Ulysses to me is a really good example of a book whose reputation has been sabotaged by being assigned in class, that was where I first read it and while I was ambivalent to it most people seemed to hate it.
No high schooler or undergrad is going to understand a book that talks about being trapped in a life they don't enjoy by the choices they've made that's meant for a reader in their 40s.
Really, same thing goes for most other disciplines. So many kids learn 4 years of algebra without having the slightest clue that this all is building to something called "Calculus" that they don't understand what it is.
That specifically at least could be improved greatly by just reworking classes to include plenty of hands-on practical application so it’s not so abstract. The pervasive thought during that period of my life was, “why am I learning this” and nobody wanted to bother answering except with the non-answer, “you might need it someday.”
Every class should start with a why~!
Surely it wasn't my fault for being so dense. Age was, of course, mostly responsible. But probably also just poor instruction - surely if a teacher had actually explained this, it would have gone a long way to opening my mind and likely re-orienting my life.
Likewise with most other subjects - I spun my wheels learning French from age 10-15, because it was just an exercise in memorization rather than understanding. I learned Spanish in my 30s without even "studying", just by virtue of better understanding grammar at that point, and just focusing on trying to express ideas rather than worry about conjugations, spelling etc...
The school system really does not do a good job.
So many high school students tragically treat it as a litmus test, bounce off it and as a result suspend their dreams of higher education. It is the epitome of sacrificing education for occupational goals. If you don't intend to pursue applied science it is almost worthless forced masochism.
Disclaimer: I have a bachelors in pure mathematics.
The relationships between area and volume of various objects I spent geometry trying to understand make much sense as integrals.
Trig, logarithms, exponentials, infinite series, they all come into themselves when you start applying them to analysis. It just all sorta clicks once you start to thread them together.
Another related mistake educators make: assigning material that could be relevant or interesting to high school students, but then not giving them the sorts of experiences that will make it so. I was a nerd (and, in fact, skipped high school English), so when my classmates were reading Chaucer and were (predictably) bored to tears by The Knight's Tale (it's all about Virtue, right?), I led an impromptu study hall session on The Miller's Tale (it's a long series of scatalogical jokes), and what do you know?, they a) enjoyed it, and b) were more willing and able to give The Knight's Tale a go.
Don't even get me started on reading Shakespeare without, you know, experiencing it as a play first (or, indeed, ever).
(I'm not familiar with We Do Not Part; thanks for the recommendation. I love all of the other authors you mention, and will check Han Kang out.)
The actors are doing so much interpretation work for you. It is an enormous effort. Let them.
There is much value in reading Shakespeare, but you have to learn how, and you won't get there just by having an unabridged text thrown at you.
By the way, I spent the first two or three years of my professional career performing school-tour Shakespeare. That was a joy. Hard graft: sometimes three shows in a day, along with loading and unloading the van in between, but my goodness it was rewarding. Great training, too. We'd do a show in the morning for twenty people in a library, and then in the afternoon in a 2,000 seat auditorium. You had to learn quickly how to modulate your performance, and what choices land with what kinds of audience.
https://booktalkandmore.blogspot.com/2011/03/shakespeare-ret...
Everything comes together brilliantly in this adaptation, which remains remarkably - and surprisingly, perhaps - true to the source material, ...Students need to experience plays the way they're meant to be experienced: as plays. Live events, with human interaction at their heart. Anything else is... Missing the point.
But... that's not something they should think. It's not something that's true. You learn algebra to solve certain types of problems. You learn calculus to solve other types of problems.
I disagree. If you read a book first, it can inform you as you go through your life experiences, and it can potentially have far more value to the student that way. The mistake in teaching these books in school is that the teaching is generally done with the assumption that students have already had those life experiences, making it a complete waste of everyone's time. At least that was how it was taught when I was in school.
I'm actually thinking of movies though. I watched Casablanca in my early 20s and it did nothing for me. I watched it again in my 50s and cried so hard my whole body shook. The difference was life experience. I knew what they were giving up. Something I had no experience with in my early 20s
I suspect some books have a similar issue.
A lot of school asigned reading cements the idea that someone just doesn't like books because, well, they haven't ever liked anything they were told to read.
Encouraging people to read period should be the first goal with yound adults, and if they want to read something that academics sneer at then that's totally fine. Reading any sort of book has benefits, and those who develop a love for it will naturally seek out more challening and interesting books when they are ready for them.
(This is far-and-away the best way to read Ulysses, FWIW)
If you just wanted to learn Java, there are faster and cheaper methods.
America has a possibly fatal case of capitalism.
I disagree, a book like Finnegan's Wake has a lot in common with Java. Think about a clean, clearly written book that tries to craft an enjoyable narrative, such as Snow Crash, that's the python of books. Now a book like Finnegan's wake, the narrative is completely impenetrable, instead the author focuses on other things like wordplay, sound play, rhythm, etc. In the same way, Java isn't so much about clearly and cleanly stating an algorithm, but more focused on the rules and regulations, terminology, the paperwork and formalities of programming. In this regard Java is more analogous to a legal tax code, but Finnegan's Wake is a good foundation for either.
I think studying liberal arts after having life experience is so much more rewarding — not to mention affordable (assuming you’ve done something with your life).
The payoff of studying liberal arts in your 20s is very different from when you’re in your 40s (my age). The context is much more salient and the practical applications become more visible.
Morris Chang (chairman of TSMC) once wanted to be a literature major and he has mentioned how studying Shakespeare has helped him to understand human behavior and the human condition.