Exhausted anarchist and school abolitionist who can be found at nerdteacher.com where I muse about school and education-related things, and all my links are here. My non-book posts are mostly at @whatanerd@treehouse.systems, occasionally I hide on @whatanerd@eldritch.cafe, or you can email me at n@nerdteacher.com. [they/them]
I was a secondary literature and humanities teacher who has swapped to being a tutor, so it's best to expect a ridiculously huge range of books.
And yes, I do spend a lot of time making sure book entries are as complete as I can make them. Please send help.
This link opens in a pop-up window
This book is just casually trying to hit every kind of bigotry it possibly can in the last few pages. Fatphobia, racism, misogyny...
It's like a fucking gauntlet being run to make sure he's hit all of them. How the hell did Who Framed Roger Rabbit turn out so good when this book is so bad, lmao.
Roger: short paragraph of an explanation about how he did something with no excessive details Eddie: "This rabbit sure drags shit out."
Me: ... This author has never met a long-winded person in their life or has a very low tolerance for slightly more talking than a brisk sentence.
Four pages later (125), and I get "from the Toons who had been living here" and then "imported from China"... which makes the Toons sound like an allegory for indigenous peoples and Chinese people, too? Basically, Toons are all non-white people, it seems?
Another three pages, and it's Appalachian Toons. Basically, humans are anyone white and from the city?
This book is messy.
Four pages later, and I get "from the Toons who had been living here" and then "imported from China"... which makes the Toons sound like an allegory for indigenous peoples and Chinese people, too? Basically, Toons are all non-white people, it seems?
This book is messy.
Four pages later, and I get "from the Toons who had been living here" ... which makes the Toons sound like an allegory for indigenous peoples, too? This book is messy.
Stanley Yelnats is under a curse. A curse that began with his no-good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing great-great-grandfather and …
Overwhelmingly, I adore this story. It's a book that I've often found interesting for how commonly it's recommended in schools and usually used within the curriculum of English classes, particularly as the core elements of the text should provide ample material for someone to start questioning everything that's happening.
It should provide kids with a moment to go "Wait, there are juvenile detention centers? Prisons for children?" But then I remember the ways in which the book is usually taught, and you find a bunch of teachers who seem to think that sometimes kids do need them, and they teach the book in a way that still reflects a common belief: If you're guilty of something, you should do the time. If you're not guilty, it's bad. (And if it's taught outside the US, it puts special attention on the fact that this is what Americans do... …
Overwhelmingly, I adore this story. It's a book that I've often found interesting for how commonly it's recommended in schools and usually used within the curriculum of English classes, particularly as the core elements of the text should provide ample material for someone to start questioning everything that's happening.
It should provide kids with a moment to go "Wait, there are juvenile detention centers? Prisons for children?" But then I remember the ways in which the book is usually taught, and you find a bunch of teachers who seem to think that sometimes kids do need them, and they teach the book in a way that still reflects a common belief: If you're guilty of something, you should do the time. If you're not guilty, it's bad. (And if it's taught outside the US, it puts special attention on the fact that this is what Americans do... when people outside the US also do shit like that, too. None of us are guiltless here.)
And I really like that it's one of the few books (especially that is usually accessible to kids) that earnestly engages with homelessness without demonising homeless people or any of the actions that they may take to survive in this bullshit world. It's truly empathetic, which is something so frustratingly uncommon. (Not to mention, it's one of the few books that actually talks about it at all, as if it's something entirely foreign to the world we live in. Which... it should be, but it's not.)
But I always hate the ending. I hate that the moral of the story is covered up by sudden wealth and riches, I hate that there's nothing showing a truly collective society or Stanley's family using that wealth (as annoying as that is) to help other people who are homeless or incarcerated... I hate that it's just so "If you do good, you will be rich!" when that lesson... Is just disappointingly wrong on so many levels.
