Encouraging The "Reluctant Reader"

<rant> Batten down the hatches folks. This is a blog post that has been brewing for forty years now, and no that's not a typo or an exaggeration. I have dealt with the American educational system since the fall of nineteen eighty-two. It's not going to be pretty. It's not going to be polite. I can almost guarantee a huge amount of butthurt from ninety-plus percent of the educators in this country if they read this post.

Guess what?

I don't give a rat's ass. The field upon which I grow my fucks is barren and I shan't be buying any to give you. Seriously, this is the type of thing that should have been said years ago by young men and parents' groups alike. Why young men? Because "reluctant readers" is a coded phrase used by educators. It means boys. There is a real challenge getting boys and young men to pick up a book. This then leads to men that won't read because they never have. Teachers in this country blame Attention Deficit Disorder. They blame television. They blame video games. The list of things that teachers in this country blame for the fact that boys won't read is long and doubtless all of those things contribute to the problem.  But none of these things, individually or as a group, are the primary cause of the fact that boys will not read unless forced.

The primary source of the problem, the main reason that these kids won't lift up a book, the cause of low reading comprehension scores in reading, and the problems in math and science that are propagated by problems created when a non-proficient reader can't comprehend the words written in their textbooks are caused primarily by the teachers in this country. A child cannot learn chemistry if they don't read well enough to understand their chemistry book. Try doing math homework if you can't puzzle out the examples in the math text. The selfsame people that will tell you how hard they work to teach their kids to love to read are flat-out doing it wrong. Most of that is institutional, and some of it is quite frankly gender related.

Yeah, I said it.

First, let's start with institutional: 

English Literature was the most feared class at Hazel Park High School when I was a student there. Why? Because the teacher (who shall remain nameless for her own protection) gave the same speech at the beginning of every class:

"This book is now your life. If you play a sport, quit the sport. This book is now your sport. If you have a boyfriend or girlfriend, break up with them. This book is now your boyfriend or girlfriend. If you have a job, quit your job. This book is now your job."

She was, of course, referring to the textbook for the class. I'm sure, in her mind, she was trying to be fair and warn students of the work required in her class. Everyone I knew that took her class talked about how much work it was. From that point of view, it was probably fair. But, my friends, I ask you this:

How much excitement did you just get about reading that book? How badly do you want to pick that book up and learn everything in it, having just heard that speech? What reason did she have to believe that her students would actually be encouraged by what they had just heard? 

Anyone?

Bueller?

So you agree with me.

Listen, I was a smart kid who loved reading and probably could have pulled down a really good grade in that class. When my turn came, however, I already knew the speech. I took Mythology instead and spent a semester with Zeus and Osiris instead of Shakespeare and Lord Byron. No way was  I dealing with that crap. I had her for the American Lit my sophomore year (English Lit was for juniors at HPHS) and she tried to recruit me. I turned her down flat. I had no interest in that.

And I'm the guy who got his bachelors degree while working full time and taking care of his oldest kid while going to school, albeit at a later age.

And listen, I get the idea that it is absolutely necessary to have assigned readings, just like it's necessary to assign math problems and science experiments. I just don't see how force feeding a student to the extent above benefited them. Although, to be fair, this aspect of the problem isn't just about "problem readers" because the girls all hated it, too. Still, willingly and knowingly forcing that kind of an attitude on a teenager is a problem. But, let's face it, most students didn't like reading before that point anyway, especially the "problem readers." Why? Because the stuff they teach in school is boring, pointless and in no way encourages young males to want to consume it.

I'm gonna be beaten up by a herd of literature teachers for this, but here it is:

"Important literature" should only be taught during the high school years or later, and then only to students in college prep courses or actual colleges. This isn't because of some elitist push on my part. It's partially because the advanced students are the only ones likely to benefit from the lessons taught by deciphering those books. But also, it's because the system kills the interest of young men when it forces him to break down the feelings evoked by a book like Romeo and Juliet. The frustration evoked by trying to decode the language in Shakespeare's stories is just as bad for a lot of dudes. (And for the love of GOD please translate Shakespeare's work for use in high schools. If we can translate Don Quixote, which was written in Spanish, to English, we can translate Shakespeare into modern English. The stories are still relevant. The form of English  they were written in is not. The original language can be preserved and passed on for future generations and taught to students studying literature and history in colleges where it will be relevant.) 

