+ "[Mrs Bennet] isn’t “silly” for obsessing over marriages" Well... she is *kinda* silly. What the "Mrs Bennet was right all along!" view tends to overlook / oversimplify is that while Mrs Bennet is not *wrong* that her daughters need to marry well, what makes her silly is that she views "marrying well" as the be-all end-all to the point where she treats her own daughters as essentially commodities to be traded to ensure her own comfort (and it is *her own* comfort; most of her concern about the situation is expressed in the form of whining about how it will affect *her*), leading to a situation where her single-minded focus on "get them married and everything will sort itself out" actually sabotages her own goals and makes things worse most of the time. Her discussing men as if they were stud horses to be traded just puts said men off, she cares about the "marrying well" part but not the "raise my daughters well so that they will be attractive to prospective husbands in the first place" part, and the way she simpers and coos over Mr Wickham and Lydia's marriage despite the fact that it in no way, even by her standards, a successful match (for one: he doesn't have enough money to support them all) clearly demonstrates that this is not the sensible and practical-minded woman soberly facing the realities of her daughter's situation that modern readers tend to paint her as. Miss Austen is indeed savagely targeting the economics of the day, but what people tend to forget these days is that Mrs Bennet is in no way spared any of the venom. She is a stopped clock, not a secret hero.
+ "Orwell wasn’t saying “communism bad” Well... he kinda was. At least, the "Communism as expressed in its mid-20th century Stalinist form" version was bad. "Animal Farm" can definitely be read as anti-totalitarian in general, but the parallels to Soviet Russia are screamingly obvious and absolutely intended. Orwell's big project for most of his life was basically yelling in the face of his fellow socialists that Stalin wasn't good just because he was nominally on 'their' side, and that communism in practice wasn't the communism his fellow travellers yearned for just because its leaders parroted the correct shibboleths. (The "capitalism good" bit, I'll grant you that one.)
Lot of good point here! I didn’t live in that time but I imagine Mrs. Bennet was sort of the “spoof/meme” of mothers typical in that time, but maybe she was an outlier. Sort of like today, I laugh at all the Hispanic mother videos on social media, maybe a tad exaggerated, but we’ve definitely all experienced it, if that makes sense.
Love your points about Mrs. Bennet -- she does seem like the logical conclusion, the final form, of a woman in that society -- where being married is the only way to secure an economic future. Her behavior is like a panic/fear based response to what she faces, in some ways.
None of these made me angry. Thanks for your explanation of Wuthering Heights, I never enjoyed reading that book and now I understand why. Never read Moby Dick, maybe that will be this year’s project now that I have a better understanding of the meaning.
I had no idea people misread some of these classics the way you say, as I and the people I discussed them with was more what you identify them as. I never saw Frankenstein about a monster, I saw it about hubris and creation for creation's sake, and then not taking responsibility. And furthermore, how rejection of the creator ripples out to rejection from others.
The idea that Wuthering Heights is taught as a romance horrifies me! Absolutely horrifies me!
I will say, though, that I often argue with people about Charlotte in Pride and Prejudice. A lot of people thought she was foolish or weak for marrying Mr. Collins. She was very cunning because she chose to marry someone who was not very bright, understanding she could create her own standard of living by handling him. Her future is secure, and him being a member of the clergy also puts her in a respectable position. There's a reason her and Elizabeth got along, both are very smart women who knew what they wanted and what they were willing to tolerate. Their tolerances were just different. Jane said it well, Elizabeth was not considering differences in temperament when she railed against her friend marrying.
I also think Mrs. Bennet was still silly because she thought *any* marriage was good, even a bad match, like with Lydia and Mr Wickham. Once they were married, she quickly forgave and got over the stain to their reputations and became aflutter. Also, endangering her own daughter to snag Mr. Bingley by sending her out in the rain was a very foolish use of her commodities (for her daughters were commodities).
I don't think Jane Eyre is about feminine independence or about the criticism that women cannot be independent without money. Frankly, men can't be either. I always took it as marriages are best when neither partner is dependent on the other, but require mutual respect. While it seems that she switched the roles of who is dependent on who, I like to believe she had every intention of helping Mr. Rochester regain his dignity by helping him as much as necessary for him to do as much for himself as possible. But that may be the romantic in me.
