BelM - It's been a while since the board has been responsive and worth probing into the depths...
Back when this was a *current thread Avy requested (privately) that I post my list. I thought a bit, made a list, but promptly decided that my voice has no place speaking of specific authors since there are so few that I've read more than two of thier works....
I'd have no problem coming up with a list of ten for WO'N and a VH1 vote, but don't tempt me.... but let me make an observation(FWIW).
I can't imagine making Shakespere
or DrSeuss required for all to read (unless it's for a comparative analysis
)... however, reading a dictionary should be required. Has anyone had to do so? (let's not start the question of which dictionary).
I've had a chance to read a book or two from many of the authors in the above posts, and those that I've never heard of (especially those from Avy's list) are on my 'to read' list. My point is that a *required list should seek to inspire and promote curiosity by it's diversity, yet not have aspirations of giving a deep understanding of, say, E. Dickinson or E. Hemmingway. An ability to understand or interpret (and quite possibly enjoy) requires more tools than the "rookie" has at hand. Refining these tools is what schooling is about (IMHO) and a legacy of what the teacher has enjoyed (or has been 'most succesful with') often has the deficiencies of the student graded instead of repaired.
Should we move this discussion to "...in schools"?This *assesment is limited to my own experience at a major liberal arts university, and it purports a goal of learning and not exposure, which I differentiate as internal -vs- external. Yet, experience tells me this world would be much
better off if everyone was required to just read W. Burroughs.
