I’m not a teacher but I have lead book clubs for kids that age and I write for about that age level. I think kids do kind of know what’s going on with books but have a really hard time articulating it. I also think there’s a gap between their enjoyment of the book and producing a paper for a teacher, i.e., they see writing the paper as trying to complete a task and maybe to do what the teacher thinks is right rather than reflect on the book (because “reflecting” as a creative process is a mature skill). If you talk to them and prod a bit, sometimes they come up with really astute observations.
It’s also possible she didn’t actually read the book and is making crap up based on skimming.
I don’t think she needs to understand the Cold War to get the resisting conformity issue. The book can be interpreted without “context,” though context adds another layer to it. I wouldn’t even try to explain the Cold War to her at this point; I do think that’s asking too much.
And, of course, I don’t think I’m wrong in saying it’s not an analogous situation. The kid misread the book… or, didn’t finish it, because Mr. Murry doesn’t explain what happened until p. 150 ( I just checked). I don’t think RickJay misread Shakespeare, just offered a non-traditional reading of it. His teacher should have asked him to provide textual support, not just said, “You’re wrong.” That was the mistake. It’s also a mistake to assume that’s what I did to my student.
What MandaJO said is precisely what I was trying to say-- the kid is imposing values on the text that not only distorted her reading of the story, but are directly contradicted by the resolution of the novel. If she said that she disagreed with the theme, or that she though Mr. Murry screwed up by taking the risks he did, I would have no problem with that. That’s a valid reading of the book and makes a distinction between her opinion and the theme of the book, and shows that she actually finished the book and knows that he didn’t intentionally get into a battle with a very strong opponent who very well could have prevented him from being a part of his family ever again. She showed no indication that she understood that, unless Mr. Murry, Meg & Co. fought IT, the outcome would have been very bad for the Murry family.
I’m not saying I disagree with you. I don’t think that’s the central point of the book, but I would agree it’s something Ms. L’Engle would agree with. But, of course, I’m a university-educated 36-year-old man, not a seventh grader. I’m also not dependent upon my parents anymore, so my perspective is understandly (a) different when it comes to the ethics of parental behaviour, and (b) based on a lot more experience with literature than a seventh grader’s.
Who said that all interpretations were correct or should not be contested? I would imagine your student would derive great benefit from having her interpretation contested, but I’d suggest that would have to be conducted with a little bit more sophistication than “she’s wrong.”
The point here is not to say “Great job, you must be right because everyone is right,” it’s to engage in at least a little bit of Socratic interchange. WHY do you think that’s one of the book’s themes? Is it supported by the rest of the book? Have you thought about this part? That part?
So get crackin’.
Well, actually, I did. For instance, I knew how to spell “Murry.” What kind of a teacher did you say you were?
I said here on the Dope that I thought she was wrong. Give me a little credit for finesse here… or don’t, but don’t make assumptions about how I handle my students.
And yes, I did this. But then my colleague told me she thought that 7th graders simply could not assess theme, that it was too much to ask, so it’s no wonder the kid got it wrong. That was my question: can kids read a novel and then figure out what the message is? I think they can, but I have been having doubts about it since the reading teacher said that.
A teacher who hasn’t read that book in 20 years and still knows this kid didn’t finish it based on her assessment of theme. Going to cast aspersions on me as a teacher for this faulty spelling? Or trying to score easy points in an argument? If you think “fighting is uncivilized” is in any way a theme of this book, then I have to wonder how good your memory of the book is. I should just be glad she divined a message from it at all… not a very high expectation for a 7th grader.
I don’t think that’s the theme (or even a theme) but then again, I am an adult and not 12 years old.
I think Marienee has some great points and if a 12 year old reader did come up with this as a theme, there are ways to have a conversation about it that steers the student toward more of an evidence-based approach to identifying themes.
And I’m not even that surprised at her theme, because a big moment in the book happens when Meg realizes she can’t keep fighting IT, and instead goes with Love as a strategy. That’s when they win. On the surface, that might support the student’s idea. Fighting bad, love good. What she is missing, and what a good discussion in English class will do for her, are the nuances of the different scenarios when people (or giant disembodied brains) fight.
I doubt this has entered into your student’s analysis, but there is a moment in one of the later L’Engle books where a character comments on how Mr. Murry’s work took him away from his family – not specifically the accident with the tesseract, but running around doing secret government work in general, and it is presented in a pretty ambivalent way, so I think L’Engle herself also pondered this one.
Agreed. And I also agree that she is probably imposing her views on the story. However, she also probably hasn’t had much practice at this, and doesn’t really know how to interpret the text, so she’s pulling out the parts that fit her world-view. I was thinking that some explanation of context (you don’t have to explain everything, just a broad overview) would help them understand that what they may get from a book might not be what the readers of the time would have read, and maybe get them really thinking, instead of trying to fit their ideas into the mold of the story.
Either way, when it comes to interpretation, it really needs to be discussed, especially when dealing with kids this young who may still need to learn that there’s more than one way of interpreting a story.