I think Charlotte is the most thoroughly admirable character in Pride and Prejudice, along with the Gardiners. (Which is why I like the 1980 Fay Weldon adaptation of P&P best)
If you have not seen the Fay Weldon version, you are in for a treat. Elizabeth’s change of feelings are somewhat seen throught eyes of the stylish and intelligent Mrs Gardiner. You can see Mr. Darcy and Georgiana as being delighted with these connections of Elizabeths. And it is a realistic complaint that you have no respect for your beloved’s family and friends. Darcy is clearly impolite in stating this, but boy would I dread a family dinner at Longbourn (the name even implies what it would be like!).
Karen, I love this 💓! Agree with you 💯, with maybe a tiny exception for Mrs. Bennet as stated above. She is not totally silly, but she does kind of make everything about her, and she seems a bit impractical as to just how to achieve her very reasonable goal of marrying off the daughters "well." For example, maybe they could have educated them somewhat better, so Kitty and Lydia wouldn't be so flighty? But your overall point is very accurate.
I’m sorry you apparently had some bad English teachers, but most of the ones I had, and the kind of English teacher I try to be, have taught exactly what you suggest they should teach about these works. Almost all my students eventually consider Victor Frankenstein the monster, understand Jane Eyre’s independence is highly qualified, and see what Orwell was saying about revolutions and totalitarian states. (I also emphasize how Daisy Buchanan might be the least-worthy avatar for romantic longing in American lit, but that’s an argument for another day.)
Wow wow wow 🤯 “ classics are classic for a reason “ 👏🏻 I’ve never finished Moby Dick, now I have a new perspective and can’t wait to try it again .
( it AMAZES me how much western literature is really ‘feminist ‘ even when the author is male and how much we have romanticized the lives of ‘moneyed ‘ women . )
I have to wonder if the authors would feel disappointed in how their works are being read or used - like Wuthering Heights .
As a retired high school English teacher, I can’t approve of your sweeping generalization that English teachers across the board don’t go any deeper with classic literature than the surface understanding. Maybe you used that statement as a hook to lure people like me into commenting? 😉 But seriously, I can’t imagine any literature-loving teacher who would give any of these works such simplistic treatment. Popular culture will, yes, and Frankenstein is a prime example. Before my seniors read that, I had to de-program them from their mental pictures acquired via Hollywood. But teachers as culprits? 🧐 Those would be some mighty poor teachers! Not that there aren’t incompetent apples in every professional barrel, but I cry foul at your tarring us all with the same brush.
Noice! I’m torn, myself between chocolate Tootsie pops and those blueberry-and-cream-swirl Lifesaver suckers…which I haven’t seen in decades. They were soooo good!
I was actually being serious about actual suckers, as in candy. :P But, I’m glad you went on in further detail.
Another Karen in the hotseat. [Sees the M&Ms commercial. Sorry, Karen…sorry your name is Karen….have some candy. :D]
I am in danger of making the same offense against teachers. I had a mixed bag of English teachers. I don’t remember liking one on them. Each had their own way of seeing things and didn’t give you an A unless you agreed with them. That was my ultimate annoyance and may be why I couldn’t enjoy books. My teachers who forced me to read expected me to see the books their way or no way at all. I was lucky if I found a book I could understand and enjoy. I also was fortunate enough to learn how to please certain but not all of my English teachers. There was one who was determined to fail me because my writing had no style. And, I never understood her. I’m just lucky, I guess, that I still passed the class. Had she sent me to summer school, I might have had an even bigger axe to grind.
I’ve insulted art teachers in the past. I regret it, somewhat. But, I do feel like some lessons need to come organically. And, again, my experience with art teachers wasn’t encouraging. I had to find my own passion and direction to pursue it…and ignore the judges.
Your reply makes me very about your experience with English teachers. 😢 Mine was better in one sense, but it’s not what landed me in the English-teaching career. True story: I remember sitting in an 11th grade class thinking, “I would NEVER want to be a teacher, but if I somehow did, there one subject I would NEVER teach, and that’s English.” 🥴 I won’t go into the convoluted maze God nudged me through, but when I graduated from college, out popped a gal who was certified to teach Speech and English. The English minor was added solely to increase my employment opportunities as “speech only” jobs were thin on the ground. Mind you, my original aversion to teaching English was not because I didn’t enjoy reading - I remember begging my older brother to teach me to read because I was already impatient with being read to 😂 - no, my abhorrence of the idea was that English teachers seemed pathetic to me because students never seemed to care very much. (No AP classes available back when my dinosaur buddies and I roamed the halls.)
