On Blogging in the Late Weimar Republic

Reading the headlines of Alltop.com’s “top education” sites‘¹ brings to mind the cover of the old Supertramp album, showing a man sunning himself in a bathing suit on a lounge chair, surrounded by grimy industrial waste. The album’s title? “Crisis? What Crisis?”

Economically, American banking deregulation has dragged the US, and the rest of the world, into a crisis creating comparisons to Depression Year 1937.

Politically, the McCain/Palin campaign is whipping up hatred that makes such sober and respected political commentators as conservative David Gergen openly express fear that civic violence could be the result - and others worry that the unthinkable return to political assassination is now possible.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration continues its assault on the constitution by violating the 200-year-old law of Posse Comitatus, which protects US citizens from being oppressed by their own military, by deploying an Army Brigade to police American streets, and be answerable only to him. Soldiers disobeying, say, an order to arrest members of Congress, or citizens protesting Wall Street, would be court-martialed and serve prison time for serving their democracy instead of their dictator.

And Sarah Palin, the naughty librarian (who can’t name anything she reads, and who may as well gyrate while she winkingly chants “Drill, Baby, Drill”) doesn’t care about the causes of global warming - a position I’m sure would not be shared, could we ask them, by the 25% of mammals now endangered worldwide.

Everything is Political - Except Edubloggers?

So how many education bloggers show the slightest indication, on their blogs, that they find addressing these crises worth “suspending their edublogging campaigns”?

Answer: a whopping 17 - out of the 130 blogs with over 600 posts on Alltop’s education page.

So without further ado,

The “I Didn’t Wordle as Rome Burned” Award

1. The Chancellor’s New Clothes (Our Political Role Models: recommended)
2. Iterating Towards Openness (Scary Sarah: recommended)
3. ODonnell Web (McCain’s hate speech: recommended)
4. History is Elementary (close reading of rescue bailout bill: recommended)
   
5. Borderland (always recommended)
6. Stephen Downes’ OLDaily (economy: recommended)
7. Joanne Jacobs (on Ayers as still-revolutionary)
8. NYC Educator (McCain’s anger issue)
9. Piloted (teaching campaigning)
   
10. My Wonderful World Blog (foreign policy debate)
    
11. Assorted Stuff (on This American Life’s Wall Street podcasts)
    
12. Facing History and Ourselves (educating about campaigning)
    
13. Factchecked (gasoline as political issue)
14. Education Week (Ayers smear)
15. ASCD: In Service (education debate)
16. The Fischbowl (debates 2.0)
17. MindOH Blog (vote)

A Maverick’s Plea for Reform

I’m aware of the many reasons that educators might not openly advocate their political views. I can only hope it’s ye olde self-censoring fear for your jobs that causes this silence, instead of indifference or worse.

All I know is, for this month at least, there are more important things to spend time on than writing about classroom blogging policies, PLNs, global collaborations, Moodles and Nings and Wordles.²

A bit of reading on the Weimar Republic’s failure, and replacement by a famous military dictatorship in the midst of an economic and military crisis - accompanied by extreme racism - might be a good place to start.

I’ve also enabled Diigo to post my daily bookmarks and annotations here. I’m on sabbatical this year, so decided to share what I have time to read. Feel free to check out my Stumbleupon bookmarks too.

I hate feeling like some silly Cassandra.

But I’d hate even more to be one of the Trojans who laughed at her.

~     ~     ~

http://www.FeedBurner.com).gif" />

If you like this post, please spread it: (But don't tag it "education." That will bury it.)

1. and we all know what a debatable claim that “top” is
2. Anyway, haven’t they all been written into the ground by now?

---

33 Comments

• At October 11, 2008, Harold Jarche wrote:

  I've been accused of being too nice on my blog (perhaps it's a Canadian thing), but I strongly agree with you, Clay. It's time to get more subversive.