If you want students to get better at reading, they need to practice. The only way to practice reading is by reading. Realistically speaking if, as a society, we want young men to have an interest in reading we have to give them things to read that they will find interesting. A lot of what is taught in American schools straight up sucks. It's boring. The students in your class who are bored and are asking "When am I ever going to use this in life?" are right. 

But here's the thing: What they could use in life is skill in reading. What a young man is not getting is skill in reading when he buys the Cliff's Notes version of The Scarlet Letter because he couldn't care less about some chick who nailed the wrong dude and had to wear a red A on her chest. And no, that's not his fault because of lack of empathy. It's the teachers fault for trying to ram boring bullshit down his throat.

Here's something very few teachers want to hear, but all of them need to accept: It's not the student's job to learn to love reading the crap you shovel in front of them. It's the teachers job to put interesting books and stories in front of the student to encourage their interest. If, as a primary or secondary school teacher, you are out there forcing things on your students because of their literary importance YOU ARE ENCOURAGING ILLITERACY. YOU ARE CRIPPLING YOUR STUDENTS ABILITY TO LEARN ALL OTHER SUBJECTS. YOUR INTENT IN DOING SO IS IRRELEVANT.

Let me make myself even more clear here: I am the owner of this blog. This is the three hundred and sixtieth post here. I started this blog because of my love of reading. I have continued it because of my love of both reading and writing. With the exception of two years of my education (and I'll get back to this in a minute) if I had been introduced to reading, and only read the crap I was fed in school, there is at least a seventy-five percent chance that I would be functionally illiterate at this point in my life.

Yes, I mean that literally. 

The system and the teachers that perpetuate it are the primary cause of the lack of reading skills in this country. They work hard. Most of them aren't happy about what's going on. But working harder using the wrong techniques isn't going to make things better. </rant>

And yes, I do understand that girls need to love reading, too. The facts are, however, that girls do much better on tests of reading ability than boys do, and it's not because of intelligence. It's because of interest.

"So," you're asking, "What's the solution, Jimbo? Do you have one or are you just talking to hear your head rattle?"

Yes, I have a solution. And please ignore the rattling coming from my head. It's one that will work wonders for the United States and pretty much any other country where kids think for themselves. I'm not saying it will work for every student, but it will work for a lot more than the current system does. I like to call it the Emlet System, because I point blank stole it from Mrs. Yvonne Emlet, whom it was my pleasure to study under for both my fourth and sixth grade years. She was an amazing teacher, as many of my former classmates have attested. I don't know if she'd call it a system, or even if she even intended it to be one, but it felt like one to me and (this is the most important part) it worked. And seriously, someone needs to give this woman an award. I can line up students of hers that will echo that sentiment if it helps. I've heard more than one declare Mrs. Emlet to be "the best teacher I ever had." 

And by the way, I go to church and a small group there with her now and I'm supposed to call her Yvonne. I usually do, but in her official capacity she'll always be Mrs. Emlet to me. 

Anyway...

Mrs. Emlet had this thing where she would assign stuff that was fun to read. Some of it was actually "literature" I suppose. We read Tom Sawyer, but it wasn't until years later that I even realized that he was an "important author" who wrote "classics." I just wanted to be the guy who tricked his buddy into painting the fence so he could go fishing. I read Where the Red Fern Grows in her class. Johnny Tremaine, The Battle Off Midway Island, Across Five Aprils, and a couple of other books whose titles I can't remember were things that I consumed and loved. I've re-read most of them since and I need to find out the title of at least one of the books I can't remember because I want to re-read it. Several of the books she assigned were things that I later bought for my daughters. That didn't always work as well. Girls tend to like things that boys don't. There really are differences between the genders. Lesson learned and applied here. 