Anyway, my first job involved freshman English and two speech classes. Apparently that’s when my inner English nerd came into her own, and I realized that there was no greater joy than sharing my love of words with crazy teenagers. It wasn’t smooth sailing, and I was making a lot of it up as I went along, but I learned that a teacher who genuinely likes kids and has a passion for her subject can be reasonably effective even when greener than a . . . well, whatever is the greenest thing you can think of. 🤣
So, if none of your English teachers ever poured passion into your classroom or taught you to thoughtfully defend your own viewpoint on a piece of literature, I hereby pronounce that “you was officially robbed.”
1. Mark away on any of my typos! But please use a pink, turquoise, or purple pen. 😊 Also, bear in mind that I’m pecking away on an iPad with an eyepatch on my left eye and a cataract in my right. 🤣
2. I prefer to think of my “never, ever” outcome is the blessing that God could see where my true interests and talents lay even when I could not. ❤️
3. Dinosaur buddies was an allusion to being so old that dinosaurs roamed in the hallways of my high school. As a “mature” teacher, I’d always try to beat kids to the punch by claiming to be ancient before they could even form the thought. Ha!
4. I attended a county public high school in semi-rural western Kentucky. No tuition paid by anyone. Yes, there were socioeconomic layers, as will occur in any group, but they really didn’t seem to play much role in how we viewed school. One of my biggest frustrations in English was that it didn’t matter how many times we covered basic grammar issues; those of us who got it, got it, while those who didn’t get it didn’t really care that they didn’t get it, and yet the same topics were covered over and over. To be fair, it probably wasn’t really as bad as my memory makes it, but it was that experience that made me sure that teaching would be frustrating beyond belief. The real issue, in retrospect, is that I wasn’t personally challenged in English; it never dawned on me that that was a flashing neon sign that language was an area where I COULD be deeply engaged in a very satisfying way.
I totally agree that teaching and learning should walk hand in hand for a lifetime. Ideally they are inextricably linked in the happiest way possible. Teach what you love wherever you can in whatever way you can, and you will never stop learning. 😍
I loved you take on all of these! My only quibble is with Jane Eyre. She did say yes to marrying him. The reason she didn’t wasn’t money but the fact that his first wife was alive! Mr. Rochester’s wealth and social standing were demolished by the time she actually married him so I’m not sure it even significantly challenged the social views of the day. As with Rebecca, I’m left wondering if our protagonist’s husband was a happy ending or not.
Yes, good point on Jane Eyre, I threw that in the voice over. I like the comment someone else made about how when people are on equal footing, it makes for a better power dynamic in the relationship. In the end they did kind of balance that out. It just bums me out a little that is had to be an inheritance from a distant male relative. But maybe that’s Karma-ish for sticking to her moral compass. As for Rebecca, another one of my favorites, you’re right!
I have loved Pride and Prejudice, and by extension Jane Austens novels, because it was first given to me by my dad. He was a great reader and provided me with many of the books you’ve mentioned here, wanted me to appreciate how being a women in 1970s Brisbane I had the opportunity to become educated and be able to “care and provide “ for myself unlike the women of previous generations.
Mrs. Bennet is not silly for obsessing over marriage. She is , however, exceedingly silly, and entirely unable to do what might help them survive economically.
If you are an author who secretly approves of your “bad boy” protagonist, you don’t have him casually hang his fiancée’s dog as you are eloping with her. How anyone can think Heathcliff is a romantic hero has not read the book I read.
You got me on Lord of the Flies! I was also too cynical about humanity to see it. In fact, I was reading Lord of the Flies like one would read Animal Farm, believing that it was inevitable, that power and greed will always prevail over kindness and compassion. But maybe this is not inevitable, after all. I'm too used to seeing selfish and greedy politicians (some are just better at hiding it than others), that I simply lost faith in anything better, regardless of what political regime they're under.
Another thing I thought of, is that a book could be about more than one thing. I like my romances with good social commentary! The romance and the social critique don't cancel each other out. (I don't think you were implying that they were cancelling each other out. I'm just saying that I see the two equally! Definitely not in support of Cathy and Heathcliff's romance, though, lol. But Wuthering Heights was a very entertaining read!)
