Any readers here?

[kalniel]

I'm a huge fan of David Gemmell and Raymond e Feist. Brilliant authors.

I wouldn't class either as having any educational value however.

[Peter Parker]

Off topic, but ... Hicks - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvs2g5Nj0NI

Makes me laugh, then makes me sad that he's no longer around.

[neonplanet40]

I'm a huge fan of David Gemmell and Raymond e Feist. Brilliant authors.

I am a huge Feist fan. Avidly followed the entire saga. He lost his shine after a while though.

I couldn't use them with my classes though in terms of education.

[herulach]

1984 /animal farm would be the obvious ones, although potentially a bit old.

As much as I might like Robot /foundation they couldn't be further from being literature. They certainly have value but they're books primarily about ideas rather than being interesting in themselves. Perhaps Ray Bradbury? Maybe philip k dick if you want something that they can look at the language of.

If its just something to discuss ideas from you could do a lot worse than ringworld

[Zak33]

Roald Dahl.. Danny The Champion of the Word

still makes me happy as hell to read.. which I have twice last year

[Andy3536]

Roald Dahl? They were staple for me growing up, and the dark delight he takes in stitching up baddy adults is cool...

This^^

Although i now read quite alot, i didn't as a kid. One of the problems was that alot of the books i was forced to read at school i didn't like.
The only books as a child i activly sought out and read my self were Roald Dahl. Can't go wrong.

[Lucio]

Agree with Roald Dahl, one suggestion to help teaching is to pick one of them with a movie adaptation such as James and the Giant Peach, you can then help highlight the differences between the book and the movie as different methods of storytelling

[big_hairy_rob]

I'd also go with a Terry Pratchett, You ideally need a stand-alone book as far too many are parts of trilogies/Epics. Plus the stories are light and witty, though I would probably avoid the witch Discworld books as these can be a tad heav. I’d also agree with The Amazing Maurice and his educated rodents.

I did enjoy Magicians Guild by Trudi Canavan (School setting so age appropriate but does deal with the odd more mature subject) or Assassins Apprentice by Robin Hobb.
If going for a Sci-Fi as opposed to fantasy then Orson Scott Card’s Enders Game was good when I was that age! (Plus there is now a movie to relate to).

One other, though a bit longer than requested, “the Redemption of Althalus” by David and Leigh Eddings was a good story and importantly is stand alone, so is one of the few books offered which is not in a series.

Avoid Tolkien - far too heavy going.

[kalniel]

Assassins Apprentice by Robin Hobb.

This is excellent, though talk of avoiding multi-part series doesn't really help given it's 1/9 (And some of them I'm not sure I would encourage reading at that age, some very mature themes - which I guess would make for interesting, if tough, study material).

One other, though a bit longer than requested, “the Redemption of Althalus” by David and Leigh Eddings was a good story and importantly is stand alone, so is one of the few books offered which is not in a series.

I'll have to read this again, but I thought it was terrible when I first read it. Maybe I missed something, but it didn't seem to have anything of any substance and just went on and on, repeating the same themes.

Avoid Tolkien - far too heavy going.

For a study work it's not too bad, and the Hobbit is probably too light actually, but IMHO he wasn't actually a very good writer, so you'd be studying it for other reasons than creative lit.

[Saracen]

....
For a study work it's not too bad, and the Hobbit is probably too light actually, but IMHO he wasn't actually a very good writer, so you'd be studying it for other reasons than creative lit.

At the risk of opening an extremely large can of worms, define what makes a writer "good"?

One definition, I'd have said, was something that millions of people have read, enjoyed, and that has as a result, stood the test of time.

There's also an element of "good" being in the eye of the beholder. Or, perhaps, bereader.

Personally, I have no liking, at all for the works of Van Gogh. Not much more for Picasso. But Renoir, Manet, Monet, Chagall, Matisse .... and a LONG list of others, especially if I expand tne time-frame .... love 'em.