I'll be honest here. I'm not necessarily sure how well Old Yeller would appeal to a young man in 2023. The system will still work though. It just needs some tweaking. It probably depends on region as well. I loved Where the Red Fern Grows because it had a lot of hunting and fishing in it and I grew up fishing and hiking. I couldn't hunt until later because of age restrictions, but it was something I had an interest in anyway, probably even more than the other stuff because I wanted to hunt and couldn't. In some communities that might still appeal. In others, maybe not. 

So what will work? 

Comic books at lower grades will work great. Everything from graphic novels like Diary of a Wimpy Kid to Marvel or DC and their superheroes. There are also novels published by both Marvel and DC. Somewhere out there, someone is rolling their eyes and making testosterone jokes, but the testosterone is the point. Boys like exciting stuff. Superheroes are big right now and their primary consumers are male.

Detective novels are good. The Hardy Boys immediately come to mind, and I'm thinking that Nancy Drew might just feed the excitement requirement for boys and get that female demographic interested because Nancy is a girl.

And yes, boys will read books with a female main character if it's a well written adventure. The keys are excitement and a fast paced plot with some action. 

If there is a teacher out there stuck on "The Classics" I recommend authors like Robert Louis Stevenson and Mark Twain. I already mentioned Tom Sawyer. Huck Finn was another good book. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court was as fun as it was humorous. I read Treasure Island and Kidnapped before I found I was supposed to. Redwall is popular among kids, too. Non-fiction works, but only if it's written for the age group and is something of interest to your students.

I guess maybe I wasn't "smart as paint" the way I thought I was.

And, well, harnessing other interests can help get kids interested in reading. Like...

(Buckle up kids. It's going to get ugly)

The novels on this list are all video game tie-ins. I've read a couple Halo novels and the old Everquest novel series, as well as a World of Warcraft novel or two. They're good books. They should be pretty easy reads starting at about eighth grade for most kids (I could have read them earlier than that, but I could read before I started school, so I'm probably an outlier here.)

The Young Adult genre didn't exist until J.K. Rowling forced it into existence with Harry Potter, so I didn't get a chance to read any of that until later, but there are plenty of good books written specifically for tweens and kids in their early teens that didn't exist when I was that age.

Most of the books reviewed on this blog would work for a high school student. Anything with sexual themes would be marked, but there's something I want to mention here as well:

I get the logistical problems with what I'm suggesting. There's only so much money in the book budget, and there are only so many copies available via interlibrary loan or whatever your state's version of MelCat is. 

If you teach students who tend to have cell phones, there is at least a partial solution:

Things that are out of copyright are usually available on Project Gutenberg for free. I just checked and Mark Twain and Robert Louis Stevenson are both available, legally, as free ebooks that the kids can read on the phones that they already own. 

Alternatively, if your district issues computers (my daughters go to a school that checks out Chrome Books to their students) they can read the same books on their computers that they could on their phones. 

Baen Books also has a Free Library full of ebooks containing works of derring-do and they publish top-notch Science Fiction and Fantasy. Granted, this is meant more as a marketing tool than a charitable donation, but the books are the books.

I find myself wondering if publishers make charitable donations for this kind of thing, but I have no knowledge either way. It can't hurt to ask. The worst case scenario is the publisher saying no and nothing changing. 

The bottom line is that where there's a will there's a way and nothing is going to improve until there are changes made in the system. To all the educators out there: Please think about what you just read. You are the people that can implement changes that will save your students and this country. If you're saddled with district curriculum requirements, then put together a coalition and show up at school board meetings loaded for bear. If you care as much about your students as you say you do, it will be worth your time.

If you made it this far and you have suggestions for good books for boys and young men, please take the time to drop the titles/authors/buy links in the comments.

Oh, and if you've read this post and agreed with it, please share the link.

On the Eleventh Hour of the Eleventh Day of the Eleventh Month...