A funny case study is Watership Down. You would have to be blind not to see all the political allegories, haha. But the hilarious thing, is that Richard Adams insists that despite what readers may believe, he had no intention of writing any political allegories or commentary. He was literally just writing a rabbit story for his daughters to enjoy, lol. Yeah, like anyone would believe that.
Plus, he doesn't need to explicitly intend anything. He may not be trying to teach his daughters about different political ideas. But you can clearly see his beliefs about what politicians and systems are better or worse. Interestingly, I saw someone on YouTube compare the different rabbit warrens to people's different attitudes towards climate change, but I won't go down that rabbit hole (ha!) today.
Looking at the covers for the books you presented, I can see how that old saying about judging a book by its cover rings louder than ever. Most of the covers don't do the books justice. Moby Dick's cover paints the simplest of deceptions...it's about hunting a white whale. Pride and Prejudice looks like a humble slice-of-life story with no particular meaning to explain the title. Frankenstein's cover says Happy Halloween without any indication of the mob-mentality that stalks the misguided creation. Putting fire instead of bats behind Frank's head would be more powerful and curious than...bats? 1984 has one of the worst cover designs because, while it tries to place things in a suggestive arrangement, it's difficult to grasp what the cover shows from a glance/distance. I'd miss that book, entirely, if it was on a table with the others. The author's name doesn't even stand out well. Considering how many of these books deal with economy/money, I think throwing a few dollar signs into the fire would have spoken volumes, even if it could have been seen as a spoiler. :P
I like the Gatsby, Jane Eyre and Lord of the Flies covers best...but I'm not sure they properly capture the essence of their stories. At least, I'd see them and be curious.
Your approach to the whole of this post is so delicious that I am instantly infatuated with you. i love the way you challenge readers to argue/debate what you wrote in a comment, asking what you might have said that angered them (and doing so without sounding like a taunt). I am overjoyed at your dissection of...conflict of interest? I'm at a loss for words. [But, I'll try to say something, anyway. :)]
I'm not particularly shocked or upset by any your assessments. But, I think any book that resolves to say every way is bad is likely to drive readers mad. If you picked up a book, seeking advice, and the book told you that there was no right way to go, you might lose your head, too. Why did we pick up this book? I am not sure I needed someone to tell me I don't need advice when that is exactly what I am seeking. A book intended to turn people onto their heads might be too devastating to read. I think most readers want something that gives them direction or satisfaction. A book that is about sex which then tells you to not have sex could mess with your head for...the rest of your life.
Of that whole list, I've only read The Scarlet Letter (at way too young of an age to get the real meaning) and The Great Gatsby. I think my takeaway for the Letter (at probably 10 years old) was that this woman was unfairly being punished for something misunderstood, poorly labeled. I didn't see it from any gender bias or bigger societal perspective. I just saw a bit of what I was experiencing at the time...a woman being bullied. And, the Gatsby, for me, was a tragic story about two guys with different perspectives, different social circles, but a shared interest in one beautiful tease which ultimately leads to one guy's foolish demise. There was arrogance or ignorance that got Gatsby in trouble. In a way, the old book was like the template for Batman and his gallery of villains. I enjoyed the imagery in Gatsby...at least, how my English teacher pitched it, which is how I became a nut for metaphors.
I think I enjoyed reading your assessment more than I did or could enjoy reading the books. :D Thanks for the Cliff Notes. heh
Not angry, but I do have a few notes:
+ "[Mrs Bennet] isn’t “silly” for obsessing over marriages" Well... she is *kinda* silly. What the "Mrs Bennet was right all along!" view tends to overlook / oversimplify is that while Mrs Bennet is not *wrong* that her daughters need to marry well, what makes her silly is that she views "marrying well" as the be-all end-all to the point where she treats her own daughters as essentially commodities to be traded to ensure her own comfort (and it is *her own* comfort; most of her concern about the situation is expressed in the form of whining about how it will affect *her*), leading to a situation where her single-minded focus on "get them married and everything will sort itself out" actually sabotages her own goals and makes things worse most of the time. Her discussing men as if they were stud horses to be traded just puts said men off, she cares about the "marrying well" part but not the "raise my daughters well so that they will be attractive to prospective husbands in the first place" part, and the way she simpers and coos over Mr Wickham and Lydia's marriage despite the fact that it in no way, even by her standards, a successful match (for one: he doesn't have enough money to support them all) clearly demonstrates that this is not the sensible and practical-minded woman soberly facing the realities of her daughter's situation that modern readers tend to paint her as. Miss Austen is indeed savagely targeting the economics of the day, but what people tend to forget these days is that Mrs Bennet is in no way spared any of the venom. She is a stopped clock, not a secret hero.