  Harold Jarches last blog post..The second week of Work Literacy

• At October 11, 2008, Dean Shareski wrote:

  Clay,

  While I admire your passion for politics, I certainly don't feel knowledgeable enough to shed any light on the situation. Certainly as a Canadian, I'd be less qualified than most but even as a federal election in my own country is 5 days away, I'm not even sure who I'd vote for and would only be able to write about my confusion and frustration with the lack of clarity.

  I admit it, I'm not a very good citizen. But what concerns me is that just like I would take an non-educator's writing on education with a grain of salt, I have a hard time finding folks who's opinion's on politics I trust. Those inside politics are rarely able to speak objectively.

  In general, the people whom I most trust are politicians and critics who can see both sides of an issue. No one is all bad and no one is all good. US politics is so polarized that I can't find anyone who can provide a balance. That's not to say people don't have a preference but the discussions are rarely more than a hard slam against the opponent. When a Democrat criticizes Obama, I listen. When a Republic credits Obama, I listen. Same is true for McCain or any other politicians. I'm looking for objective voices. They are hard to find.

  I'm not smart or knowledgeable enough to provide a balanced look at politics. Maybe it's lame but that's my excuse.

  Dean Shareskis last blog post..I’m sure I’m doing it wrong

• At October 11, 2008, avoicein wrote:

  Thanks for mentioning us.

  I can tell you one thing - I'm not going down without a fight.

  avoiceins last blog post..“Hey Sarah Palin” Song

• At October 11, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  I get your intent and don't mean to nitpick, Harold, but I'm having trouble with the choice of "subversive" to describe the simple act of voicing your positions on social and political issues. In the 19th century, it was a normal part of citizenship, wasn't it?

• At October 11, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  You know I love you, Dean, but I want to agree that for educators who talk about being "lifelong learners," saying "I'm not knowledgeable enough" about politics does seem lame. We're all about critical thinking, reading, learning, communicating.

  That was sort of my point about "suspending the Moodle-talk" to learn about things we should know to be good forces (which simply means informed and critical ones) in bad times. If we're not, then what's the value of our vote?

  As for objectivity, you know that's a myth, right?

  And in the age of YouTube and blogs, we're privy to campaign moments, arguments, evidence, and points of view that the media won't show us, so we really can inform ourselves now better than ever before about political and social issues.

  And for the record, I've criticized Obama on these pages more than once - most strongly for supporting the bailout without being open to other approaches.

  But there is simply nothing in the same universe of egregious shame that Obama is doing to compare with McCain/Palin.

  And so we share our thoughts.

  You're Canadian, though, so it's not as big a problem for you, you lucky dog.

• At October 11, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  @A Voice,

  And that's why you're one of maybe three edublogs in my Reader.

  Great Palin song, by the way.

• At October 11, 2008, Harold Jarche wrote:

  Not sure if people wore their politics on their sleeve in the 19th C. In Europe and the British Empire it was all about King and Country, and politics were for the rich. Around here, many people voted the way their parents did.

  Also, the simple act of voicing my opinions on social and political issues could be very subversive - to my business and my ability to earn an income.

  Harold Jarches last blog post..The second week of Work Literacy

• At October 11, 2008, Jeff Wasserman wrote:

  Because my blog is also a classroom resource, I'm loathe to express my specific political views on it--my school admins are drowning in complaints that teachers are espousing pro-Obama or pro-McCain views in their classrooms, and I'm not getting into it. The simple fact of the matter is that my students are (mostly) too young to vote, and their parents have made their minds up already--my district is full of high-dollar-amount donors, $1000/plate fundraiser host families, etc.

  I did bring my sophomores to a State Rep debate held in the high school, and they had a lot to say about it. These kids are tuned in to the process, and how it's covered in the media. They're savvy. Some support Obama, some support McCain, and they'll argue their positions as long as I'll let them. It's heartening to see.

