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).

You Gotta READ the Book

My initial and immediate reading of Wilhelm's method is that New Criticism is somehow a bad thing, but taking that stance would make readers miss so many things that texts themselves have to offer (a reader following NC might have noticed the alliteration in that sentence, which wasn't originally intentional but became so). If the reader isn't looking for characteristics like that (or isn't at least later made aware of them), he'll miss the genius of the writer or the work. I'll be the first to acknowledge that, oftentimes, there is no genius coming from either one (here's looking at you, Chopin), but it's hard to imagine missing out on the kinds of things that a close reading--but not necessarily NC--can show. I stopped on page 22 to type this, so maybe Wilhelm can reel me in with an argument soon.

It's important not to worry about correct interpretation unless there really is one, though. If an author has gone on record stating his or her intentions, there's nothing wrong with offering that view of the book. If the teacher hijacks the discussion with his favorite theoretical reading, regardless of how outlandish it is, that's a problem.

I also think it's important to visualize the scenes and connect to the text, but I have a hard time saying that that's more important to the reader than paying attention to the meanings of the words. I remember in 6th grade reading class, Mrs. Chilton gave us worksheets on which we had to make this many connections and visualize (draw) that many scenes and predict what would happen in the next chapter of whatever we were reading. Well, that's perfectly fine and perfectly correct. That's what Wilhelm is saying students need to learn. But, in my case, that was something we learned in 6th grade! We learned it in 6th grade and could then carry it over to 7th grade, through high school, through college, and into the rest of our lives. We didn't have to learn it in 8th or 9th or 10th grades. We had already learned that we were supposed to do those things. And that's why I have such trouble with the notion that students should be more focused on their own connections. They should've been taught those things years ago, and by 8th or 9th or 10th grade should be learning how to dive deeper into texts to gain meaning that way--in addition to what they've already learned about their own connections. That said, even in 10th or 11th grade, teachers would ask questions like, "How do you feel about Curly's wife? Do you think she's a good person?"

On page 88, Wilhelm says that many of his students have trouble spontaneously imagining the scenery of the story, and I literally cannot imagine not doing that while reading. My inability to understand that is most likely something that I'll have to learn to deal with while I'm teaching. It's a little bit like playing a sport: a great athlete will have difficulty understanding why you can't do something that he or she does every day, and will often have trouble teaching that skill until they understand what the average or less-practiced person needs to do in order to accomplish the task.

I read a story earlier today about teachers who are removing the desks from their classrooms. I feel the same way about this as I do about reading: aren't the desks important? I'd love to sit in a beanbag chair in class, but surely there are times when desks are better. Or maybe not. Maybe the desks are only important because teachers make them seem important; after all, they're often in the wrong place and need to be moved to facilitate activities anyway. So... maybe it's okay to get rid of the desks, but I think we need to keep some of the close reading.

I'm looking forward to reading more of this book because I think the subjects Wilhelm is writing about are things that inexperienced teachers either often worry about or never even think about. I'm interested to see what solutions he used in order to help his less-engaged readers become more so.

Reading has always come relatively easy to me, but that doesn't mean I've always enjoyed it. That reluctance began in elementary school in a gifted program called Special Interest, for which we were required to read novels. Many of my classmates read frequently without prodding, but Mrs. O'Conner actually gave me the titles of books I had to read, since I didn't often choose my own. She succeeded in getting me to read by choosing the My Side of the Mountain series, which I really enjoyed (oddly enough, though Hatchet is the same type of book, I didn't like it). I think she was the one who encouraged me to read Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, as well. I read its sequel a little later, and followed that up with To Kill A Mockingbird in sixth grade. I also enjoyed the Island, Everest, and Dive trilogies, as they were both easy and interesting. I find myself reading similar novels (i.e., fiction dealing with the outdoors/adventures) now, like In High Places, although I've been working for the last few years on reading things that I should read in order to be able to better make connections for/with students (and, in some cases, pop culture) e.g., Harry Potter, The Road, Artemis Fowl, Paradise Lost, and plenty of others.

Most of the books from middle school didn't leave an impression on me, though I remember reading Light in the Forest, The Diary of Anne Frank, and The Miracle Worker, as well as having to memorize "The Road Not Taken." One of the things I enjoyed in middle school was our Greek mythology unit in 7th grade, which was a key reason I took Intro. to Mythology last semester. Animal Farm and Fahrenheit 451 were my favorite stories, and 451 has kept that status. I re-read it over the summer and can't believe how much closer we've gotten to the world Bradbury describes in the 6 or 7 years since I had last read it.

The books in high school were much more interesting overall. Though we got stuck with some real bombs through the years (Romeo and Juliet, The Awakening, Travels with Charley, Hamlet, and The Crucible among them), many others were very good: The Great Gatsby, To Kill a Mockingbird, Their Eyes Were Watching God, The Shipping News, Of Mice and Men, A Separate Peace, A Tale of Two Cities, and Benito Cereno, to name a few. Most of these novels are ones I enjoy because of how well they were taught. Had it not been for Ms. Gibson's teaching, Benito Cereno might have been one of my least favorite stories; instead, it's something I can't wait to read again. Mr. Emerick did a similarly outstanding job teaching A Separate Peace, and it's also become one of my favorite novels. The knowledge and  passion that my teachers showed in doing their jobs has directly contributed to my enjoyment of the novels I've had to read over the years, and I hope to be able to affect my own students that way.

Surprisingly, despite the amount of reading necessary for my college classes, I've spent much more time reading during the past two summers. In K-12, I would be amazed if I read more than 600-800 pages in any single summer solely for pleasure. In each of the past two summers, I've read 9 books and 15 books respectively, easily totaling more than 6,000 pages between the two. Those totals are partly due to greater motivation, but also to my awareness that to be a good teacher (and student) in this discipline, one needs to read more (in terms of genre/category, as well as volume) than what is required in class. My reading list for this summer already includes more than 50 books of all different kinds. Feel free to contribute to that list.