+ "Orwell wasn’t saying “communism bad” Well... he kinda was. At least, the "Communism as expressed in its mid-20th century Stalinist form" version was bad. "Animal Farm" can definitely be read as anti-totalitarian in general, but the parallels to Soviet Russia are screamingly obvious and absolutely intended. Orwell's big project for most of his life was basically yelling in the face of his fellow socialists that Stalin wasn't good just because he was nominally on 'their' side, and that communism in practice wasn't the communism his fellow travellers yearned for just because its leaders parroted the correct shibboleths. (The "capitalism good" bit, I'll grant you that one.)
Lot of good point here! I didn’t live in that time but I imagine Mrs. Bennet was sort of the “spoof/meme” of mothers typical in that time, but maybe she was an outlier. Sort of like today, I laugh at all the Hispanic mother videos on social media, maybe a tad exaggerated, but we’ve definitely all experienced it, if that makes sense.
Love your points about Mrs. Bennet -- she does seem like the logical conclusion, the final form, of a woman in that society -- where being married is the only way to secure an economic future. Her behavior is like a panic/fear based response to what she faces, in some ways.
None of these made me angry. Thanks for your explanation of Wuthering Heights, I never enjoyed reading that book and now I understand why. Never read Moby Dick, maybe that will be this year’s project now that I have a better understanding of the meaning.
I remember as a teen thinking Heathcliff was creepy and wasn't worth going after, so I never finished it.
Regarding Moby Dick : SAME !
Thank you! I was hoping it would be well received. So I take it you’re not going to see the new movie adaptation? Ha
Hard pass on that, I saw the preview and looks like they are missing the point.
Agree!
I had no idea people misread some of these classics the way you say, as I and the people I discussed them with was more what you identify them as. I never saw Frankenstein about a monster, I saw it about hubris and creation for creation's sake, and then not taking responsibility. And furthermore, how rejection of the creator ripples out to rejection from others.
The idea that Wuthering Heights is taught as a romance horrifies me! Absolutely horrifies me!
I will say, though, that I often argue with people about Charlotte in Pride and Prejudice. A lot of people thought she was foolish or weak for marrying Mr. Collins. She was very cunning because she chose to marry someone who was not very bright, understanding she could create her own standard of living by handling him. Her future is secure, and him being a member of the clergy also puts her in a respectable position. There's a reason her and Elizabeth got along, both are very smart women who knew what they wanted and what they were willing to tolerate. Their tolerances were just different. Jane said it well, Elizabeth was not considering differences in temperament when she railed against her friend marrying.
I also think Mrs. Bennet was still silly because she thought *any* marriage was good, even a bad match, like with Lydia and Mr Wickham. Once they were married, she quickly forgave and got over the stain to their reputations and became aflutter. Also, endangering her own daughter to snag Mr. Bingley by sending her out in the rain was a very foolish use of her commodities (for her daughters were commodities).
I don't think Jane Eyre is about feminine independence or about the criticism that women cannot be independent without money. Frankly, men can't be either. I always took it as marriages are best when neither partner is dependent on the other, but require mutual respect. While it seems that she switched the roles of who is dependent on who, I like to believe she had every intention of helping Mr. Rochester regain his dignity by helping him as much as necessary for him to do as much for himself as possible. But that may be the romantic in me.
Ohh I really really like your take on Jane Eyre better. Thank you!
This is something I like about books. People can come away with different takes.
I think Charlotte is the most thoroughly admirable character in Pride and Prejudice, along with the Gardiners. (Which is why I like the 1980 Fay Weldon adaptation of P&P best)
Charlotte is the character I relate to the most. She is clever *and* pragmatic.
The Gardiners are also splendid and often under appreciated in the role they play.
