read this in a 24-hour period on a Friday and Saturday. I was hooked from the first page as Death sets up the narrative. Page 3 (really page 1) is one of my favorites of anything I've ever read. Add 4 and 5, and we get a kind of Gregory House as Death, which I'm thrilled about. And since the opening chapter was set up perfectly to both outline the novel and make the reader (or, at least, me) want to continue to read? All the better. I couldn't be much happier with the way the novel began or ended.

Maybe more importantly, I think this is a book that could replace one of the "classics." I would have no problems seeing this replace the Diary of Anne Frank. Or, if not replace, either use in addition to or simply excerpt the Diary. Here's why:

• The Book Thief is more engaging as literature (perhaps not more emotionally engaging)
• It has more literary elements to explore and discuss
• Though not factual, it's based on factual happenings
• It has the same general subject matter as the Diary
• We get to see more than one side of the horrors of WWII 

I think the last bullet is particularly important. We get to see the bombing, the hiding Jews, the fearful Germans who oppose the Nazis, the economic impacts of the war, the Hitler Youth, the parades of Jews, etc. Though we get realism from the Diary, the perspective is very limited. In this novel, we get nearly everything. And we get the novelty of Death's perspective! Not only that, but we also get a fractured narrative structure--sometimes Death seems to take a backseat as narrator to a more third-person omniscient view; I almost forgot Death was there sometimes--that is nonlinear. And metafiction. Death tells us at one point, after telling us that Rudy dies, that he doesn't care about the mystery; in turn, the author doesn't care about the mystery of the ending, he cares about the design of arriving at the ending. And better still, it's not a happy ending. Because honestly, how easy is it to have a happy ending in a novel about WWII?

Aside from my gushing review, I think that there is plenty to work with and to study here, with the potential to be nearly as emotionally engaging as the Diary. Zusak even wrote a book that appeals to the traditional gender classifications of both boys and girls: action, adventure, intrigue, and sports! for the boy stereotype, and family, companionship, and love for the girl stereotype. There are so many things you can do with this novel, from exploring gender to society to the economy to class to religion to Nazism as religion, etc. I guess I didn't end the gushing review last paragraph. This book is great. Great for the students and for the teacher. More thoughts later.

That don't make no sense.

After reading "Teaching Standard English: Whose Standard?," I'm left wondering one thing: do education systems in other countries teach a standard version of their languages? Do Mexican schools teach students not to use shortcuts in their formal writings? Do they teach that they don't "need" to know the vosotros forms of words? Or do they teach the vosotros forms and say, "Se necesitan solamente en su escritura formal."  I know when I learned Spanish in high school, I was told that the Mexican version of Spanish doesn't really use vosotros forms ("you," informal and plural), while Spanish from Spain does. I'm considering this question because I think we take a lot of flak for teaching American Standard English, but surely other countries must teach standard versions of their language. I hesitate to ask something like, "How would they grade papers?" and instead ask, "But how can they know if students are learning the language?" The devil's advocate would respond that they're learning the language at their house, because they certainly couldn't function without learning the language--how would they communicate?

What this post will eventually get to is that very question: How would they communicate? Christensen insists that SE is the language of power, but really, SE is the language of communication. Here's an extreme case as an example of what I mean: When I'm not at school, I work in a warehouse. Two women from South Korea work there, and have worked there for nearly 10 years. When I first started, I couldn't understand what they were trying to say to me. I'd ask what we were supposed to do next, and Sun would say, "Asking Barbara." Naturally, I assumed that meant she would be asking Barb, or had already asked and was waiting for a minute. After a few seconds, she'd make a motion or point and say "Go asking Barbara." Obviously I figured out that I was supposed to go ask. Though my example is not necessarily dialectical, it is representative. SE is used so that, when used correctly and by the rules, there can never be miscommunication. If you have the correct agreement, syntax, and word choice, everyone should always understand what you're trying to say. Without that, it's a language of inherent miscommunication. Any time I edit a paper for someone, I end up calling and asking, "Did you mean to say this, or this?," and that's the problem with non-standard English. In matters of national or personal security, I want the person who can speak SE every time, so there is no miscommunication about what's happening.

