No easy summer reading

I am currently a high school student, and i too read "perks" when i was entering high school. while i was reading it it did seem innappropriate, but as i continued the book it grew into becoming my favorite book of all time. I feel that it also prepared me for high school, and allowed me to make better decisions. The events stated in the book unfortunetly do occur in high school and it prepared me in the way that i learned to expect the unexpected. I also was able to realize that going out and partying was not always the best decision, and it made me becareful when i was choosing my friends. I think the book is important to those who will go into high school, and i encourage teens in, or entering, high school to read it.

The parallel being drawn between Island Trees and this most current situation is truly bogus. One had to do with the banning of books from a library. The current controversy has to with the questioning of assigned, mandatory reading material relative to children by parents, based on appropriatness of the material. It doesn't take a village to know what is right for one's child. It takes a parent. Nice try Newsday, but this boat won't float.

I would just like to say that i am a 9th grade student in Commack High School. I am reading this book and have just resently finished it. I think that it is not only rude but arrogant that you would get to some point in a bok and stop reading it. That SCENE may be "explict" but if you would keep readoing you would relize that there is a point to all of the points in the book. It is one of the best books that i have ever read and after reading a book that i disliked last year it is releaving to read a book that i can relate to. This child was not forced to read this book and when w were givin the sheet of books we could read we were told to check out the books. If you are not mature enough to read somethign like this you are not mature enough to be in high school.

If you look for that book on Amazon the site suggests to you that you might like to buy a Rabbit, too.

gene d wrote:

The parallel being drawn between Island Trees and this most current situation is truly bogus. One had to do with the banning of books from a library. The current controversy has to with the questioning of assigned, mandatory reading material relative to children by parents, based on appropriatness of the material. It doesn't take a village to know what is right for one's child. It takes a parent. Nice try Newsday, but this boat won't float.

yeah, the LIST is mandatory, but the BOOK is not mandatory, they had 15 books to choose from.

jenn wrote:

<quoted text>
yeah, the LIST is mandatory, but the BOOK is not mandatory, they had 15 books to choose from.

Jenn- Put your critical thinking cap on and compare the two situations. Can't you see the differance?

gene d wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenn- Put your critical thinking cap on and compare the two situations. Can't you see the differance?

that doesnt make any sense she was not told nor did she have to read that book it is unfair that because she is imature the mature kids in the school cant read a decent book for once

gene d wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenn- Put your critical thinking cap on and compare the two situations. Can't you see the differance?

ok, if the kid didnt like THAT book, put it down and try ANOTHER one.....does that work for you? oh sorry, you are one of those i'm going to cram my opinion down the troats of others aren't you?

Karen wrote:

<quoted text>
My own child read this book and she is not a reluctant reader but she is a teenager who could possibly face such a situation in her life. The student does not have to read the book; it's part of a list. For some students it's a good choice for others, not so much. Should we take "All Quiet on the Western Front" off the lsit as well because war is brutal and unkind?
If the only reading a child does is school based reading then parents aren't doing their jobs. Yes, teachers are employed by parents , but parent sbring something different to the table than teachers do.

If the list is mandatory/ exclusive to specific titles, you must assure that every book listed is age appropriate even if you must err on the caution. I agree that this means listing books that pass the "lowest common denominator" test but when you are dealing with middle school/lower high school children, those are the breaks.
This does not equate, as Newsday would have you believe, to the Island Trees situation of some years ago, where books were banned from an entire library system. In that instance the issue was censorship. This incident involves parental input and rights relative to the education of their children and the level of common sense displayed by the so called "educator" doing the selection and the process of notification used in apprising parents of content. Parents have already ceded too much responsibilty to educators who have proven on many occassions recently that they are not worthy of that trust.

Does this lady understand that she just made the Perks About Being a Wallfower more populat. The best way to get a kid to read or do anything is to tell them he/she can't. When I was in school it was Go Ask Alice and Are You There God, Its Me Margaret. When the told us we were not allowed to bring the book to school we all ran out and got a copy.

Banning a book based on one scene is simply overzealous. I have read the book, and when I read it in eigth grade, nothing seemed too inappropriate. The point of that seen is to show the reader the sad, horrifying, animalistic reality of a heinous crime. NOT to expose the reader to possibly inappropriate content. 1) By banning, or attempting to ban this book is will be made even more popular than it is (as stated by IJFL)and 2)By banning the book, we are essentially coddling children, and masking reality from (who this book is intended for)teenagers, who are most likely aware of these situations.
Oh, and gene d, Karen meant that the students could pick from a list of titles to read. Only one or two is usually mandatory, not the whole list. In cases like that, its to allow the student to choose, so that the student would be more likely to do the reading.