  No, I'll keep my personal politics off my blog and save them for my Facebook arguments with my irrationally conservative and xenophobic friend. If it were a personal blog, or if I weren't a public school teacher, perhaps I'd think differently. But since my biggest audience is teenagers, I'm just not gonna do it.

  Jeff Wassermans last blog post..Welcome to the desert of the real

• At October 11, 2008, KarenR wrote:

  My professional blog is about education and like Jeff and some others, I just don't feel comfortable including my personal political views there. Instead, I maintain a personal blog where I put those kinds of things (http://simplykaren.org/wordpress/). There is a link to that site on my professional blog so if people are interested in learning more about me and my views beyond education and technology, they are free to explore but I am not forcing it upon them. I am trying to maintain some separation between a personal and professional life, I suppose.

  I have found myself crossing that line with Twitter, however, and felt a little uncomfortable with doing that but it seems less permanent, I suppose.

  KarenRs last blog post..A Little Freedom and Personal Space, Is That So Bad?

• At October 11, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  Rome's been burning for awhile, now. I'm guessing my last comment suggesting that you keep sharing thoughts on Gilgamesh for me (and Nero) to enjoy did not fly.

  Anyone who pays any attention to history, to politics, to our society can see what's been going on--and it has been going on for several decades now.

  My daughter was beaten by a police officer back in October, 2001. She was jailed. Officers had badge numbers covered up. She was in a peaceable assembly protesting the Bush administration's plan to bomb people who had nothing to do with 9/11.

  Thursday at lunch, one teacher said that voting for a Democrat is akin to inviting terrorists to bomb the US.

  I read Naomi Wolf's words years ago, and they rang true. I kid about my tinfoil hat, but these are troubled times.

  In the classroom, I (attempt to) teach children how to think critically. My own views do not (or should not) matter.

  I have faith that if I teach children how to think, they will reach reasonable, humane, and (dare I say it?) loving answers to the ills around us.

  I hold a position that wields tremendous power over other clans' children (loco parentis is a big deal to me)--if I espouse my positions publicly, it betrays my faith in the rational approach, and undermines what I am trying to do.

  I am not saying we should not be screaming from the rooftops, though it is a shame that we are such a nation of sheep, blind sheep at that, that only the loudest get heard.

  I am saying, though, that once I start screaming from the rooftops in an edublog forum, I am betraying my trust in the ability of a republic to educate its children.

  (Not that I am not almost there already--but if I give up my faith that humans can think and love, and that we can teach humans how to think and love better, then I am not only giving up on my livelihood, I am giving up on life.)

  I do scream and shout, just not in the ed world. If you ever visit my classroom, you'll hear some very interesting things from children once they are allowed to think on their own. You will hear views contrary to my own, but that are on their way to being reasonable.

  I had a very engaging months/years long on-line discussion with a brilliant young man studying at Oxford, a man who held some views obviously pushed on him. We disagreed on just about everything political, but I told him that given his mind, he and I would be much closer to agreeing on things as he got older than he knew.

  And, years later, the transition has been startling to some, but not to me.

  Faith.

• At October 12, 2008, Jose wrote:

  Just FYI, Clay, make that 18. My politics have been more NYC-central, but I feel important nonetheless, and if we know anything NYC, it's that that's really Rome, with the US being Italy.

  With that said, that's a fine list there. I need to add some of these people to my Google Reader. Good read.

  Joses last blog post..The Holiest Redeemers

• At October 12, 2008, Dean Shareski wrote:

  Clay,

  I do hang my head in shame somewhat as to my ignorance and apathy. I'm just not convinced everyone has to use their professional space for this. It's taken me a long time to sort out who's opinions are valid in the world of education.

  I'll also admit to a possible naivety about my beliefs in politics, at least from a Canadian perspective. I'm inclined to believe that the differences between parties are much smaller than anyone would like us to believe. As I said earlier no one is all bad or good but in general, I think most if not all politicians do want what's best. And while their approaches might be slightly different, the ultimate results of their implementations of policies would be negligible when juxtaposed against the entire policy and given many uncontrolled variables, particularly when it comes to economics.