Note: I do NOT pretend to know 3/4 of 5/8ths of beggar all about what makes art good, or bad. And I do sometimes wonder about the pretensions of those that claim they do. Film critic, for instance, strikes me as one of the most useless wastes of time since humanity evolved from the primdval soup.

But, does my lack of appreciation for Van Gogh say more about my 'ignorance' of art than the quality of Van Gogh's work? Very probably.

But then, I question whether art is "good" if you need to be educated in what to look for to appreciate it. For me, art is good is I enjoy it, if it speaks to me, perhaps if it evokes an emotional response.

Ever read James Joyce? I enjoy his work BUT needed instruction in the nature of society of the time, and Irish Catholic imagery and metaphor, to understand a lot of it. So .... education helped me appreciate it. Maybe it would with Van Gogh, too.

Much the same applies to Dickens. One one level, decent stories. On another, campaigning and biting satirical social critique of lots of institutions (schools, law, poorhouse, etc). A lot of the latter would go clean over the heads of many modern people without understanding the society of the time (and, clearly, place).

Is Dickens regarded as a classic, masterpieces, today because of it's underlying social commentary, or the technical standard of the writing, or because they're good yarns that translate well to film and TV?

And ditto Tolkien. Is it "good", or not, because of the technical use of language, that would satisfy an academic, or because millions have enjoyed it, and they're yarns that have stood the test of time, for millions?

Not everybody enjoys Tolkien. Not everybody likes Van Gogh either. But could either of us do as well as either Tolkien, or Van Gogh? And if not, are we really qualified to judge them? I'm certainly qualified, and far more so than anybody else, to decide if I like them, but not if they're "good" art, or good literature.

[herulach]

At the risk of opening an extremely large can of worms, define what makes a writer "good"?

One definition, I'd have said, was something that millions of people have read, enjoyed, and that has as a result, stood the test of time.

There's also an element of "good" being in the eye of the beholder. Or, perhaps, bereader.

Personally, I have no liking, at all for the works of Van Gogh. Not much more for Picasso. But Renoir, Manet, Monet, Chagall, Matisse .... and a LONG list of others, especially if I expand tne time-frame .... love 'em.

Note: I do NOT pretend to know 3/4 of 5/8ths of beggar all about what makes art good, or bad. And I do sometimes wonder about the pretensions of those that claim they do. Film critic, for instance, strikes me as one of the most useless wastes of time since humanity evolved from the primdval soup.

But, does my lack of appreciation for Van Gogh say more about my 'ignorance' of art than the quality of Van Gogh's work? Very probably.

But then, I question whether art is "good" if you need to be educated in what to look for to appreciate it. For me, art is good is I enjoy it, if it speaks to me, perhaps if it evokes an emotional response.

Ever read James Joyce? I enjoy his work BUT needed instruction in the nature of society of the time, and Irish Catholic imagery and metaphor, to understand a lot of it. So .... education helped me appreciate it. Maybe it would with Van Gogh, too.

Much the same applies to Dickens. One one level, decent stories. On another, campaigning and biting satirical social critique of lots of institutions (schools, law, poorhouse, etc). A lot of the latter would go clean over the heads of many modern people without understanding the society of the time (and, clearly, place).

Is Dickens regarded as a classic, masterpieces, today because of it's underlying social commentary, or the technical standard of the writing, or because they're good yarns that translate well to film and TV?

And ditto Tolkien. Is it "good", or not, because of the technical use of language, that would satisfy an academic, or because millions have enjoyed it, and they're yarns that have stood the test of time, for millions?

Not everybody enjoys Tolkien. Not everybody likes Van Gogh either. But could either of us do as well as either Tolkien, or Van Gogh? And if not, are we really qualified to judge them? I'm certainly qualified, and far more so than anybody else, to decide if I like them, but not if they're "good" art, or good literature.

Tolkein's is definitely a writer of good books, but that doesn't necessarily make him a good writer, particularly not in terms of the type of analysis a year 7 english class is going to be doing. Theres a huge depth to them, and they make a great jumping off point into norse/old english mythology (a lot of the hobbit songs are completely ripped off from old norse stuff). But for a year 7 class its completely the wrong sort of thing.