If you have not seen the Fay Weldon version, you are in for a treat. Elizabeth’s change of feelings are somewhat seen throught eyes of the stylish and intelligent Mrs Gardiner. You can see Mr. Darcy and Georgiana as being delighted with these connections of Elizabeths. And it is a realistic complaint that you have no respect for your beloved’s family and friends. Darcy is clearly impolite in stating this, but boy would I dread a family dinner at Longbourn (the name even implies what it would be like!).
I may have to try and track down the 1980 version, then. If possible.
Ooh thank you for sharing!
Karen, I love this 💓! Agree with you 💯, with maybe a tiny exception for Mrs. Bennet as stated above. She is not totally silly, but she does kind of make everything about her, and she seems a bit impractical as to just how to achieve her very reasonable goal of marrying off the daughters "well." For example, maybe they could have educated them somewhat better, so Kitty and Lydia wouldn't be so flighty? But your overall point is very accurate.
That's a good point!
I’m sorry you apparently had some bad English teachers, but most of the ones I had, and the kind of English teacher I try to be, have taught exactly what you suggest they should teach about these works. Almost all my students eventually consider Victor Frankenstein the monster, understand Jane Eyre’s independence is highly qualified, and see what Orwell was saying about revolutions and totalitarian states. (I also emphasize how Daisy Buchanan might be the least-worthy avatar for romantic longing in American lit, but that’s an argument for another day.)
Daisy was such a drip!
Wow wow wow 🤯 “ classics are classic for a reason “ 👏🏻 I’ve never finished Moby Dick, now I have a new perspective and can’t wait to try it again .
( it AMAZES me how much western literature is really ‘feminist ‘ even when the author is male and how much we have romanticized the lives of ‘moneyed ‘ women . )
I have to wonder if the authors would feel disappointed in how their works are being read or used - like Wuthering Heights .
The Great Conversation(s) continue! Thank you .
Honestly subscribers like you are what encourages me to continue in this space, thank you!
As a retired high school English teacher, I can’t approve of your sweeping generalization that English teachers across the board don’t go any deeper with classic literature than the surface understanding. Maybe you used that statement as a hook to lure people like me into commenting? 😉 But seriously, I can’t imagine any literature-loving teacher who would give any of these works such simplistic treatment. Popular culture will, yes, and Frankenstein is a prime example. Before my seniors read that, I had to de-program them from their mental pictures acquired via Hollywood. But teachers as culprits? 🧐 Those would be some mighty poor teachers! Not that there aren’t incompetent apples in every professional barrel, but I cry foul at your tarring us all with the same brush.
Fair, I definitely did not mean you Patti! But yes, I am glad it provoked you to leave a comment, ha!
😂I’m a sucker!
No you’re not! :)
😂
If you were a sucker...what kind of sucker would you be? [Thinker emoji, written as text from a source without emojis. :P] Philosophical discussionnn.
Probably a chocolate Tootsie Roll Pop! 😂
If it’s a serious question, I’ll just say “a sucker for literary discussions that involve defending my entire career . . .” (Sorry, Karen! 😆)
Noice! I’m torn, myself between chocolate Tootsie pops and those blueberry-and-cream-swirl Lifesaver suckers…which I haven’t seen in decades. They were soooo good!
I was actually being serious about actual suckers, as in candy. :P But, I’m glad you went on in further detail.
Another Karen in the hotseat. [Sees the M&Ms commercial. Sorry, Karen…sorry your name is Karen….have some candy. :D]
I am in danger of making the same offense against teachers. I had a mixed bag of English teachers. I don’t remember liking one on them. Each had their own way of seeing things and didn’t give you an A unless you agreed with them. That was my ultimate annoyance and may be why I couldn’t enjoy books. My teachers who forced me to read expected me to see the books their way or no way at all. I was lucky if I found a book I could understand and enjoy. I also was fortunate enough to learn how to please certain but not all of my English teachers. There was one who was determined to fail me because my writing had no style. And, I never understood her. I’m just lucky, I guess, that I still passed the class. Had she sent me to summer school, I might have had an even bigger axe to grind.
I’ve insulted art teachers in the past. I regret it, somewhat. But, I do feel like some lessons need to come organically. And, again, my experience with art teachers wasn’t encouraging. I had to find my own passion and direction to pursue it…and ignore the judges.
Your reply makes me very about your experience with English teachers. 😢 Mine was better in one sense, but it’s not what landed me in the English-teaching career. True story: I remember sitting in an 11th grade class thinking, “I would NEVER want to be a teacher, but if I somehow did, there one subject I would NEVER teach, and that’s English.” 🥴 I won’t go into the convoluted maze God nudged me through, but when I graduated from college, out popped a gal who was certified to teach Speech and English. The English minor was added solely to increase my employment opportunities as “speech only” jobs were thin on the ground. Mind you, my original aversion to teaching English was not because I didn’t enjoy reading - I remember begging my older brother to teach me to read because I was already impatient with being read to 😂 - no, my abhorrence of the idea was that English teachers seemed pathetic to me because students never seemed to care very much. (No AP classes available back when my dinosaur buddies and I roamed the halls.)
Anyway, my first job involved freshman English and two speech classes. Apparently that’s when my inner English nerd came into her own, and I realized that there was no greater joy than sharing my love of words with crazy teenagers. It wasn’t smooth sailing, and I was making a lot of it up as I went along, but I learned that a teacher who genuinely likes kids and has a passion for her subject can be reasonably effective even when greener than a . . . well, whatever is the greenest thing you can think of. 🤣
So, if none of your English teachers ever poured passion into your classroom or taught you to thoughtfully defend your own viewpoint on a piece of literature, I hereby pronounce that “you was officially robbed.”
1. Mark away on any of my typos! But please use a pink, turquoise, or purple pen. 😊 Also, bear in mind that I’m pecking away on an iPad with an eyepatch on my left eye and a cataract in my right. 🤣
2. I prefer to think of my “never, ever” outcome is the blessing that God could see where my true interests and talents lay even when I could not. ❤️
3. Dinosaur buddies was an allusion to being so old that dinosaurs roamed in the hallways of my high school. As a “mature” teacher, I’d always try to beat kids to the punch by claiming to be ancient before they could even form the thought. Ha!
4. I attended a county public high school in semi-rural western Kentucky. No tuition paid by anyone. Yes, there were socioeconomic layers, as will occur in any group, but they really didn’t seem to play much role in how we viewed school. One of my biggest frustrations in English was that it didn’t matter how many times we covered basic grammar issues; those of us who got it, got it, while those who didn’t get it didn’t really care that they didn’t get it, and yet the same topics were covered over and over. To be fair, it probably wasn’t really as bad as my memory makes it, but it was that experience that made me sure that teaching would be frustrating beyond belief. The real issue, in retrospect, is that I wasn’t personally challenged in English; it never dawned on me that that was a flashing neon sign that language was an area where I COULD be deeply engaged in a very satisfying way.
I totally agree that teaching and learning should walk hand in hand for a lifetime. Ideally they are inextricably linked in the happiest way possible. Teach what you love wherever you can in whatever way you can, and you will never stop learning. 😍
“Revolutionary movements fail when they prioritize power over principles.”
Often, the revolutionaries that stayed true to their principles were the worst of all. (Pol Pot, Robespierre).
I loved you take on all of these! My only quibble is with Jane Eyre. She did say yes to marrying him. The reason she didn’t wasn’t money but the fact that his first wife was alive! Mr. Rochester’s wealth and social standing were demolished by the time she actually married him so I’m not sure it even significantly challenged the social views of the day. As with Rebecca, I’m left wondering if our protagonist’s husband was a happy ending or not.
Yes, good point on Jane Eyre, I threw that in the voice over. I like the comment someone else made about how when people are on equal footing, it makes for a better power dynamic in the relationship. In the end they did kind of balance that out. It just bums me out a little that is had to be an inheritance from a distant male relative. But maybe that’s Karma-ish for sticking to her moral compass. As for Rebecca, another one of my favorites, you’re right!
I have loved Pride and Prejudice, and by extension Jane Austens novels, because it was first given to me by my dad. He was a great reader and provided me with many of the books you’ve mentioned here, wanted me to appreciate how being a women in 1970s Brisbane I had the opportunity to become educated and be able to “care and provide “ for myself unlike the women of previous generations.
Aww that’s lovely!
Mrs. Bennet is not silly for obsessing over marriage. She is , however, exceedingly silly, and entirely unable to do what might help them survive economically.
If you are an author who secretly approves of your “bad boy” protagonist, you don’t have him casually hang his fiancée’s dog as you are eloping with her. How anyone can think Heathcliff is a romantic hero has not read the book I read.
