Welcome to Gaia! ::

I got this debate idea from an essay i read in English 101. It deals with the criteria books must follow to be on the "required reading" list (a.k.a. the "stuff-it-down-the-kids'-throats-muwahahaha" list) There are three general ideologies when it comes to the criteria: the Liberal, Conservative, and Radical.

Liberals believe modern books (especially those written by women and African Americans) should be added, and make up most of the list. They feel that the old "classics" hold little or no modern value or connections.

Conservatives don't think anything is wrong with the list at present, they believe it should stay exactly the way it is. They feel that the "classics" deepen our understanding of our history and culture, and that some books are undeniably better than others.

Radicals do not believe that anyone should dictate what makes a book worth reading (or worth requiring for that matter), and that every individual should have the choice to read what he/she wishes to read and nothing else.

I suppose I'd consider myself radical in this matter.
If liberals favour books especially by women and african americans they're not much better than those who favour books written by men.

I wouldn't say that the old books are bad but they are rather dull in my opinion, I suppose most people have been forced to read Shakespeare sometime in life.

I guess I'm just individualistic.

This is a hard topic!

I feel that there should be 'required' categories, wherein a child can read a few of a classification of stories, not specific stuff. Especially as some teachers rely heavily on only a few titles, I think that kids should be able to choose from categories like 'fantasy' 'gothic' 'romantic' from the major classes of 'classic' 'modern', etc.

The way we have it now is very stupid.

Also, the dewy decimal system (sp?) stills sucks.