  Naive. Maybe but the emphasis of the media and blogs are designed to polarize,smear and persuade. Not convinced that's the best way to learn.

  Dean Shareskis last blog post..I’m sure I’m doing it wrong

• At October 12, 2008, avoiceinthewilderness wrote:

  Ok, so my conscience is compelling me to say that my co-author and I do blog under pseudonyms.

  Writing this way affords us a lot more freedom to condemn the system in which we work.

  Less credibility, maybe, but definitely more freedom.

  I don't know if I would be as honest if I were using the blog as a professional outlet and using my name.

  avoiceinthewildernesss last blog post..Will Canada Take Us?

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  I hear you, Jeff, and you point to a question that deserves asking: Who is the main audience of each edublog? I suspect that in the great majority of cases, unlike yours, it's other edublogging adults - voters all (at least if they're American)- and not students.

  But maybe I should check out Facebook, which while I have an account, I don't use. But the readership there is less broad.

  Anyway, thanks for weighing in.

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Karen, I've thought about doing the same thing. But I find myself chafing against this cubby-holing that says I'm an "edublogger" - I've always been political, since day one, on these pages, though not to the degree of late, which didn't seem justified until, er, lately.

  It's something to think about. But it's interesting to me that educators shy away from sharing their own critical thinking about the most important issues of the day. It sort of goes in great irony against the grain of what Web 2.0 is all about.

  But I'm aware that I'm ignoring the question of "what 'edublogs' should be allowed to say" - and now we're back to the old debate about whether there are any "rules" at all about our use of this world, and whether there should be.

  Shirky's "publish, then filter" principle seems to apply here. I'll publish, and let the reader decide whether to filter it out, or let it in.

• At October 12, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  Subversion rarely works well, and pseudonyms should be condemned in an open, democratic society.

  On the other hand, not sure any open, democratic societies exist.

  I don’t know if I would be as honest if I were using the blog as a professional outlet and using my name.

  This is the crux--real change requires removing the masks. Real change requires risks.

  And few of us are willing to take off our masks.

  And few folks pay much heed to people behind masks.

• At October 12, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  Dear Clay,

  I am dragging this over to my site: What is our responsibility as teachers as Rome burns.

  It's sort of a blog hijack, but a somewhat different issue than the one you pose.

  (I got a belly full of fresh clams, and saw a rare midday rainbow colered halo bordering the sun--hardly a rational response to the fires around us, but mircles nonetheless.)

  And you got me thinking. I may alter my behavior a tad.

  Michael Doyles last blog post..What I wnat to teach in biology....

• At October 12, 2008, Louise Maine wrote:

  I have been frustrated since I have been in elementary school (even wrote to Pres. Carter) and no one seemed to care and thought I was highly emotional. I may not put it in my blog, but I am highly polarizing at get-togethers, family dinners, and the lunch room, let alone the classroom. Lack of resources and energy, etc. are all coming true. My husband did not understand cheap oil and what I told him in 1990 is now here. Hate to tell them, I told you so, but I am.

  Do you think people listen? Not really. I am focusing on teaching at this point. Watch the blog through the year. I am not so concerned about edublogging and writing what has already been written by others. I am focusing on the journey I am leading my students that infuses issues throughout the year. Currently in my 3 different courses it is global warming (this is the slowest of all my classes), biodiversity (starting with white-tailed deer here and moving outward across the globe), and plants in Academic Biology (humans use 1/3 of all the plant productivity to our use).

  A species with that large an ego will not be here for long. A just god would surely would not have envisioned a planet this way. I do say this to students. Wait until we get to the real problem: human population. There is a firestorm.