Also, I'm not a huge fan of the whole thing about Madame Zeroni being a Rromani woman (presumably, since that is the most common demographic in Latvia) who curses a whole family for a teenage boy momentarily forgetting and then being unable to fulfill his promise. While I like the idea of the 'curse', I feel like there could either be some discussion to disrupt this tropey view of the Rromani (e.g., the curse is more related to the responsibility of both Elya Yelnats and the many men named Stanley Yelnats and they wrongly blame it on her)... Or something else entirely (something in a similar but opposite vein as Louise Walker's family just hunting down a treasure and never finding it).
Stanley Yelnats is under a curse. A curse that began with his no-good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing great-great-grandfather and …
Overwhelmingly, I adore this story. It's a book that I've often found interesting for how commonly it's recommended in schools and usually used within the curriculum of English classes, particularly as the core elements of the text should provide ample material for someone to start questioning everything that's happening.
It should provide kids with a moment to go "Wait, there are juvenile detention centers? Prisons for children?" But then I remember the ways in which the book is usually taught, and you find a bunch of teachers who seem to think that sometimes kids do need them, and they teach the book in a way that still reflects a common belief: If you're guilty of something, you should do the time. If you're not guilty, it's bad. (And if it's taught outside the US, it puts special attention on the fact that this is what Americans do... …
Overwhelmingly, I adore this story. It's a book that I've often found interesting for how commonly it's recommended in schools and usually used within the curriculum of English classes, particularly as the core elements of the text should provide ample material for someone to start questioning everything that's happening.
It should provide kids with a moment to go "Wait, there are juvenile detention centers? Prisons for children?" But then I remember the ways in which the book is usually taught, and you find a bunch of teachers who seem to think that sometimes kids do need them, and they teach the book in a way that still reflects a common belief: If you're guilty of something, you should do the time. If you're not guilty, it's bad. (And if it's taught outside the US, it puts special attention on the fact that this is what Americans do... when people outside the US also do shit like that, too. None of us are guiltless here.)
And I really like that it's one of the few books (especially that is usually accessible to kids) that earnestly engages with homelessness without demonising homeless people or any of the actions that they may take to survive in this bullshit world. It's truly empathetic, which is something so frustratingly uncommon. (Not to mention, it's one of the few books that actually talks about it at all, as if it's something entirely foreign to the world we live in. Which... it should be, but it's not.)
But I always hate the ending. I hate that the moral of the story is covered up by sudden wealth and riches, I hate that there's nothing showing a truly collective society or Stanley's family using that wealth (as annoying as that is) to help other people who are homeless or incarcerated... I hate that it's just so "If you do good, you will be rich!" when that lesson... Is just disappointingly wrong on so many levels.
Edit: I also am not a huge fan of the whole thing about Madame Zeroni being a Rromani woman (presumably, since that is the most common demographic in Latvia) who curses a whole family for a teenage boy momentarily forgetting and then being unable to fulfill his promise. While I like the idea of the 'curse', I feel like there could either be some discussion to disrupt this tropey view of the Rromani (e.g., the curse is more related to the responsibility of both Elya Yelnats and the many men named Stanley Yelnats and they wrongly blame it on her)... Or something else entirely (something in a similar but opposite vein as Louise Walker's family just hunting down a treasure and never finding it).
The more I read this book, the more it feels like:
... I still think the movie took a lot of the positives and did them justice.
This book is so bizarrely different from the movie it inspired. The things, thus far, that really remain the same are the concept, genre, a handful of characters, and setting. There's also a few things that were kept, though they were changed drastically, including something about Toons and alcohol. I think there's also a line from Eddie Valiant that was kept, too.
Otherwise, entirely different. I'm not super enjoying it? But it's okay. Have no idea how they made such a good movie out of what is, thus far, a mediocre book.
Dawkins needs editors that tell him no and scribble all over his TERFy face with the reddest pen possible. God, he's a horrible writer and sucks at metaphor.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is a work of detective fiction by British writer Agatha …
This is probably one of my favourite Agatha Christie novels, and it's largely because of the structure. I absolutely adore the style of this one, especially because it was rarely a common form for the genre even though it is definitely something that I would've thought was done far more than it ever has been.
All of that sounds vague, and that's because to explain it would be to spoil the story itself.
