For this week’s e-discussion, I’m opening two free-for-all forums to start encouraging intergroup dialogue and solidarity. Enter this one or the other (or both, if you wish). But do two things first:
1) Read the book chapter by Michael Smith & Jeffrey Wilhelm (2010) titled “Teaching so it matters.” (This was referred to in Chin Ee’s lecture.)
2) Read the article by Alex Kendall (2008) titled “Playing and resisting: Rethinking young people’s reading cultures.” (This is the new reading that will be covered in Warren’s lecture next Monday.)
The aim of these readings is to provide you with a conceptual vocabulary and theoretical handle to grip and pry apart the rich ideas and experiences you’ve all been sharing. So once you’ve read them, start posting your responses to this provocation:
To what extent does MOE’s literature curriculum (including the lists of recommended texts for different streams and levels) betray the presence of “othering discourses” that see young adult readers as “‘passive,’ ‘uncritical’ consumers of ‘low-brow,’ ‘throw-away’ texts” (Kendall, 2008, p. 123)? Some of you, for instance, defended your choice of texts like Twilight by appealing to the general relevance of films and pop-cultural texts in our lives and the lives of our students. So why are literature teachers and curriculum planners resistant to the inclusion of such “alternative” genres? How might your views on this matter be informed by writers like Eagleton, Booth, and, for that matter, critical theory?