  I also do not have hope for the next administration, too much is wrong and no right answers. Am I cynical? - you bet. Many adults do not have the information to really understand the issues. How do you get them to be critical thinkers and search for truth? I am impressed that this year even my lowest students are showing interest in discussion and questioning about such topics.

  I have another blog that I have made one post about oil and what it really represents. I rarely write there and it is a hodgepodge of stuff. Maybe I should split it between the other blogs I have. Your post is giving me pause and rethink this again. I still think chronicling what we do and what we learn may be a much better way to get a message out and get some one to think.

  Louise Maines last blog post..Knee deep in projects

• At October 12, 2008, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience « Living on the Lip of Insanity wrote:

  [...] October 11, 2008 by Kate Tabor Clay Burrell writes a blog that is engaging and literate and that on occasion terrifies me. His recent series of posts raises real questions about the Bush administration and the current election, but also about what we, as teachers, are doing in the face of Rome burning. [...]

• At October 12, 2008, Kate Tabor wrote:

  So, like Michael, I'm posting my response on my blog. Because I teach American Literature I have the luxury and the pleasure of teaching On the Duty of Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau. So, I direct your attention to our American historical radical left - another fine New England transcendentalist.

  Kate Tabors last blog post..On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Kate, I hope everybody takes the time to see something from English class actually made - gasp - relevant to citizenship today. Great post. Thanks for brightening my day.

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  I've got a reply to your post/comment brewing, Michael. Hope to write it when my wife goes to church.

• At October 12, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  I realized after posting that what happens on a blog is very different from what happens in the classroom.

  Now my brain is spinning around with a different sort of response to your post. Where does the classroom end? I do, after all, buy beer at the local liquor store, figuring students my as well see that I am an adult who drinks beer.

  I have to be very careful about my motives--it may be that I am avoiding the unfolding catastrophe around us.

  This week, we're talking about the influence of humans on our environment. It's a tough subject to present, not because it's controversial, but because it's so unnerving that some kids may lose hope. The key is to kick their naivete without bruising their hope.

  FWIW, the schiool already got a phone call about the way I handled the Large Hadron Collider. (I didn't say the world was going to end--I asked the class who gets to choose what technologies we pursue when the endgame is unknown. A kid, understandably, only heard half what I was saying and got scared.)

  So I am thinking. Again. A lot. WHich is why, of course, I come here.

  Michael Doyles last blog post..What I want to teach in biology....

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Louise, interesting comments.

  I've changed my approach of late to play political echo chamber of stuff I'm finding elsewhere, in hopes that the viral nature of the web can increase exposure of things like that Palin Debate Flowchart I found elsewhere - and that around 1,000 people have visited from email sharing from earlier readers. The guy who made the flowchart has benefited from so many of us sharing his work. I think he made Digg's hotlist.

  I don't know if it will make a difference, but it's within my sphere of influence to try to create the conditions for that difference. But again, especially in light of recent research I've read on the nature of political belief - that it's emotion-based instead of rational - I have my doubts. But I figure maybe the same people that are the decisive swing voters may be less emotional and more rational.

  There's another aspect of all of this that intrigues me, and that's the role bloggers can play in amping up the news that the mainstream media underplays or ignores. Palin's witch-hunting Pastor Muthee is the best example, or maybe her cozying up with Alaskan secessionists (the opposite of "country first-ers"), both of which the mainstream media ignore, while at the same time heavily covering the Obama/Ayers and Obama/Wright allegations. We in the blogosphere can do our collective part to redress that media imbalance by shining our lights on its blind spots.

  Again, that may be fruitless, but also may not be.

  I have to think there is hope for the next administration - though I'm not convinced Obama is sufficiently free of corporate and lobbying influence to to fulfill that hope - and that there are right answers - energy independence a la Obama's declared ambition to create a Kennedy-esque "man on the moon in ten years" program to fund alternative energy to free us of our bondage to the Middle East, which would also reduce our military adventurism in that region, and open up new diplomatic possibilities to solve problems in that region (or at least stop causing them).