I titled this post as I did because it's a phrase I often use. I grew up in a home with a mother who taught journalism for one year and a father whose motto when it comes to English is, "If it was good enough for my grandfather, it's good enough for me." I know all about being unable to understand directions, and I know that there's something to be said for having a dialect or a personality in one's words. I love reading stories written that way--Roll of Thunder, things by Mark Twain, etc. Those writings have a different type of flavor than others. But that doesn't mean essays or government missives or menus should be written the same way. There are many more people who can understand basic SE (i.e., 7th-grade reading-level words, not words that you had to look up twice just to spell correctly). Far fewer can understand non-standard English. English majors can barely pronounce words in Roll of Thunder (much to my amusement), so it doesn't exactly make sense to argue for its acceptance in formal writings, only for its status as a legitimate dialect. Would you expect to take 100,000 English-speakers into Mexico and force them to change their syntax so you can be accommodated? Absolutely not.

Edit: "Yes, untracked classes will probably be louder than honors classes. Yes, more students will arrive academically unprepared than in an honors class. Yes, if the balance of the class is shifted too heavily in favor of low-track students, 'discipline' may remain an issue. But well-balanced untracked classes will also be more inventive, more creative, and more honest" ("Untracking" 173). -- Ok, that's all well and good. What about learning? I sat through untracked classes for 4 years in elementary school (K-3), and then only math and English were tracked (4-5). The first 4 years were the most boring years of my life as far as school is concerned. I got in more trouble than you could imagine. I was in the principal's office constantly, did about half of my homework, and often either talked during or didn't participate in class. Why? I was bored by the kids who needed to learn addition 17 different times, so I was a distraction to others. It's just like in college classes when there's an audible sigh because that kid raised his hand again. Obviously there are going to be kids who need extra help and it's our job to help them (and everyone else), but why hold others back? There's an easier way: honors vs. non-honors. Honors/AP for the kids who are hardcore, non-honors for everyone else. Easy enough.

Finally, Hade is trying to create controversy in a place where it doesn't exist. The lions are behaving in a manner fit for KINGS. Patriarchal societies have males on the throne. Period. And the women did not "[suffer] injustice quietly and patiently waiting for the rightful male heir to claim what is his" (234). Sarabi verbally challenged Scar, and Nala went to find Simba. And, he wanted so badly for this to be a gender issue that he conveniently glossed over the fact that literally hundreds of hyenas were there to protect Scar (vs. the 15-25 lionesses). Honestly, why should we give any credibility to a man who can't bother to spell the names of two main characters (Scar and Mufasa--Mustafa? Someone has issues with latent racism) correctly? Try giving any credence to someone writing an essay about "Hamlit" once, let alone about "Hamlit" and "Opheelya". Hade is the kid who, because the two male characters hugged, raises his hand the moment class begins and says, "I think the two guys are gay" and the teacher has to spend the next half hour explaining that they're not gay, but that we'll find later that they're far from it. Hade is that kid.

Comics

As far as the article is concerned, I'm impressed with the work done by the authors. To improve measurable statistics as much as they did is quite a feat. I have an issue or two with some of the insinuations they make, but I'll address those a little bit on Wednesday.

With American Born Chinese, I'm a little hesitant to use it extensively as a text for anything but middle school classes or lower-level classes in 8th-10th grades. I read it in maybe an hour and a half, so there's some benefit to using it for a couple days in a high school classroom, but not much longer. Again, that's simply for the literary aspect of it. To use it and then do other activities with it (such as those described in the article) or starting with ABC as a way to introduce conventions before moving on to a more difficult graphic novel would be beneficial.

I think it's more suited to middle school partly because of its message. With students going through difficulties as far as meeting new friends, growing up, etc., the theme of establishing and accepting one's identity is important for the students. Sixth grade or eighth grade seem like the best times to use it, as often those are the transition years--transitioning into a new school or about to move up to high school, respectively. The best part about using it in eighth grade would be that you could do it at the end of the year in order to give a bit of a break. I always hated when teachers assigned everything for the last 2-3 weeks of the year (just like professors inexplicably still do in college), so having that extra benefit is nice.

Edit: Wilhelm writes, "I have found that my student are all familiar with a variety of graphic organizers but that they don't really understand how to use them to do what they were invented to do: organize and analyze data. Instead, they seem to use them as a glorified worksheet for repeating what they have read or learned, not for seeing new patterns in the data and constructing new kinds of knowledge and representing this knowledge" (185). -- I've always had that problem. The only type of graphic organizer (besides maybe a chart every now and then) that has ever been useful to me is the Venn diagram. Everything else (especially KWL charts) has been mostly useless to me. Occasionally T charts are useful, too, but very rarely do they give me anything I haven't noticed myself (or else I wouldn't have been able to fill in the T chart in the first place).