Similarly with a lot of the 'great' sci fi authors - ASimov, clarke etc the ideas are amazing, but the writing isn't, a lot of the characters are pretty one dimensional.

[b00p]

not sure if it's alright been said, but at that age i was a big fan of the chronicle of narnia series. awesome books.

[kalniel]

^the above puts it's better than I could have (another example of better writing ) - it was what I was trying to say with the conclusion of my sentence - *if* you're studying the writing, rather than the content, then there are other authors that are considered better examples.

But I completely take your point Saracen that on many levels Tolkein could be thought of as a good writer because there are many measures of 'good' - writing style being just one, and that's barely related to other measures such as popularity. (There's a certain film adaptation coming out soon of a novel which proves this point quite well..)

[neonplanet40]

Thanks for the help guys.

In my classes I will ensure my pupils know what makes writing 'good'. This can come down to many things including my own opinion (which we try to avoid as we do not want to taint their opinions). However, sometimes I like to pick a good book for pupils to read purely because it is a good book! My main aim with younger classes is to encourage them to read in general.

That is my first aim. There are many books I could pick for the analysis and discussions that they introduce. However, pupils need to be engaged first. If I can get my pupils hooked on the book - then discussions etc will just flow naturally because they are enjoying it. Rather than being 'forced'. Also, every class/pupil is different (difficult! ha) which makes it even harder and more random.

The three books I chose are:

The Ghosts of Heaven - Marcus Sedgwick (I read this and it is pretty good. Much more to it that I first thought). I will probably do this with a 3rd year class.
Artemis Fowl - Thanks for the recommendation. I will do this with a 1st-2nd year class.
Harry Potter - Book 1 - I will use this with first years. There are also audio books which help our dyslexic pupils (and some others who benefit).

Thanks for all your help! Feel free to recommend even more as I will no doubt try to get more when money is available.

[big_hairy_rob]

This is excellent, though talk of avoiding multi-part series doesn't really help given it's 1/9 (And some of them I'm not sure I would encourage reading at that age, some very mature themes - which I guess would make for interesting, if tough, study material).

Technically it’s currently 1 or 7, though to be nine in due course, or 1 of 14 (due to be 16) if we account for the live ship/dragon books which are part of the same story/timeline.

I know that I went back on myself over these trilogies, but Assassins Apprentice is possibly easier to get into at that age than a lot of others. I could easily have suggested the modern fantasy smash hit Song of Fire and Ice by George R R Martin, however the topics are probably too mature for the younger readers.

re: althalus. I agree that is it far from great book, but did not think that it was terrible. The story was at least enjoyable and again is light enough to be enjoyed by a wide range of younger people. It's not a patch on their earlier works, but the Belgariad, though better, is part of a large series which I was trying to avoid.

At the risk of opening an extremely large can of worms, define what makes a writer "good"?

One definition, I'd have said, was something that millions of people have read, enjoyed, and that has as a result, stood the test of time.
.

While I agree that "Good" is subjective, an equally valid description is a book that you can read time and time again. I have read The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings (single volume edition) exactly once and have no desire to read either again. I have however seen the films countless times and enjoyed them each and every time (besides the ending). Though his creation and imagination was brilliant, this did not extend to his heavy writing style which has equally been known to put younger people off reading.

[kalniel]

Technically it’s currently 1 or 7, though to be nine in due course, or 1 of 14 (due to be 16) if we account for the live ship/dragon books which are part of the same story/timeline.

Yes should - it's originally a trilogy of trilogies. Since expanded, but those nine contain the main story arc.

I could easily have suggested the modern fantasy smash hit Song of Fire and Ice by George R R Martin, however the topics are probably too mature for the younger readers.

Not as mature as the series you just suggested IMHO - darker, yes, but the theme in the middle three books is worse than anything I've seen from George RR Martin yet.

re: althalus. I agree that is it far from great book, but did not think that it was terrible. The story was at least enjoyable and again is light enough to be enjoyed by a wide range of younger people.

Certainly light But as I say, I've not read it for some time!