  I've rambled enough. Thanks for your comment.

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Michael, you're getting closer to my point with that distinction between what happens on our blogs and what happens in our classrooms.

  Other adults, who vote, read our blogs - more than students do, I would wager. And those adults are the ones whose votes might benefit from our own reflections on the issues, and our sharing of what we're seeing and discovering and thinking.

  On a shakier note, I'm still scratching my head over the in loco parentis argument. While I get it on the gut level of "nobody should influence my kid's values but me," I get it less when I reflect that a) by definition, your average parent was your average C student as a child, and thus hardly the bastion of wisdom and independent, deep thought we'd like him or her to be - so maybe their kids need to hear the arguments, identified as precisely that, arguments which permit counter-arguments, of other adults who happen to be their teachers; and b) so many less disinterested parties play the role of in loco parentis - the media, preachers, and unthinking ideologues of all sorts - that it's disturbingly ironic that the only authority figure without the prospect of profiting from converts or consumers (and I mean teachers) have to muzzle themselves and cede the field to Bill O'Reilly OR John Stewart OR Rick Warren.

  The rub, of course: those types above are idea-peddlers for profit, totally free to hawk their thoughts, while teachers are employees of the State, and thus in jeopardy if they expose the young to ideas beyond the right answers to the safe and irrelevant test.

  It's mind-boggling, really.

  I'll stop there for now.

  Thanks for the input. Always a pleasure.

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Jose, I stand corrected. I just read the pop-up first paragraphs of the latest posts on Alltop, so if I missed something, my bad :)

• At October 13, 2008, Kate Tabor wrote:

  Hi Clay,

  In today's NY Times Harold Bloom has an op-ed piece that suggests our next president turn to Emerson.

  Out of Panic: Self Reliance

  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/opinion/12bloom.html?ei=5070&emc=eta-1

  -KJT

  Kate Tabors last blog post..On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

• At October 13, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  Just to be clear on the loco parentis--I never said I did not influence a child's values. If I'm not influencing a child's values, I'm in the wrong field.

  I'm not terribly worried about losing my job--my background allows me to make ridiculous amounts of money for less hours than I spend teaching.

  It is not my business to preach. It doesn't work, anyway. I'm not terribly good at muzzling myself for job security (if I were, I wouldn't be dropping the F-bomb as frequently as I do). I am decent, I think, at promoting thinking. If my kids were college students, I'd have no problem with espousing my views in the classroom. They're not. They're still embryos. I need them to trust critical thinking, and to trust their results when they think.

  So, yeah, I want to influence values--but not in the typical my-teacher-beat-up-your-mommy sense. I want my kids to think.

  Michael Doyles last blog post..What I want to teach in biology....

• At October 13, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  It's less a question of trying to influence values, in my book, than trying to influence the reasoning through which we all arrive at values.

  A teacher who says "My values are right because I'm the teacher" is not a teacher, but a preacher - appealing to his/her own authority.

  A teacher who says, "Let's examine positions A, B, and C," and their foundations in evidence, facts, and reasoning, is not beating anybody up, but instead helping learners question everything - hopefully as a scaffold to them having "justified true beliefs," in IBO language, for their worldview.

  A teacher who does neither is just a test-prep professional who probably hasn't him/herself wrestled with questions of citizenship and intellectual/social responsibility. (And that's not aimed at you, Doyle, which by now I hope you know.)

  The best teachers know that they can set up units of enquiry that create the conditions for students to examine the foundations of conventional beliefs across the spectrum, and help students discover they have no good reasons to back up what they think.

• At October 13, 2008, John Larkin wrote:

  Well, If I was a US resident I would be voting for Barack Obama. That's my position. In fact I would encourage people to get off their fat arses and vote. For anyone. As long as they utilise their right to vote. I wonder if there are US citizens that have never voted? I believe voting is not compulsory in the USA. It is compulsory here in Australia.

  I have not blogged about the US Presidential election. In the past I have blogged about our previous Prime Minister John Howard and the detrimental effect his party and its policies were having on our society. he was such a complete anal retentive ignoramus. He sullied the reputation of my country. I had blogged about Bush on my older blog.

• At October 13, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  Alas, the teachers who feel the need to endorse ideas without truly going through the reasoning far outnumber those who take time to examine premises and reasoning.

  I frequently remind the class that while most of them won't remember a lick of content (and even if they do, it will be outdated in a few decades), they will keep their ability to think critically. (It does not help that as a culture we pretend to believe that learning "science" in high school is our ticket to economic success against the big, bad Asians. It helps even less that for many of those in charge, they're not pretending.)

  Now this may sound silly here, and I hope it didn't sound to silly in class (I had an administrator in the room at the time), but I asked a child who had no idea how to change a tire to imagine what she would do if her phone broke and she got a flat tire miles from help.

  She looked startled, but we broke down the problem together, and without getting into details, developed a way to solve it. If my administrator questions it, I'll tell her it falls under NJ Standard 9.3: promote critical thinking skills.

  By the time one is finished with public education, you should know how to approach common, simple problems. It's clear we are failing that.

  A thinking citizenry could not have possibly allowed the 2000 election to be as close as it was, nor would it have allowed it to be swiped as it was.

  Michael Doyles last blog post..What I want to teach in biology....

• At October 14, 2008, diane wrote:

  I wrestled with this "challenge" and finally posted the result: I feel I have a professional obligation to use my influence responsibly, to refrain from promoting a specific candidate.

  That said, my horror at the McCain/Palin ticket, and all that it represents, is probably evident to my more astute students.

  I don't feel there is any real choice in this election. It's possibilities or disaster.

  dianes last blog post..Politics in the Classroom

• At October 14, 2008, Sometimes I Cringe | Metanoia wrote:

  [...] http://beyond-school.org/2008/10/11/wordling-as-rome-burns/ [...]

Related posts:

1. Join Me in Wikispaces’ First “Wikis in Education” Webinar Thursday Oct. 16 As the Wikispaces Blog announcement below states, I'll be...
2. The Ron Paul Question Tuur Demester in Belgium sent me the link to this...
3. Teaching Political Scare and Smear Ads to Kids Since schools, so often limited to teaching to the lowest...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A couple of ideas among many at ALA:

Edit and adapt this opinion column for your local newspaper. Include the name, address, telephone number and credentials of the person submitting (library director, president of library board, trustee, school/campus administrator, community activist, etc.).

Suggested Editorial

Edit and adapt this opinion column "Elect to Read a Banned Book" for your local newspaper. Include the name, address, telephone number and credentials of the person submitting (library director, president of library board, trustee, school/campus administrator, community activist, etc.).

Elect to Read a Banned Book

Throughout the country, most children are starting a new academic year. Teachers are sending out their lists of required readings, and parents are beginning to gather books. In some cases, classics like "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," "The Catcher in the Rye," and "To Kill a Mocking Bird," may not be included in curriculum or available in the school library due to challenges made by parents or administrators.

Since 1990, the American Library Association's (ALA) Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) has recorded more than 7,800 book challenges, including 458 in 2003. A challenge is a formal, written complaint requesting a book be removed from library shelves or school curriculum. About three out of four of all challenges are to material in schools or school libraries, and one in four are to material in public libraries. OIF estimates that less than one-quarter of challenges are reported and recorded.

It is thanks to the commitment of librarians, teachers, parents, and students that most challenges are unsuccessful and reading materials like "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings," "Slaughterhouse Five," the Harry Potter series, and Phyllis Reynolds Naylor's Alice series, which topped OIF's most challenged list in 2003 and ended the four-year reign of J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter books, remain available.