(Note: This is a non-SF/F post. I just felt like saying something. The sad part is, it's not really going to be footnoted or anything, so it's not really good to be a proper work of history from a scholarly perspective either.)

At eleven AM on November eleventh, 1918 the guns fell silent and the killing stopped. The First World War ended. The Western Allies had prevailed not because of their own fighting prowess (Germany was still advancing at the end of the war) but because of the collapse of the German government. The Weimar Republic had stripped away the old Reich and established a new one. Their first act was to sue for peace. In a hospital run by the German army was a young corporal, who was actually Austrian, who was pissed out of his mind and recovering from a gas attack. He went on later to "avenge the wrongs" his people had suffered by starting a war that killed millions. Screw you and your mustache, Corporal Hitler.

That's not really what this post is about though. Nor is it about the mistaken belief, held by many historians, that the Second World War was caused by the actions of the United Kingdom, France and their allies in leveling war reparations on the German government. The Germans never paid them anyway. It could be about the folly of negotiating a peace without first thoroughly defeating the enemy and why national pride will send them back for round two eventually, but that's not it either.

No, this post is really about the stupidity of that war and many of the nations who fought it. I just don't get it.  One Archduke gets offed (and depending on you point of view, he may have deserved it) and a few years later, millions are dead. A good-will tour (Franz Ferdinand was in Serbia to see and be seen and make everyone happy) ended up in a conflagration that killed millions and led to parts of the European landscape being uninhabitable a century later.

There was no real reason for World War One to turn into a general conflict. I can see, from the point of view of the Austo-Hungarian Empire (all the Americans reading this just went HUH?) to punish a seditious province and put down a rebellion. I would understand that. But how an internal matter in the Empire to a German invasion of France is something I don't understand and probably never will.

I guess my point in bringing this up is my feeling that it's important to figure things like this out to prevent it from happening again. Don't think it can't. In Europe, where there hasn't been a major war in decades, trains are still built to make loading and moving trips easy. China and Russia are both arming. The United States hasn't faced another major power since the end of World War II but that doesn't mean it never will.

When I read the literature, what I kept finding was that everyone thought that it was time for a war. Really? Everyone just wanted to send their sons and brothers off to die because they hadn't done it in awhile? Is that what you're actually selling? I'm not buying it. And yet, I can't find a fact to refute the belief either. Out there somewhere is a picture taken of the crowd at an Austrian war rally. Right in the middle of it is the aforementioned asshole, the excitement evident in his face. He wanted a fight, at least.

A large part of my studies as a history major centered around politics and wars. I get that it happens. I'll never forget a quote from one of my history professors. "It is sometimes necessary and appropriate to go to war, but it is never pretty." She was right. I just don't see World War I as being either.

So then, why? It wasn't territorial ambition. Germany had invaded France a little over forty years earlier and left after winning the war. The Ottoman Empire and Austria Hungary had far more to lose than to gain as evidenced by the fact that neither one exists anymore. How did all of these countries find themselves training and arming men to kill each other? What made it worth the effort? For the record, I get France's reason for fighting. They were invaded. The same with Russia. What was everyone else thinking?

Whether the United States should have entered the war or not is still debated, as are it's reasons for doing so. Some will tell you that it was for the "Merchants of Death," but that makes no sense. As a neutral power the United States had the right to sell weapons to either or both sides. In practice, we sold mostly to the British, but that made sense. They were the closest and had a navy big enough  to protect our shipping. Put bluntly, this is mainly a theory promoted by Marxists, who seem unable to believe that any war can be fought for any reason other than profit. To someone whose life philosophy is based around crass materialism that would probably make sense. Another theory is the "unlimited submarine warfare" school that says that the US went to war because Germany was sinking too many ships. (And, for the record, U-boats were damn good at what they did.) This makes no sense either. Yes, there had been some American citizens killed on British cruise ships (most famously the Lusitania) but it wasn't that common and the US government had warned its citizens against boarding the ships in the first place because of the risks involved. This boils down to the same