Utterly Ridiculous wrote:

Banning a book based on one scene is simply overzealous. I have read the book, and when I read it in eigth grade, nothing seemed too inappropriate. The point of that seen is to show the reader the sad, horrifying, animalistic reality of a heinous crime. NOT to expose the reader to possibly inappropriate content. 1) By banning, or attempting to ban this book is will be made even more popular than it is (as stated by IJFL)and 2)By banning the book, we are essentially coddling children, and masking reality from (who this book is intended for)teenagers, who are most likely aware of these situations.
Oh, and gene d, Karen meant that the students could pick from a list of titles to read. Only one or two is usually mandatory, not the whole list. In cases like that, its to allow the student to choose, so that the student would be more likely to do the reading.

Who said anything about "banning" books. I am not calling for it to be removed from libraries or in any way preventing someone from reading such material. I am saying that educators must use caution when formulating and endorsing lists of required materials. Students weren't given an option. They were required to slect books from a prescribed list. Such a list must be age appropriate for the target group. Failing this, the "educators" should have at least given students and their parents information regarding possible content conflicts relative to the age of the target group.( You know you really can't tell a book by it's cover!) The fact, however, that so many young correspondents of this thread can't tell the differance between actual censorship and responsibility of educators to use appropriate materials and parent's involvement in their children's education and it's appropriateness is even scarier.

gene d wrote:

<quoted text>
Who said anything about "banning" books. I am not calling for it to be removed from libraries or in any way preventing someone from reading such material. I am saying that educators must use caution when formulating and endorsing lists of required materials. Students weren't given an option. They were required to slect books from a prescribed list. Such a list must be age appropriate for the target group. Failing this, the "educators" should have at least given students and their parents information regarding possible content conflicts relative to the age of the target group.( You know you really can't tell a book by it's cover!) The fact, however, that so many young correspondents of this thread can't tell the differance between actual censorship and responsibility of educators to use appropriate materials and parent's involvement in their children's education and it's appropriateness is even scarier.

hey gene,

i believe that the list was compiled by a group of educators and PARENTS! and then they even invited this mother to join the group after she expressed her unhappiness. but she went to the papers instead...and they PUBLISHED the offending excerpt, where anybody, man woman or child could read it!

jenn wrote:

<quoted text>
hey gene,
i believe that the list was compiled by a group of educators and PARENTS! and then they even invited this mother to join the group after she expressed her unhappiness. but she went to the papers instead...and they PUBLISHED the offending excerpt, where anybody, man woman or child could read it!

Hey Jenn,
Either Newsday or you have your facts wrong. A careful re-reading of Newsday's article reveals that parents and specifically the complaining parent, were not asked for their participation or opinion until after the fact, a favotiye tactic of "educators" trying to cover their fannies. Now, who is right? You or Newsday? I'm just dealing with facts as they are presented.... or is it a matter of deficient reading comprehension?

Frankly, I feel that censoring this novel from Commack’s Summer Reading List, as well as any other piece of curriculum, would be a mistake. Small pieces of what some may find to be vulgar descriptions do not supercede a whole novel’s worth of excellent literature. After all, the scenes in question depict true unfortunate occurrences that happen everyday. By sheltering others from learning of them is fruitless. One way or another we are all going to be aware of life’s brutal bite. By avoiding reading pieces of literature describing these situations is nothing but avoiding reality.
However, every parent and student is entitled to their own opinion on what they believe to be appropriate. In that case, those who find the book to be disagreeable should chose another that will better suit their liking. That is why the department provided several titles. They should, by no means, attempt to prevent other teens from reading the novel, particularly since many find it to be an enriching body of work. Those who desire to remain sheltered from the world around them do not need to bury everyone else’s head in the sand.
Imagine how many wonderful books such as Catcher in the Rye that were not introduced to students due to its censorship. Now it is the basis of many English curriculums throughout the United States. In addition, it goes without mention that many more students will be choosing The Perks of Being a Wallflower for their summer read, now that such attention and scandal has been drawn to it.

gene d wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Jenn,
Either Newsday or you have your facts wrong. A careful re-reading of Newsday's article reveals that parents and specifically the complaining parent, were not asked for their participation or opinion until after the fact, a favotiye tactic of "educators" trying to cover their fannies. Now, who is right? You or Newsday? I'm just dealing with facts as they are presented.... or is it a matter of deficient reading comprehension?

from the article
"Educators in Commack revamped their reading list last year after also finding students weren't interested in the choices; a committee of teachers, students, parents, librarians and administrators was formed."

maybe YOUR reading comprehension?

