Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"the text lacks literary value"

Oh boy... Why not ban Fahrenheit 451 and 1984 while we are at it. And let's burn all copies too.

What kind of spineless school principal is this?

People don't know what literary value is - since they read so few books, how could they possible know what it is?

Aye, the irony here is sickening. And that a single parent who obviously hasn't actually read a book in ages is able to negatively affect an entire school board that easily is sad beyond measure.

Sometimes people are wrong. In fact it happens a lot. Apparently calling someone out for being wrong is as bad as calling someone out for being fat. Can't have controversy!

Huxley is spinning in his grave.

> Huxley is spinning in his grave.

Huxley was cremated.

The argument as to whether _Brave New World_ has literary value is completely separate from _Fahrenheit 451_ and _1984_.

Please, make the argument that it isn't the case on this particular book, but I'd say no book belongs in English classes because of the warning or political message it delivers. At the high school level, different (academically higher?) standards are looked at. This may include _Brave New World_, or it might not, but taking offense that a popular dystopian fiction novel isn't in the curriculum any longer isn't the right argument: removing an important work on literature and replacing it with a less important one is.

The importance of the political message embedded in those books has no more relation to their literary value (which is something quite hard to define) than their political correctness (or lack of it) that offends an overzealous (and ignorant) mother.

I found the idea of banning a politically loaded book (that speaks of, among other things, banning books) irresistibly funny. I am not sure Fahrenheit 451 or 1984 are required reading in the US, but they should be. They should be required reading everywhere.

I doubt that makes it OK to remove an important work of literature and replace it with a more important one, neither.

Especially in wealthier areas, school administrations have to bend over backwards to please parents or they really will sue the school districts over insane things like this.

No. Their job is to educate kids.

Unfortunately, they bend over backwards to please kids who complain to their parents about how crappy their school is.

"No. My job is to educate kids." will not stop a parent from suing the school.

I wish we'd been able to unilaterally decree books as lacking literary value at my school and have them removed from the reading list.

Screw you Thomas Hardy, you're off the curriculum, some 14 year old has decided you lack literary value because they find all those descriptions of countryside dull and don't want to read them.

(Obviously in this instance that 14 year old would have been me and I'd have been right but I'd also have said something similar about Dickens and been about as spectacularly wrong as it's possible to be).

Maybe we are missing the point when we think school is about making kids happy.

1984 made me miserable. But it also helped make me into the man I am now.

I wish I could get 1984 banned. Far too many believe that saying "it's just like 1984!" somehow makes it a valid argument against something.

Really I just want a required class in formal logic for everyone.

And what exactly does a faulty logic have to do with Orwell's dystopia?

Same thing with "It's just like Hitler!", "It's not what the founding father's wanted!", etc.

I many times support the formal logic requirement.

"It's not what the Founding Fathers wanted" is not generally an issue of logic. If something is flagrantly against the values they espoused, then whether or not that thing should be opposed is simply a matter of your values. If it's not entirely clear whether they would have supported something but there could be reasonable arguments either way, then it's a matter of opinion. In neither case is it an example of faulty logic.

I could explain what I'm referring to, but then, why do so when wikipedia does it so well?


So why doesn't it exactly? What exactly do you think formal logic is and what is it used for? I mean, this sort of thing is an observation and an insinuation not a syllogism. Who needs all these formal logic classes again? The structure of the society in 1984 is widely considered "bad" and it is quite clear what is meant by saying something like "this is like 1984" when it deal with something quite analogous. It's quite clear what is meant by this and the reasoning is very evident. Now, you could counter with something like "No, no I think we need Big Brother because ..." or "We must burn books because ..." I don't think everyone has to construct formal syllogisms for all their arguments, presumably we are intelligent people rather than some kind of x86 processor that can't deal with anything beyond very formal, rigid syntax.

You don't happen to work at Amazon?

Thanks for the laugh. This discussion makes me want to grab a box of Prozac and eat the pills like cereal...

where by "literary value" I think they mean dragons and vampires

Or perhaps they're referring to potential merchandising revenue...

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact