Hacker News Reader

> Not to start a flame war over book choice but forcing kids to read the Bible, Homer's Iliad, and Shakespeare are probably what is causing such marked disinterest in the first place. There are so many interesting and valuable works of writing, fiction and non-fiction, that can captivate and entertain modern children that aren't unapproachable tomes translated from ancient, dead languages, or written in Iambic Pentameter.

The idea of mandatory novels isn't to entertain and captivate. It is to bring young people into the culture that they will live in, and it's done by studying the culture's roots. Having said that, I felt like a TON of that stuff just flew over my head when I was in school - I mean, literary experts discuss the meaning of for example Mickiewicz's work to this day, and I, a child/teen with no frame of reference, am supposed to get some of it? It would require highly talented teachers to pull this off.

Not only that but also special interest on your part. There are more gentle but effective ways to learn about one's culture. Choosing the hardest is not going to be very productive at all!!

I can certainly second the sentiment that having to read such titles results in hating reading.

When in grades 3-5 I read about 100 (Admittedly easy) books per year on average. After that we had to read books for school and it almost instantly caused me to drop my yearly amount of books to 10 AT MOST. Now that I am out of school I read a lot more again.

BTW: Shakespeare wrote plays, not books. So why force children to read it instead of watching it?

I was an adult by the time I was shown that his rhymes actually work, and the plays are well constructed and actually funny satires of society.

What the fuck, high school. Why? Why?

Where and when did you go to school such that you were given a Bible to read? I started school in the US in the 1970s and never saw or heard anything more religious than the Pledge of Allegiance or a Christmas decoration.

Poland has mandatory Bible reading/analysis at primary school level (4th-6th grade). [1]

[1] - “Biblia: stworzenie świata i człowieka oraz wybrane przypowieści ewangeliczne, w tym o siewcy, o talentach, o pannach roztropnych, o miłosiernym Samarytaninie” ( https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU2017000035... )

Yep, I also remember reading and analysing the Hiob story.

Still, to be fair, those are just short fragments of the Bible. Nobody asks kids to read the whole Bible. Also, at least when I was a child, we read Bible in comparison with other ancient texts. Last but not the least, so many books/poems are inspired by Bible, that's it difficult to understand them without at least glimpsing over the Bible itself.

Here is the list of school districts in CA alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_districts_in_Ca...

Just because you never experienced Christian propaganda in your public school district in your state doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If your town is mostly religious, mostly Christian, and the oversight mechanisms for something like this happen require a complaint to be filed, who is going to complain? Saying "I never experienced this in my school in the 70s" is about as relevant to somebody else's experience of school in the early naughts as saying "I've never been to a baseball game, so I don't believe baseball actually exists".

> If your town is mostly religious, mostly Christian, and the oversight mechanisms for something like this happen require a complaint to be filed, who is going to complain?

As is the case in many of the landmark freedom-from-religion-in-schools cases, Christians.

See, the thing is, America (and even most—but not all, sure—small towns in America) have lots of different flavors of Christianity, and they don't agree on much (especially when you include the JWs and other groups that other Christians view as not-Christian rather than Christians-who-are-in-error). So, typically, sneaking in your brand of Christian propaganda pisses off all the other brands of Christians.

You're missing my point. Generalizing any one instance of one school district and one Christian sect's objection to their curriculum to all of the US just doesn't work. While I was of school age it was still the TX state curriculum to teach creationism as equally scientific as evolution. Saying "It hasn't happened in [this place] or in [my town]" is not evidence that it happens nowhere.

I never claimed it didn't happen, and I never claimed my experience was representative of the entire country. I asked a question and relayed an anecdote.

Fair enough. I went to school in a predominantly evangelical suburb in San Diego county. The same parents who staged a national day of prayer on public elementary school grounds were also in a group that sued the district over their morning yoga for children program [0].