Malarie Feliccia wrote:

Frankly, I feel that censoring this novel from Commack’s Summer Reading List, as well as any other piece of curriculum, would be a mistake. Small pieces of what some may find to be vulgar descriptions do not supercede a whole novel’s worth of excellent literature. After all, the scenes in question depict true unfortunate occurrences that happen everyday. By sheltering others from learning of them is fruitless. One way or another we are all going to be aware of life’s brutal bite. By avoiding reading pieces of literature describing these situations is nothing but avoiding reality.
However, every parent and student is entitled to their own opinion on what they believe to be appropriate. In that case, those who find the book to be disagreeable should chose another that will better suit their liking. That is why the department provided several titles. They should, by no means, attempt to prevent other teens from reading the novel, particularly since many find it to be an enriching body of work. Those who desire to remain sheltered from the world around them do not need to bury everyone else’s head in the sand.
Imagine how many wonderful books such as Catcher in the Rye that were not introduced to students due to its censorship. Now it is the basis of many English curriculums throughout the United States. In addition, it goes without mention that many more students will be choosing The Perks of Being a Wallflower for their summer read, now that such attention and scandal has been drawn to it.

Well reasoned and for the most part I agree with you. My objection is with the process used to generate the list which excluded the input of parents of middle school and lower high school age children( a group which is highly diverse relative to maturity level) until after the fact, provided no guidance to parents as to content. I further object to Newdays' attempts to equate the bona fide parental objection to curriculum content in schools with the banning of literary meritorius books altogether from a library. I would hope that any fair minded person would see the difference.

I'm a current English teacher and 2001 Alum of Commack HS. The Perks of Being a Wallflower is absolutely my favorite (non-classic) book. Last year, I worked with "reluctant readers," and with their parents' permission, read Perks with them every day after school. While at first, they were, as they are called, reluctant, after a few pages, these kids, kids who had such severe learning disabilities that they could not read more than a few sentences without struggling, were asking me if I could stay later to continue reading. They weren't giggling at the explicit scenes -- they were horrified, and also were actually able to relate to some of the more mature situations. They knew kids like Charlie or his friends, and engaged in conversation about what THEY would have done in Charlie's situation. And isn't that one of our goals for our students? To get them so engaged that they find themselves thinking what THEY would do if they were in the same place? Perks got these reluctant readers to do that. I had never seen them so excited about something academic. It really was rewarding.
When you assign books, you have to keep your purpose in mind. Why does Commack want kids to read Perks? I can think of many reasons myself... the primary one being that the situations Charlie talks about are universal. Anyone can relate to Charlie at SOME point within that book. The things he says, the things he sees, something. Everyone I have lent the book to (which is quite a few) has loved it -- boys, girls, adults, etc. It reassures us that we're not alone (and for those of us who are no longer in HS, that we never were).
Every day, high school kids deal with adult situations. I am not saying it is right, but it is a fact. Drugs are also a topic in that book, as is homosexuality, physical abuse in relationships, and for anyone who has read the book, you know the ending, and how controversial that is as well. It surprises me that parents are more upset by the date-rape scene than they are by the whole ending (and perhaps point?) of the novel. Why parents are so against their children reading about situations they deal with baffles me. It's just interesting.
And, it really bothers me that people feel the book should be banned because it makes students "uncomfortable" when reading about the explicit scenes. What about African American students who have to read To Kill a Mockingbird or Of Mice and Men? Do you think they are comfortable hearing/reading the n-word or about a black man being unjustly found guilty (and killed!) because of a racist Southern town? When I had to read Beloved in HS, I was VERY uncomfortable. Should that book be banned? No, because you know what? Life is uncomfortable. American history is uncomfortable, and so is our society. By shielding kids from the texts, you're only fooling yourself if you're thinking that equals protection. I already wrote too much, but I felt like this was too important to ignore. Good luck to those fighting the fight,
~Commack Alum, teaching in MA

I read this book,i am 15, other then some things i thought the book was really good, i actually just read it over the weekend before reading this article right now so i thought it was quite ironic