Tolkien taught in school

[Morsul the Dark]

Firstly I was unsre where this thread would belong, whether it should go here, or in "The Barrow-Downs" forum. Secondly througout this year, in English class me and a classmate, Phil, discusssed why Tolkien should be taught in schools.(Actually I argued that, he argued why Star Wars should be taught.) At any rate as we were reading Beowulf I convinced my English teacher to let us watch LOTR. She brought in ttt, which I found rude seeing as only three or four of us understood what was going on.

The point I'm trying to make is this, we learn nothing in school of true drama. LOTR is shoved aside by Romeo and Juliet, a tale of two lusting teenagers that kill themselves, and thrown to the wall by A Tale of Two Cities, A uncomprehensible text of discription.(We watched the movie and it was a very good story, but as a book I got confused, and I'm good at comprehension.) LOTR is clear and decisive and teaches values such as friendship, love, loyalty, devosion.

Why do we suffer throuh Macbeth, when all it teaches is greed is bad through five of the longest acts in history.(that is merely how it felt.) LOTR is much more exciting and heartwarming and has much more teachable values. I say drop that heavy literature book carry a lighter 3 in one volume of LOTR. I understand you can say it takes too long to read. I believe however you could teach only this and learn most if not all the lessons you have learned from all the other lessons put together.

Don't get me wrong I, myself, love Shakespear, Charles Dickens, and Homer. Bbbut I do think there is a better way, a perfect way...a Tolkien way!

[Imladris]

Well, we learn the other works because they are the masters of language. Shakespeare is the wordsmith of this world. Tolkien built his work on them, just like Shakespeare probably built his work on Homer. These authors are, after all, still widely read for a reason, and they are also called classics for a reason.

Shakespeare has coined many of the words...I disagree about many of your descriptions of Romeo and Juliet and the others, but they do not belong here.

[Morsul the Dark]

do they not belong as they are inappropriate? or do they not belong in this forum?

[InklingElf]

Well all we can do is sigh through required reading Morsul. I won't complain about the mentioned writers myself -- though I have suffered through Macbeth at least 6 times in different grades -- repeatedly!

I will affirm however that LOTR does take long to read. I talked to my past teachers about why it is not required (save for Summer Reading perhaps) and their reasons appear plausible.

1)Not everyone has the same reading speed (WPM) -- believe me it's so frustrating to have to wait for people to finish
2)It is easier to get a student engaged in reading and analyzing a certain piece if it is interactive -- like a play for example
3)If LOTR were to be a reading requirement it would take even more than a school year (4 semesters) to read,analyse,quiz, and test

Though it may seem unfair to many people I appreciated the fact that I was able to read Tolkien on my own time. And having the Downs (well that's years later) under my finger-tips makes it convenient for me to discuss these pieces of amazing prose with seasoned pros of Tolkienology (heh).

I'm glad for the people who have had the opportunity to have Tolkien in their curriculum (truly it is not devoid of observance by other teachers). And besides it's not like he is not introduced. The Hobbit was required reading in elementary and that is the reason I went and bought LOTR and so on and so forth.

Originally Posted by Morsul

The point I'm trying to make is this, we learn nothing in school of true drama. LOTR is shoved aside by Romeo and Juliet, a tale of two lusting teenagers that kill themselves, and thrown to the wall by A Tale of Two Cities, A uncomprehensible text of discription.(We watched the movie and it was a very good story, but as a book I got confused, and I'm good at comprehension.) LOTR is clear and decisive and teaches values such as friendship, love, loyalty, devosion.

Drama is for Theatrics is it not? Moral values are not exactly the point behind teaching Shakespeare or any other piece of literature that is taught in school.
The point of its presentation is to hone the ability to comprehend plot structures, themes -- the whole nine yards if you will.

Thanks for this topic Morsul I've been thinking about it myself.

[Morsul the Dark]

Well Inkling, You're Welcome. Secondly I will not debate that it takes a long time to read, because it does. I do however think that most of Shakespeare's works boil down to a moral:

Macbeth: Died because of greed(greed is bad)
Romeo and Juliet: Died for love(loyalty)
Merchant of Venuse: Tolerance

I will agree that in a play it is easier to get students to read.

I myself have never been blessed with LOTR or any of Tolkien's works as required reading. I do forget why I originally picked up the Hobbit that one day in the book store, so many years ago but it wasn't for school. But I think if it were taught in schools perhaps thered be more jolly honnit lovers in the world.

[InklingElf]

Hobbit lovers? You probably mean the younger generation. From what I know Tolkien was a bit of a cult master esp. during the 60s. And still IS. I'm talking before Jackson my dear.

[Morsul the Dark]

As am I, Oh sure Jackson helped rekindle a fire inside me(seeing how I had forgotten about the hobbit until the trilogy came out)

But I ask you why must we read "Classics" they're written in old English that unless you take the time as I did. You won't understand.

Tolkien only used two words I did not know the meaning of erfe which I found out means before. and league, which I still don't know how long a league is.

But what I'm saying is many teenagers are turned off by literatre because it is hard to understand. Tolkien is easy(unless you're a BDer we tend to complicate things ) I think Tolkien would be wonderful. Also in most literature books they only take passages of the tales, well why not just take passages from LOTR on Mount Doom when Sam carries Frodo up the mountain, the bridge of Khazadum...all those wonderous moments that mean something, those that show true courage, friendship, loyalty, and devotion.

[InklingElf]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

As am I, Oh sure Jackson helped rekindle a fire inside me(seeing how I had forgotten about the hobbit until the trilogy came out)

But I ask you why must we read "Classics" they're written in old English that unless you take the time as I did. You won't understand.

Tolkien only used two words I did not know the meaning of erfe which I found out means before. and league, which I still don't know how long a league is.

But what I'm saying is many teenagers are turned off by literatre because it is hard to understand. Tolkien is easy(unless you're a BDer we tend to complicate things ) I think Tolkien would be wonderful. Also in most literature books they only take passages of the tales, well why not just take passages from LOTR on Mount Doom when Sam carries Frodo up the mountain, the bridge of Khazadum...all those wonderous moments that mean something, those that show true courage, friendship, loyalty, and devotion.

Firstly, I agree that Peter Jackson DID indeed help re-kindle old flames and simultaneously kick-start new ones. I wouldn't replace him for another director.

Second,
What's wrong with Old English Morsul? Trust me there is a whole glossary of archaic words that are constantly used in Tolkien's writing.

I think the challenge in reading classic lit. IS trying to gain understanding. If we didn't have to read it we might as well kill the whole purpose of reading Tolkien. Maybe the reason why Tolkien's themes are easier and more conventional to pick up is because he chooses to use sterotypical characters and themes.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm on your side, but your sounding like you want to eliminate classic lit. and replacing it with ONLY Tolkien.