It is definitely slow-moving at the beginning, but once it picks up? It keeps going and builds a lot of good suspense. It forces you to ask a lot of questions and to figure out which questions aren't being asked or even considered. What's not being said, even though it's being hinted at? Honestly, I adore it.
(The one thing I'd love to do, since I skimmed them, is remove the introductory texts that were inserted in …
This is probably one of my favourite Agatha Christie novels, and it's largely because of the structure. I absolutely adore the style of this one, especially because it was rarely a common form for the genre even though it is definitely something that I would've thought was done far more than it ever has been.
All of that sounds vague, and that's because to explain it would be to spoil the story itself.
It is definitely slow-moving at the beginning, but once it picks up? It keeps going and builds a lot of good suspense. It forces you to ask a lot of questions and to figure out which questions aren't being asked or even considered. What's not being said, even though it's being hinted at? Honestly, I adore it.
(The one thing I'd love to do, since I skimmed them, is remove the introductory texts that were inserted in republication of the novel. All of them. They're just... a waste of paper, especially as they try to make things more important than they really are rather than just allowing people to enjoy what's there. That kind of thing always annoys me.)
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is a work of detective fiction by British writer Agatha …
I started reading this because it was the final book mentioned at the end of the last book I finished (The Honjin Murders), and I had it on my bookshelf.
I'm already a little bored and thinking Honjin figured out how to do this plot better.
In the winter of 1937, the village of Okamura is abuzz with excitement over the …
Content warning Describes but does not detail the ending.
Overwhelmingly, I really like this book because of the way it's structured. It's written in the way of a crime writer reporting on a crime that he's heard, using notes and inferences from the various storytellers and people who were present. It's quite interesting because of that, and it feels very different from other detective novels. It's also something I like about Yokomizo's work with his detective, Kindaichi Kosuke; while he is the central figure as the detective, sometimes he's not even the protagonist of the story. You still follow him through everything, but the perspective is placed less on him and more on others around him.
I do have to mention the ending. It is something that people can perceive as being inherently misogynistic (the reasoning by the murderer is but the presentation does not feel that way to me). The blame for the misogyny is still largely placed upon the murderer and other accomplices within the story. It is not described as being "correct," and it's kind of surprising considering when the book was written (which was originally in 1946).
Mary Jo Maynes looks to school reform in early modern Europe to show the relevance …
Finding books about the history of schooling is difficult, especially because many of them seem to take the position of the school as an inherent good that is necessary for society to continue. It is because this book challenges that idea that I find it so intriguing, especially as it has provided me with a range of directions to explore (both in terms of things I already knew and things I hadn't really thought about).
It is definitely something that I'd recommend people genuinely engage with, especially if the readers are willing to question beliefs (their own or society's) about the necessity of schooling, the conflation between schooling and education, the importance of literacy (and the moralising society has around illiteracy), and how the more radical elements of the left essentially dropped schooling and ignored its importance in favour of "acquiring the state."
I read this with one of my students, and both of us found it a bit boring. That's about all I can say for the book. Neither of us really enjoyed it. It was just... something we had to read.
But finding the following sentence in its marketing descriptions has made me find it more obnoxious:
At a time when childhood obesity rates are soaring and money is tight for many families, here is a book that invites readers to join in the fun of active play with games that cost nothing.
I would not support books that use fatphobia to try to sell themselves, so download (and print) it if you want to read it. The author or illustrator (or both) should also be working against this, as "outdoor play" is not a solution to childhood obesity... But a whole range of other things that are not individual solutions …
I read this with one of my students, and both of us found it a bit boring. That's about all I can say for the book. Neither of us really enjoyed it. It was just... something we had to read.
But finding the following sentence in its marketing descriptions has made me find it more obnoxious:
At a time when childhood obesity rates are soaring and money is tight for many families, here is a book that invites readers to join in the fun of active play with games that cost nothing.
I would not support books that use fatphobia to try to sell themselves, so download (and print) it if you want to read it. The author or illustrator (or both) should also be working against this, as "outdoor play" is not a solution to childhood obesity... But a whole range of other things that are not individual solutions are (better quality food, less sugar in our foods, dismantling modern agribusiness, etc).
Also: Stop fat-shaming children (and all people).