I guess my question was not “how can I teach theme to 7th graders?” but “should I even be trying to teach theme to 7th graders?” Accepting her interpretation as good enough would be me not even trying to teach it, IMO. The consensus here seems to be that it can be taught, which was what I was trying to wrestle with here. Maybe a 2 minute book talk is not the best time to be asking them to delve into it, though. Will reconsider that particular assignment… thanks for the input.
I never said that was one of the themes of the book, did I? You can’t even grasp the direct message of a 200-word message board post, and you’re criticizing 13-year-olds for not understanding the theme of a novel?
If you don’t like snarkiness, don’t start it up. You want to hand it out (“I think she didn’t finish the book. I’m not sure you did either.”) you’re gonna get some in return.
I’m a 7th Grade English teacher. Finally, a question for me!
It highly depends on the 7th grader. I can tell you that it is one of Michigan’s requirements for 7th graders in Language Arts. They are supposed to be able to identify and cite evidence about the theme of a story and poem.
My experience is that most tend to think that the “theme” is the “moral” of the story because that is what they are used to finding within stories. However, the more advanced students can consistently identify themes. I’ve had students identify themes to poetry and stories and defend them with evidence.
Ultimately, it may just be that your 7th Grader struggles with abstract concepts. The 13 year-old mind is changing from concrete to abstract, so she may be using the concrete part of her mind. Ask her to read it again in a few years and she will probably be able to identify a more likely theme.
In one case, I had a students last year read "Generations " by Amy Lowell. Many students could recognize the imagist aspects of the poem, but only a few could see that it was about an older woman meditating upon youth. Even with the title, most students thought it was just about trees.
This sounds odd to me - almost like you’re saying there is an authoritative explanation of the theme of the book, which you’re relying on, and the student is wrong because she didn’t get the authorised theme. If you didn’t decide that’s the theme, who did? In other words, cite?
It is explicitly explored at some point as are the effects on the younger characters and even the mother. Though as I have thought about it today, I begin to think it may have been one of the other books in the series, I tend to think of them as one story.
I didn’t mean that she needed to understand the Cold War to understand it; but I do think the images which identified the evil which is to be fought against are not easily accessible to a post cold war generation in the way they were to elderly persons such as myself.
In any event, I still think she’s in the right neighborhood and, as you say, a short book talk is not the same as an essay on theme. Whether she just didn’t finish the book or whether she just got whooshed by it will become clear in the fullness of time, I feel certain.
But I do think that seventh graders should be trying to articulate and support their notions about theme and so on, yes.
Authorized theme? The authority in this case is the text itself. I don’t think there should be any question that there are interpretations that can be supported by the text and ones that cannot. RickJay’s interpretation of *Merchant of Venice * is one that could be debated based on evidence from the play. My student’s interpretation of *A Wrinkle in Time * cannot be supported-- resisting conformist authority in a battle between good and evil is a very obvious theme of the story. Violence is NOT the form of resistance being advocated by the novel; love is, but it’s still a battle. There is a definite Christian undertone to all this, as well as the Cold War allusion. But “fighting is uncivilized,” which was her exact turn of phrase, was not there.
Well, if that’s your question, then I think that yes, most 7th graders should be learning to pick out themes. (I only wish someone had taught it to me, ever.) They aren’t much good at it, because it’s a new idea that needs to be practiced a lot, but they will need to be pretty good at it in a few years and they are mostly capable of it (though as noted, they’re all over the map with the concrete-to-abstract leap thing going on).
At this point, you’re trying to get them to learn to think, and that’s kind of hard work so they might not like it, but OTOH they’re ready to and if you keep them down with basic work they’ll be unhappy and bored.
I’m just about too young to remember the Cold War at all (and a seventh grader these days would have been born in, what, 1994?) and I agree the evil shown is a bit less accessible. Then again, I keep reading IT in this discussion and think first of fighting the evil sysadmin or something.
I’m a lousy person to answer this kind of question anyway. The way I’ve always seen it (and trust me, this was even more so when I was that age) finding a theme and the like is a waste of time. Either the work can be enjoyed on its own merits or it can’t and who cares about the other stuff.
Besides, these days I’d rather read Lewis than L’Engle.
I think that ‘finding the theme’ is a basic version of asking some very important questions about a work of literature. Once you get older than 7th grade, the questions you ask are things like “What does the author want me to think about the world?” and “Do I agree with her?”
L’Engle says that letting others tell you what to think is a terrible thing, downright evil. People who want to exert control over others are evil. And sometimes there are things worth fighting for, but violence is a method of control; love might be a better weapon in the long run (but how do you choose which to use?).
So, if you agree with her ideas, then you can take them into your own life. If you disagree, you might try to persuade others of her bad thinking. Either way, you have to be able to explain why you think that conformity is bad or good. It’s when you dig down and understand the themes of a book that it becomes a really life-changing experience. If you’re just skimming all your books and touching the surfaces, they don’t have as much impact–some of them deserve to be really delved into.