Why was it important for you to verify my experience and the details of it and relay an anecdote that was counter to my own anecdote if not to implicitly refute my experience?

https://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168613461/promoting-hinduism-...

> Why was it important for you to verify my experience and the details of it and relay an anecdote that was counter to my own anecdote if not to implicitly refute my experience?

Maybe it was an expression of surprise and genuine interest.

>> Not to start a flame war over book choice but forcing kids to read the Bible, Homer's Iliad, and Shakespeare are probably what is causing such marked disinterest in the first place

In my experience what's causing young people disintrest in reading is that noone teaches the physical skill of reading correctly.

I mean, I never really took any speed-reading courses, but still, when I take a test my speed is usually 400-500 wpm. I read somewhere that typical high school student reads about 100-120 wpm. If I were to read a lenghty book, like any of Dickens of Tolstoy works at that speed I would probably also give up very quickly.

The Bible, Homer's Iliad, and Shakespeare's works are some of the most important ones in Western culture. I wouldn't say they're unapproachable at all. They may be more difficult to read than a modern teen fiction novel, but they contain archetypes and language patterns that were foundational for works that came afterward.

Thinking about it now, Beowulf should be added to this list. That's another great way to teach students about the evolution of the English language.

I hated Shakespeare when I was forced to read it in my language, translation tried to keep the spirit of the language, but really made it just sound archaic and complete incomprehensible to us (high-school kids not really interested in the whole deal). Only many years later, almost by accident, I've discovered how Shakespeare's work was really meant to sound, making the story itself so much more approachable.

Is that from the work by David Crystal reconstructing the sound of Shakespeare? It's very interesting to listen to passages read out in that Original Pronunciation. There are several videos of it on YouTube. NativLang also did a video on Shakespeare pronunciation.

It's also interesting how the pronunciation is reconstructed. Looking at rhyming pairs that don't currently rhyme (e.g. loved/proved), looking at different accents of English (Irish, Scottish, American, etc.) to identify historic pronunciations, etc.

No, it's a case of much less profound details, for instance I literally had no idea that Shakespeare's works were even meant to rhyme in the original, because the translation that we've read in school didn't rhyme at all. Also the rhythm was completely different and the language was over-complicated by using archaic expressions to try to match Shakespeare's use of English, and so on. Of course, translations are an art form on their own, so perhaps it's a matter of taste also.

> but they contain archetypes and language patterns that were foundational for works that came afterward.

So what? Other works lack these archetypes? No, they don't. Literature at school isn't supposed to be courses on comparative linguistics and theory of literature. A short intro is enough. Then move on to modern works.

Bible is better suited to history lessons on history of religion alongside other religions.

I believe you are overestimating the average and below average person. Shakespeare is unapproachable to many people simple due to the language used.

And if one doesn't go in that direction (eg theater & film or literature) forcing them is not going to be very productive after all... This should exist for sure but only optionally for the ones highly interested.

Are you sure the inclusion of "The Bible" of which there are actually several has nothing to do with your own personal faith? How do you even go about that without dealing with issues of church and state? Whichever holy book you choose at least 50% of constituents will believe you chose the wrong one. If you teach it as history you will be doing a poor job of history without substantially more sources and discussing the inherent unreliability of historical sources.

If you imply that every word isn't the literal truth you will again have at people howling for your blood.

You can always analyze Bible as any other book. In Poland (which is mainly catholic) I've read Bible in school only: 1) to compare the description of biblical creation with the greek mythology (just comparative analysis, without implying the creationism, rather otherwise) 2) next to some famous poem based on the biblical story to understand what is the poem about.

I'm always surprised that any school would teach creationism. Even catholic priests don't preach creationism as an alternative to current scientific theories. USA has to be a strange place :D

I would also add 3) analysing the Bible as the source of many literaly genres.

"Are you sure the inclusion of The Bible ... has nothing to do with your own personal faith?" Yes. Much of Western culture has been deeply rooted in The Bible, from its stories to its values.