Of course, there is one other popular theory. The British intercepted a German telegram to Mexico offering to return lost territory if Mexico invaded the US. This, theoretically, would keep the US too busy to interfere in the fighting in Europe. (I remain convinced that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 due to similar motivations.) Mexico obviously never invaded, probably because they were sick and tired of getting their collective asses kicked. (For the record: Yes, the telegram could have been faked. No, it has nothing to do with diplomatic pouches. For one thing, the message was intercepted as it was broadcast. For another, countries can and will violate each others diplomatic pouches during wartime. The reason diplomatic pouches are respected during peacetime is because it is considered to be an act of war to open another country's diplomatic correspondence.) So, even if the telegram was the true motivation for the US to go to war against Germany, why were they convinced that it was necessary?

Tom Clancy said it best: "The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." Nothing about the lead up to World War I in general or US involvement in the same makes the slightest bit of sense. There is no logic here. Maybe I spent too much time growing up listening to characters like Spock and Data, but the lack of a definable purpose offends my sensibilities.

And when your break down the tactics used by all sides, it gets worse. The history books record what happened on the Western Front as "trench warfare." I define what happened on the Western Front as "dig a ditch and die warfare." For the record, we're both right and the difference is totally semantic.  I still think my version  makes more sense as both sides on the Western Front spent more time dying in place, or for a few yards of territory, than they did accomplishing anything of military significance.

And then, of course, is the part that most citizens of the United States are ignorant of. Someone help me out here: WHAT IN THE BLUE HELL WERE AMERICAN TROOPS DOING FIGHTING IN RUSSIA? Yup, totally happened. American troops, many from my home state of Michigan, were sent to protect supplies meant for the White Russian (ie anti-communist) troops during the Russian Revolution. Within hours of landing at the port of Archangelsk, and before many of them had even disembarked, there were already troops aboard a train headed toward Moscow. They never came close. It still doesn't make sense that they were even there. Ostensibly they were trying to bring Russia back into the war, the Russians having made a separate peace with Germany. I'm still not sure what their real mission was, and that was supposed to be the theme of my Master's thesis if my academic career had not gone under when my marriage did. They damn sure weren't guarding warehouses in a train headed away from the warehouses.

Someday, maybe someone will say or write something that makes this seem slightly logical. It won't be this day, or at least not from this computer. I'm supposed to come up with some big conclusion here that ties this mess together, but the best I've got is that there is no conclusion possible. I guess that's your big revelation. I hope it was worth your time. Anyway, hug a veteran. They've earned it. And, if you think this post is a goofy as I do, feel free to tell me so in the comments.

Feel free to download a copy of the history of some the units that fought in the American Intervention in the Russian Revolution, written by some of the officers that served as part of the expeditionary force, here for free:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22523

If you happen to be in Southeastern Michigan, you can visit memorials to the Michigan Polar Bears (who fought in the Russian Revolution) at both White Chapel Cemetery (look for the polar bear statue off to your right as you pull in from Crooks Road) and at the Detroit Zoo, contained in a class case in the polar bear exhibit. Of course, the coolest place to learn about them would be at Michigan's Own Military and Space Museum in Frankenmuth.

Oh, and word to the Polar Bears themselves: Yes, I promised you guys a book while visiting your graves at the cemetery. It's going to happen. I'm not sure how when I'm not really eligible for academic grants to do the research anymore, but I'll figure something out. 

The Color Chart

Listen. Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger. I mean yes, I wrote it and yeah, I'm responsible for it.Still, at the end of the day, I wasn't given a choice. This is a rant that's been building for years and it has nothing to do with Science Fiction or Fantasy but I needed a space to vent. It's my bloggie and I'll post if I want to. (You would post too if it happened to you. Bu duh duh dunt dunt. Or sumfin') I mean really. So let's work this out, shall we?