Yes, it is talked about a lot in the beginning when no one knows where Mr. Murry is or why he left. It becomes clear later that it was an accident that he wound up on Camazotz; he intended to go to Mars. It was not selfishness, it was his job, which was to be a scientist and try out new technology. I’m sure if he knew what was going to happen, he’d not have done it.
7th Grade??? I read that book in the 3rd grade. I polished off Roots in the 6th grade. I really can’t fathom not getting the gist of the book by the 7th grade.
I know I was a pretty advanced reader, but I’m quite shocked that this seems out of reach at that age.
Sure, it’s a soft spot, that particular book…can you tell I like it? (You mean the theme wasn’t hang out with wierd old women in your neighborhood and travel to exotic places and meet interesting brains?) I still have a very, very strong aversion to cookie cutter neighborhoods and overly conforming folks. Camazotz scared me more than It did.
Remember all those kids that couldn’t get through books in high school? - I graduated with people who’d never read anything longer than 100 pages. If you are shocked, than you may have been a very advanced reader, but you weren’t very observant about the capabilities of other seventh graders.
Some people soak up literature like a sponge from a young age - and seem to have an instinctual grasp of theme or character development. They are taught the concept of foreshadowing - and all they needed was a name, they recognized it long ago. They get to the poetry unit and can handle e.e. cummings and Walter Scott. Other people really never understand anything with more than a simple plot and struggle to follow that. Getting to the abstraction required to analyze themes or recognize external influences - they aren’t going to be able to do that any more than I’m likely to ever be able to do the splits. Most people are somewhere in between.
I suspect that is where this girl is (or she read the start of the book and didn’t finish it) - somewhere in the middle. Rubystreak can influence her to move towards a better understanding of literature (oh, yeah - that’s cool!), or she can present her disagreement in such a way that the girl is discouraged (I never get this stuff right anyway, why should I bother). But its a tricky line for a teacher to walk - getting a seventh grader to defend their ideas and remain open to other ideas - tough.
If theme was part of the assignment, I think you can give her a less than perfect grade on that part. First, to the extent that she failed to provide evidence of her theme. If she went beyond saying “the theme is fighting is uncivilized…because that’s what the book is about” and actually provided some evidence she should get some credit. But second, you can reduce the grade for failing to account for some major evidence not consistent with her theme, which happens to be found at the end of the book.
Telling people there is a right theme and a wrong theme to get out of a piece of literature is a likely way to make them hate English class, and perhaps hate reading fiction, period. I don’t recall ever being told that in my English classes. Maybe I was just exceptionally good at finding themes, or maybe my teachers were good at providing feedback that helped me think without mandating a “right” theme.
I subbed for a class of HS frosh who were reading excerpts from The Illiad, and I was giving them a little background about the Greek drama festivals. I told them that playwrights would present 3 tragedies (and then maybe some comedies, and satyr plays or something… it’s been awhile since that college course), but they would never do The Illiad, because it’s much too long. Instead, they’d present something like Oedipus. I was about to go on, but I then realized I was confronted with a sea of blank faces. I said, you guys know Oedipus, right? Met with some more blank stares, and some head shaking from the bolder ones. I proceeded, you know, the guy who killed his father, slept with his mother? This produced a chorus of “ewww.” I had one last tack to employ, and asked if anyone had heard about Freud. A couple kids raised their hands, but even they didn’t know about the Oedipus complex.
I can understand not having read the plays Oedipus Rex, Oedipus at Colonus (?), and that other one-- hell, I didn’t get to those until college. But never having heard of the guy? At all? By the time you hit high school? I’ve had to come to terms with the fact that some people just don’t really read much.
Just wanted to chime in on the whole cold war thing. Not having been politically aware through it, I guess I can’t speak to the facility that I would have had of picking up on anti-conformity messages if I had been. However, I think that it’s even obvious to kids who are currently experiencing it that conformity is something they are confronted with every day. I’m not going to argue that the responsibility a parent has toward his child isn’t addressed in the book at all, though I don’t think it’s anything close to the central theme (and I agree with Ruby that “all fighting is bad” is wrong and completely misses some important points). However, I don’t know how anyone can read about balls bouncing in unison and children being “reprocessed” for doing things out of the ordinary without getting some small inkling of the anti-conformity message. There’s even the part where Meg (or CW?) begins reciting the times tables, and she realizes that they are too regular to fight the crushing pulse of the control of the brain.
Students who miss this entirely either didn’t read the book or are unclear on the fact that books can have more than one message. In fact, I do seem to recall thinking that in my early stages of discussing themes something about a book having just one thing to say. Maybe the family thing was the first theme she picked up on, and tried to make evidence fit the one theme she thought the book was allowed? Probably not, but I just wanted to mention that I think I remember having some strange notions about what constituted a book’s message and theme, even while being reasonably bright and interested in literature.
(You mean the theme wasn’t hang out with wierd old women in your neighborhood and travel to exotic places and meet interesting brains?) I still have a very, very strong aversion to cookie cutter neighborhoods and overly conforming folks. Camazotz scared me more than It did.