Comments on: Fear-Based Curriculum: A Language Arts Tragedy (More on Teaching Lolita)

By: Toolbit

Toolbit — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:03:49 +0000

Melissa,

You have an English teacher who hadn’t even heard of Lolita? I hope that’s not true.

Clay,

Thanks to this blog post I think I will pick up Lolita again after putting it down when only 1/4 the way through. I am not opposed to teaching the subject matter to students in high school, but I would disagree it should required. I actually don’t know if any book should be required if the teacher feels unfit to teach the material, but I especially feel this way about Lolita. I’m more comfortable with having it be on a “project basis” the way Melissa explains it, unless the teacher feels especially familiar with the material and ready to tackle that kind of subject.

While not too demanding for a bright student, I believe it would be a heavy dose of heavy prose and weighty content. I also may be underestimating high school students, a sentiment far too prevalent in our society. I’m thinking The Perks of Being a Wallflower might be more accessible while still addressing sexual mores — for the record, it was probably my favorite book in high school.

I would say that Lolita should probably be reserved for AP, honors, and college classes. If I were an English teacher, with all the great books in the world to teach, and too little time to teach them all, I would probably not subject all students to Lolita, or at least what I read of it. That said, 2 pages in I knew Nabakov to be a master wordsmith and all students should be exposed to near-perfect prose writing (my opinion) like his at some point.

In general though, I think I’m mostly on board with you.

Toolbit out.
.-= Toolbit´s last blog ..Expanding Waistlines and Standards =-.

By: ashleyemma

ashleyemma — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:25:36 +0000

sure, teach Lolita in high school. I read it then and i certainly found it more valuable than the feminist suicide classics I had to read. But don’t call it a love story. I would even contest that the girl in the story is per-se “over sexed.” Children of both sexes at that age are often trying to figure out how to understand their own sexuality, and their clumsy attempts are often confusing and awkward for witnessing adults. Also, this is Humbert Humbert’s perspective and he is the ultimate unreliable narrorator.

Actually its funny mentioned the adolescent adult phenomonon. It a sense I would say that delayed adult development is major theme in Lolita. You have a character who, despite all of his intelligence, has never learned to opporate in way that isn’t essentially selfish impulse. He uses the girl to recreate his lost childhood love.

Anyways, in general yes, teach Lolita in schools. While we are at it, read Anais Nin and Story of the Eye.

By: Melissa

Melissa — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:53:00 +0000

I just finished freshman year of high school. English was terrible with horrific “classic” pieces of horrid literature once again pushed down a generation’s throats. The two books I actually liked were the two I got to pick for an individual novel project. For the first book I chose Lolita.
I would not strike anyone as being the type to voluntarily read such a bizarre tale – especially with its colorful history. I chose to read it after spending three hours digging through online lists of classic literature. I love to read, but I’d have taken an English/Spanish dictionary two times over over most all of the books on the list. I finally stumbled upon Lolita on one of the lists. I had heard of the book and I, curious, pulled it up. It actually looked good. I bought a copy of the Annotated Lolita the next day.
Of course, I stil had to convince my English teacher to approve it – and I figured that that would be easier siad than done. I mean, considering the book’s reputation, what young English teacher would possibly allow a freshman to present a project on such a novel? That’s when I found your page here. (I was looking for validation and evidence to use when making my case.) Luckily, she had apparently never heard of it and trusted me to pick a good book. She said she was fine with it.
So I read it. And it took forever reading it at lunch with all of the notes. I read it all day some days after a week of only having time for reading during my half-hour lunch. Here’s the shocker: I absolutely loved it! The book was amazing and the project was a huge success. During my research, I also became a huge Nakokov fan (a man practically nobody my age has ever heard of). Anyway, the book was clean, funny, and well-written.
And that comes from a 14 year old.

By: brigs

brigs — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:15:16 +0000

dude, are you aware you country sounds like a state controlled socialist entity where people are not allowed to think or choose for themselves? No wonder kids are board and doing silly things. teach Lolita it’d be a better education than they are apparently receiving in school in from their peers.

By: Clay Burell

Clay Burell — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:05:14 +0000

Hi Iwan,

Oof, if you read any deprecation of Shakespeare, the Greeks, or “fun” and humor in my post, I pitched it really badly.

I agree with you, in other words. (Search the site for David Sedaris and Gilgamesh and you may see proof of that ).

Thanks for stopping by.

By: Iwan James Berry

Iwan James Berry — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:49:50 +0000

I’m all one for expanding the amount of literature to which young people are exposed, and would have nothing against Lolita being taught in schools – however, I would contend with some comments that works by Shakespeare, Sophocles etc. have somehow become irrelevant and are far removed from our modern experiences. Indeed, the fact that we are culturally indebted to the ages portrayed by such dramatists and writers should compel us to look deeper into them, rather than be repulsed by them due to their apparent stuffiness or irrelevance.

Also, let us not forget that while it is certainly important to allow the darker side of literature to have its exposure, we should also be teachings kids about really good, FUN literature – the danger is that “book-learnin’” might end up as a ghastly, indecipherable and (most dangerous of all where young adults are concerned) boring place. Let’s show them Joyce as well as Nabokov; put the tragedies and the comedies on the same shelf; encourage equal interest in “Hamlet”, “The Oddyssey” and “The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”.

By: VL

VL — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:24:01 +0000

I personally think this is a bunch of rubbish. Teenagers need to be exposed to a lot of different subject matter to become well-rounded adults. These “dark” and “mature” novels are a great getaway from the normal boring and awfully written books most teachers have you read.
And BTW–most people who commit crimes are uneducated.