Ladies, (and gentlemen who agree with them if there are any) I hate to break it to you but there are only like somewhere in the neighborhood of ten colors that exist. No, that doesn't mean that I'm colorblind. I've been tested for colorblindess. I got thirty-nine out of forty colors marked right and the other one I got marked down on because I squinted. I'm still bitter about it too. The lady even confirmed that it was the number six. I suppose I'll get over it eventually. It's only been twenty-two years but these things take time. That's not the point though. Here is the point:

Red is a color. Brick is not a color. It is a building material. Fire engine is not a color. It is a vehicle that carries comes to keep your house from burning down. Rose is not a color. It is a plant. I've always found that one weird since apparently anyone who would refer to "rose" as a color IS colorblind. There are, after all, red, pink, white, orange and yellow roses that I know of. There may very well be more, but I have hay fever and I try not to study anything that exudes pollen too closely.


For your further edification, I will list other things that are not colors:

Pumpkin is not a color. It is an orange fruit.
Tomato is not a color. It is a red fruit.
Puce is not a color. It is a bodily function best performed into a toilet or urinal.
Egg shell is not a color. It is God's way of making me work for my breakfast.
Ivory is not a color. It is a substance that people used to make jewelry before it became illegal.
Mauve is not a color. It is properly spelled "Maude" and is an old TV show.
Burnt is not a color. It is what happened to my toast last night when the toaster button jammed.
Gold is not a color. It is a metal. It is also a medal. Someone out there didn't get that. Please try to keep up.
Crimson is not a color. That is a word made up by that school in Ohio. If you like Crimson you are pathetic and probably also a criminal, especially if you like Gray with it. (More on Gray below.)
Strawberry is also not a color, but if you have any feel free to bring them by because they sound really good right now.

So, having discussed what is NOT a color, what is a color? Allow me to elucidate:

Black is a color. I like the color black. I look good in it because it is slimming. It is the color of empty space. It is an awesome color.

Blue is a color. The Detroit Lions wear blue. The Michigan Wolverines wear blue. The North Carolina Tarheels wear blue. No, none of those blues look the same but they are all equally blue. Blue is my favorite color. If you are a woman and you want to Jimbo to think you look good wear blue. Then again, there are other colors women look good in as well. If you don't care if Jimbo thinks you look good you can still look good. Or you can wear something else. Dammit, I'm off topic again. At any rate...

Orange is a color. Put orange lettering on a blue background and you get the uniforms of the Detroit Tigers. Orange is also the color that hunters wear so that it sticks out in a woodland background. Orange is a really cool color.

White is a color. Don't give me that crap about "It's not a color. It's a shade." Shade is something that happens when light gets blocked. White is the predominant color of most away uniforms. It is an important color. Which team is the home team is a very important thing to determine when you end up watching a game you weren't planning to.

Yellow is a color. The sun is yellow. Yellow therefore sucks because it causes sunburn.

Green is a color. It is the color of sickness, decay and Michigan State Spartans. It should be shat upon whenever possible.

Brown is a color. It is the color that comes to mind whenever someone says "green." See the reasoning for such under green.

Gray is a color. Many of my favorite shirts are gray. I like gray.

Pink is a color. I wore pink when I walked the Three Day. Pink is the color of survival. I'm not going to be able to do the Three Day this year, but maybe next year I'll wear some pink again.

Purple is a color. My daughter Riley likes the color purple. It is also the color of annoying dinosaurs. Put bluntly, I'm not sure if those two facts are related or not.

Ok, so I was wrong. There are eleven colors. That is really all there are. There is no need to pretend that there are more. There is no reason to tell some poor, unsuspecting man that something is ivory when he can see it is clearly white. No, you don't have an aquamarine dress. You have a dress that should be blue but has contracted some dress disease and is slowly turning green. You should probably discard said dress and get a real blue dress that you will look good in.

To all the ladies who have read this far, I would like to say congratulations on educating yourself and simplifying your life and mine. To all the gentleman who have read this far I would like to say that yes, you were always right and I am here to support you in your time of need. Now, regardless of which category you fit in, go forth and be awesome!


Some color and sports related items are available at the link below: