Oppression of Literary Studies

I recently found out about a website called The Book Buzz. This website was established by a group of high school parents from Richland, Washington who demanded that the language arts teachers at first one, then a second high school in the area, hand over their syllabi and reading lists. Those who refused were informed that their syllabi and all other teaching materials were in the public domain, presumably because they are government employees. Aside from the horrendous rights infringements of such a statement, the parents then compiled a list the books being taught and set about grading their "content and themes" and supposedly did not presume to judge "the literary merit of the books."

Of the expansive list of books, only eight were judged as deserving an "A" for content and themes. Presumably this would mean that these books are the only ones appropriate for high school students. While my count was a cursory thing, I couldn't help but notice that two of the books given "A"s were The Lord of the Rings and The Giver. I would hope both are more than appropriate, considering I read them both in middle school, if not before.

Interestingly, of the ten Shakespeare plays listed (Hamlet, Julius Caesar, King Lear, Macbeth, Othello, Richard III, Romeo and Juliet, Merchant of Venice, Taming of the Shrew, and The Tempest) only one, Romeo and Juliet, was rated, receiving a "B." Now I'm not going to tell these people how to do their jobs, but it seems to me that trysting teenage lovers who end up both committing suicide for their love is not exactly appropriate for these apparently fragile minded children they have in high school in Richland, Washington.

From the standpoint of evaluating books on their content and themes, and not their literary merit, I don't think it would be difficult to give "D"s to any of Shakespeare's plays (these parents have also decided that giving a book an "F" is either too harsh, because no one should fail, or it is likely to make them appear unreasonable). Hamlet's themes include suicide, fratricide, incest, murder, insanity, and plenty of dirty jokes along the way (not that students would ever catch them, let alone most parents). How about Macbeth, Othello, or King Lear, the other three of Shakespeare's masterworks? Well, there's certainly plenty of murder, scheming against authority, insanity, and so on, once again, with a bunch of dirty jokes thrown in.

More on their grading scale, they claim that the grades are associated with the MPAA rating scale, with A = G, B=PG, C=PG-13, and D=R or NC-17. Interestingly, the youngest grade with books rated in this website is 9th grade, were students are presumably 14 when they enter. By their own rating scale, a C and above is appropriate for all classes, with all of their grades being appropriate for seniors and progressively for juniors. So while, ostensibly, the "grade" of a book is solely a way of gauging it's audience appropriateness, then why not stick solely with the MPAA rating scale they seemingly based the grades off of?

The most obvious answer is that saying a book should be rated PG-13 doesn't carry nearly the same weight as giving it a "C." A "C" seems to question its use in the classroom, while rating it PG-13 would not, since all students should be about that age range or above. However, it's pretty clear to me that this grading does not always follow such a grading scale. Case in point: The Lord of the Rings. As a movie adaptation it received a PG-13 rating from the MPAA. Now, granted, the movie had graphic depictions of warfare and the books aren't necessarily as detailed, but there is still considerable amounts of violence and threatening violence that there is no way I think it could be rated G.

On the other hand, Ender's Game, an ostensibly young adult novel, received a "C" or PG-13 rating. The rating was based on "language, primarily crudeness but some profanity." The most frequently used profane word was bastard "(over 13 times)," and the most serious curse word, shit, was used three times. However, it was used three times, repeated in one sentence, so only in one instance was the word used: "Shit-talking, shit-talking, shit-talking!" The primary "potentially objectionable theme" was "Derogatory/disrespectful religious comments," in particular, statements such as "people do strange things for religion." Now, for anyone who has read the Ender series, there is a pretty extensive discussion of religion going on. The books criticize entirely faith based religion. That is, numerous characters are depicted as taking actions based on blind faith which have horrendous consequences. However, other characters who think about their faith, and examine their faith and situation critically, are shown to be more in keeping with their faith. Characters who think about faith follow the message and meaning of their faith, while those who follow faith alone without thinking follow only the word and not the meaning.

This is an aspect of literature that makes it impossible to simply excise pieces of text and use them to criticize the book as potentially offensive or objectionable. By doing so, you are failing to examine the literary reasons why the author included such language and themes. By avoiding a discussion of literary merit, this group excuses themselves from actually thinking about these books. A piece of literature, any literature, is not thousands of words used at random to tell an arbitrary story, and the implication that themes are unrelated to literary merit and thus effort, is an insult to the dozens, if not hundreds of authors in this list, and the millions of people who have read these works and invested time into examining the elements of the themes and content. The words and usages in books are put there purposefully by the author, not at random.

By judging and questioning the choices made by the underpaid men and women who see it as their duty to give the best possible education to their students, the parents who formed this website are questioning the very merit of the people teaching their children. The reason to send children to school, ostensibly, is to allow them to learn from people who know more about subjects than the parents do. The biggest reason children need to go to school is so that they are exposed to the thoughts of people outside their family unit and are allowed to develop critical thinking skills that will give them the best opportunity to be successful.

Socrates said that "the only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing." Compared to all the knowledge out there, known and unknown, any knowledge you can develop in your lifetime is as infinitesimal as to be nothing. I believe that a parent's goal should be to hope that tiny little bit that his or her child knows is just a little greater than his or her own.

The greatest tragedy of growing up is to no longer ask "why?" to every answer.

-TES