Steinbeck was so, so hit or miss for me. I think even the most stunning stuff was tainted by "The Red Pony" and "The Pearl".

I have to confess, actually, that I hated The Red Pony and the Pearl so much that I am not sure I have read any other Steinbeck in the original form. I have read plays of Of Mice and Men and Grapes of Wrath and seen movies of those and East of Eden(although that may have been because of a 7th grade James Dean obsession)

It seems, from reading Kristen and Kat's posts that teachers have a little bit more leeway in choosing teaching material, which is nice as The Big Two Hearted River also ruined me for Hemingway until I read For Whom the Bell TOlls in college.

Interesting, I don't like any Hemingway. but I don't hate him. I can see why people like him, but he doesn't grab me. Strangely, he seems overly sentimental to me. Wordsworth is another one that doesn't really grab me, but I get why other people do.

On the other hand, there's a whole lot of Dickens that I completely adore -- in particular the great monster 900-page late novels Dombey , Bleak House , and Our Mutual Friend. (The order switches, with BH usually in the lead until I pick up OMF again). All of those manage the whole scope from commentary to characters to just... damn.

Those are JZ's favorite Dickens' novels too.

The longer I teach, the more I drift back to the classics. It's funny, really. I love bringing contemporary fiction and poetry into my curriculum, but I feel a driving need to teach the classics. Then again, one of the things I'm most proud of is that my students consistently say I make "boring old stuff" interesting, and that makes me very happy. As much as I thought that my colleague who first decided to have the girls read the entire Odyssey was batshit crazy, the students tell us year after year that it gives them such a solid foundation in the rest of their literary studies. What determines a classic is very much debatable, but I think that how you teach a classic book will determine whether or not that book is relevant or useful to most students. Hence the fact that I had some really hideously bad high school English teachers who led me to believe I didn't like Shakespeare (!!!).

Then again, the three books I read in high school that I remember having the most profound effect on me were The Jungle, 1984, and The Grapes of Wrath, and my teacher at the time was...not good. So who know.

I think this post may be lacking a central point. Just go with it.

ETA: I also really loved The Sun Also Rises and The Old Man and the Sea, but I had better teachers for those. TOMatS in particular. I think I would have hated it without proper guidance.

As much as I thought that my colleague who first decided to have the girls read the entire Odyssey was batshit crazy, the students tell us year after year that it gives them such a solid foundation in the rest of their literary studies.

I have very fond memories (fond, as in, if you went to my HS and you diss Mr S. I WILL CUT YOU) of my AP English teacher, who similarly had us do the whole Aeneid. (He was a Latinist. What can I say?) It was a slog at the time, but I ended up wishing we'd had enough time for both the Iliad and the Odyssey as well.

(Also, this thread has turned into a workout for my quick-edit-i skills. Yay!)

Then again, the three books I read in high school that I remember having the most profound effect on me were The Jungle, 1984, and The Grapes of Wrath, and my teacher at the time was...not good. So who knows.

I'm terrified of rats to this day.

I'm terrified of rats to this day.

Between The Jungle and 1984, how could you not be??

I hated it more because I had to read it over the summer break, I think, though I'm almost certain I missed the larger point of it. I did that kind of a lot with books I read for class, for a smart person. I don't know, although I really enjoy funny or cheerful books, I also like David Simon and Richard Price, neither of whom write uppers. I guess if I think the bleakness reflects something I understand, I appreciate it.(gallows humor helps, too.) Dickens mostly tries my patience, but I have to admit he wrote some memorable characters. I have to be in the right mood to go for all that 19th century pacing.

Though I dislike the idea that it's OK to be stuck in poverty because you'll get your reward in heaven and you'll be doubly blessed etc.

It's a cop-out, that's why. Both narratively AND in real life. Real-life people living in poverty don't dance for joy at the idea that one day they'll be in heaven, not when they haven't had a real meal for days.

Narratively, it's bullshit because it offers no resolution beyond a 7-year-old's "....and then they all woke up, and realized it was a dream!" Kid do that when they've written themselves into a corner; putative adult writers have no excuse for falling back on it.

I'm not going to suggest that people who hate Moby Dick suddenly start liking it especially if somebody ruined it for you by forcing it on you. But there is stuff to love in it. And, possibly a personal character flaw, but I love encyclopediac novelist, the ones who thrown in peripheral diversions. I love when Melville pauses in a whaling tale to tell you more than you need to know about whaling just for the sheer joy of the description. I love when Thomas Mann stops in the middle of his novel when his character checks into a hotel to spend a chapter telling you about the art of hotel keeping. But hell, I also like (not love) the endless travel descriptions in Tolkein. People find pleasures in strange places, Buffistas possibly in stranger places than average.