Honestly, I haven't read most of those so I can't comment on the majority of them specifically, but I have at least read most of the Shakespeare stuff.
I see a difference between having the subject be there and being descriptive with it OR promoting the behavior. Alluding to a situation is one thing, but describing the details of the situation can be too intense. It's easy to sort of pass over an event in a book if you don't understand it without it impacting you too fully. But if the book recounts each little action then I see it becoming damaging.
To use a very benign example:
If I wrote "Jacob woke up. He went into the kitchen and fixed eggs for breakfast." then your imagination and your knowledge of how to make eggs can take effect. But I wrote "Jacob opened the fridge and got the eggs out. He opened the box and pulled an egg from the carton. Cracking the egg on the side of the pan, he began to anticipate his breakfast. After allowing the contents of the egg to pour into the pan, he got his spatula. When he could no longer see through the whites of the egg, he used his spatula to lift the egg out of the pan and put it on his plate." Now you know not only that he had eggs, but how to cook them too. But I didn't mention that the pan was hot, or that the pan even had to be heated up first. I didn't say to put oil or butter in the pan, so if you tried to emulate what you learned from reading that book, then you could either screw up your breakfast, or even worse, hurt yourself.
It's a silly sounding analogy, I know, but I wanted something very benign to use, so please just roll with it.
Having not read Girl, Interupted I cannot speak on its specific content, but for argument's sake let's say the book in question is called "Debi's Life" and in that book there was a descriptive scene of Debi shooting up heroine and the whole book discussed how good it made her feel and how right it was for her to have done it. Can this book promote a good conversation in school? Yes. But it immediately puts a huge obligation on the shoulder of the teacher to be sure to emphasize the negative ramifications of shooting up. Is the teacher qualified to have this discussion? I mean, the teacher is there with a degree in english, not a degree in psychology. And the teacher, much as they would like to, does not know each student intimately enough to be able to handle the personal impact on each student.
Now, the next argument I'm betting would come here is that the parents should be keeping up with the curriculum and having conversations with their kids about it if they are concerned. But some parents don't believe their kids are ready for those conversations. Yes, some kids are. Some kids just aren't.
Really the only thing that I am saying, though, is that parents should have the right to step up and say "The majority of us disagree with this being a part of the curriculum" and have it dealt with. It has already been done with God, so why not with sex, drugs, or violence as well?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 06:59 pm (UTC)I see a difference between having the subject be there and being descriptive with it OR promoting the behavior. Alluding to a situation is one thing, but describing the details of the situation can be too intense. It's easy to sort of pass over an event in a book if you don't understand it without it impacting you too fully. But if the book recounts each little action then I see it becoming damaging.
To use a very benign example:
If I wrote "Jacob woke up. He went into the kitchen and fixed eggs for breakfast." then your imagination and your knowledge of how to make eggs can take effect. But I wrote "Jacob opened the fridge and got the eggs out. He opened the box and pulled an egg from the carton. Cracking the egg on the side of the pan, he began to anticipate his breakfast. After allowing the contents of the egg to pour into the pan, he got his spatula. When he could no longer see through the whites of the egg, he used his spatula to lift the egg out of the pan and put it on his plate." Now you know not only that he had eggs, but how to cook them too. But I didn't mention that the pan was hot, or that the pan even had to be heated up first. I didn't say to put oil or butter in the pan, so if you tried to emulate what you learned from reading that book, then you could either screw up your breakfast, or even worse, hurt yourself.
It's a silly sounding analogy, I know, but I wanted something very benign to use, so please just roll with it.
Having not read Girl, Interupted I cannot speak on its specific content, but for argument's sake let's say the book in question is called "Debi's Life" and in that book there was a descriptive scene of Debi shooting up heroine and the whole book discussed how good it made her feel and how right it was for her to have done it. Can this book promote a good conversation in school? Yes. But it immediately puts a huge obligation on the shoulder of the teacher to be sure to emphasize the negative ramifications of shooting up. Is the teacher qualified to have this discussion? I mean, the teacher is there with a degree in english, not a degree in psychology. And the teacher, much as they would like to, does not know each student intimately enough to be able to handle the personal impact on each student.
Now, the next argument I'm betting would come here is that the parents should be keeping up with the curriculum and having conversations with their kids about it if they are concerned. But some parents don't believe their kids are ready for those conversations. Yes, some kids are. Some kids just aren't.
Really the only thing that I am saying, though, is that parents should have the right to step up and say "The majority of us disagree with this being a part of the curriculum" and have it dealt with. It has already been done with God, so why not with sex, drugs, or violence as well?