Never kill the doggo! And for gosh sake, he couldn't at least given it a quicker death?
He can stay out on the moors and rot for all I care.
You got me on Lord of the Flies! I was also too cynical about humanity to see it. In fact, I was reading Lord of the Flies like one would read Animal Farm, believing that it was inevitable, that power and greed will always prevail over kindness and compassion. But maybe this is not inevitable, after all. I'm too used to seeing selfish and greedy politicians (some are just better at hiding it than others), that I simply lost faith in anything better, regardless of what political regime they're under.
Another thing I thought of, is that a book could be about more than one thing. I like my romances with good social commentary! The romance and the social critique don't cancel each other out. (I don't think you were implying that they were cancelling each other out. I'm just saying that I see the two equally! Definitely not in support of Cathy and Heathcliff's romance, though, lol. But Wuthering Heights was a very entertaining read!)
A funny case study is Watership Down. You would have to be blind not to see all the political allegories, haha. But the hilarious thing, is that Richard Adams insists that despite what readers may believe, he had no intention of writing any political allegories or commentary. He was literally just writing a rabbit story for his daughters to enjoy, lol. Yeah, like anyone would believe that.
Plus, he doesn't need to explicitly intend anything. He may not be trying to teach his daughters about different political ideas. But you can clearly see his beliefs about what politicians and systems are better or worse. Interestingly, I saw someone on YouTube compare the different rabbit warrens to people's different attitudes towards climate change, but I won't go down that rabbit hole (ha!) today.
If I may make an additional comment...
Looking at the covers for the books you presented, I can see how that old saying about judging a book by its cover rings louder than ever. Most of the covers don't do the books justice. Moby Dick's cover paints the simplest of deceptions...it's about hunting a white whale. Pride and Prejudice looks like a humble slice-of-life story with no particular meaning to explain the title. Frankenstein's cover says Happy Halloween without any indication of the mob-mentality that stalks the misguided creation. Putting fire instead of bats behind Frank's head would be more powerful and curious than...bats? 1984 has one of the worst cover designs because, while it tries to place things in a suggestive arrangement, it's difficult to grasp what the cover shows from a glance/distance. I'd miss that book, entirely, if it was on a table with the others. The author's name doesn't even stand out well. Considering how many of these books deal with economy/money, I think throwing a few dollar signs into the fire would have spoken volumes, even if it could have been seen as a spoiler. :P
I like the Gatsby, Jane Eyre and Lord of the Flies covers best...but I'm not sure they properly capture the essence of their stories. At least, I'd see them and be curious.
Your approach to the whole of this post is so delicious that I am instantly infatuated with you. i love the way you challenge readers to argue/debate what you wrote in a comment, asking what you might have said that angered them (and doing so without sounding like a taunt). I am overjoyed at your dissection of...conflict of interest? I'm at a loss for words. [But, I'll try to say something, anyway. :)]
I'm not particularly shocked or upset by any your assessments. But, I think any book that resolves to say every way is bad is likely to drive readers mad. If you picked up a book, seeking advice, and the book told you that there was no right way to go, you might lose your head, too. Why did we pick up this book? I am not sure I needed someone to tell me I don't need advice when that is exactly what I am seeking. A book intended to turn people onto their heads might be too devastating to read. I think most readers want something that gives them direction or satisfaction. A book that is about sex which then tells you to not have sex could mess with your head for...the rest of your life.
Of that whole list, I've only read The Scarlet Letter (at way too young of an age to get the real meaning) and The Great Gatsby. I think my takeaway for the Letter (at probably 10 years old) was that this woman was unfairly being punished for something misunderstood, poorly labeled. I didn't see it from any gender bias or bigger societal perspective. I just saw a bit of what I was experiencing at the time...a woman being bullied. And, the Gatsby, for me, was a tragic story about two guys with different perspectives, different social circles, but a shared interest in one beautiful tease which ultimately leads to one guy's foolish demise. There was arrogance or ignorance that got Gatsby in trouble. In a way, the old book was like the template for Batman and his gallery of villains. I enjoyed the imagery in Gatsby...at least, how my English teacher pitched it, which is how I became a nut for metaphors.
I think I enjoyed reading your assessment more than I did or could enjoy reading the books. :D Thanks for the Cliff Notes. heh
Excellent post. Thank you for sharing.