The most challenged and/or restricted reading materials have been books for children. However, challenges are not simply an expression of a point of view; on the contrary, they are an attempt to remove materials from public use, thereby restricting the access of others. Even if the motivation to ban or challenge a book is well intentioned, the outcome is detrimental. Censorship denies our freedom as individuals to choose and think for ourselves. For children, decisions about what books to read should be made by the people who know them best—their parents!

In support of the right to choose books freely for ourselves, the ALA and [Name of Library] are sponsoring Banned Books Week (September 25 - October 2, 2004), an annual celebration of our right to access books without censorship. This year's observance is themed "Elect to Read a Banned Book," and commemorates the most basic freedom in a democratic society—the freedom to read freely—and encourages us not to take this freedom for granted.

Since its inception in 1982, Banned Books Week has reminded us that while not every book is intended for every reader, each of us has the right to decide for ourselves what to read, listen to or view. [Name of library] and thousands of libraries and bookstores across the country will celebrate the freedom to read by participating in special events, exhibits, and read-outs that showcase books that have been banned or threatened. The [name of library] will be hosting the following activities: [List activities, displays, presentations, read-outs of favorite banned books etc. with date, time and location.]

The American Booksellers Association, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression; the ALA; the American Society of Journalists and Authors; the Association of American Publishers; and the National Association of College Stores sponsor Banned Books Week. The Library of Congress Center for the Book endorses the observance.

American libraries are the cornerstones of our democracy. Libraries are for everyone, everywhere. Because libraries provide free access to a world of information, they bring opportunity to all people. Now, more than ever, celebrate the freedom to read @ your library! Elect to read an old favorite or a new banned book this week.

[The Unsucky English Gilgamesh series so far: 1: Dangerous Questions ~ 2: The Day I Thought Gilgamesh Would Cost Me My Job ~ 3: this post~ 4. The Seven Deadly Sins, Backwards ~ 5. Good and Evil, Nature and the Hero - Backwards]

~     ~     ~

So there I was: caught, before all my new 14-year-old students’ eyes, with Enkidu’s pants down - and his mythic Sumerian wee-wee in hoo-hoos I knew nothing of.¹ And because so many of these Korean kids were evangelically Americanized, I wondered if it would cost me my job.

When we would come to Genesis later in the semester, I knew I’d be walking the netless tightrope over the heads of the many 14-year-olds who had predictably swallowed whole, since before their first teeth, their literalist childhood teachings about Adam, Eve, and the Six Days’ Creation.

But I had no idea I’d be dealing now, in tender Week Three of their high school careers, with this whopper of a sex scene between Shamhat, the temple prostitute, and Enkidu, the innocent, half-neanderthal and half-Adam “wild man” - and his jaw-dropping seven days’ erection: ²

Shamhat stripped off her robe and lay there naked,
with her legs apart, touching herself.
Enkidu saw her and warily approached.
He sniffed at the air. He gazed at her body.
He drew close. Shamhat touched him on the thigh,
touched his penis, and put him inside her.
She used her love-arts, she took his breath
with her kisses, held nothing back, and showed him
what a woman is. For seven days
he stayed erect and made love with her,
until he had had enough.³

Again, in the schooly translation I read when I was in high school, somebody had forgotten to include that part.

But the alley cats were out of the bag. Since we were all reading this translation for the first time together that night, half of my students were surely at that very moment in pop-eyed sync with me, “wtf?”-ing their margins and asking the same questions:

Would the “good people” students tell their parents? Were those parents emailing or calling the principal at the very moment we were all sitting there gawking at these lines? Tomorrow, when the monster lumbered into the school-building to corrupt their young, would a mob of torch-bearing parents send this poor, misunderstood Frankenfreak to his tragic end?

All that monster wanted was to give their kids the deepest, most relevant, coherent, and beautiful year of literary studies they would ever receive. And now, because of an unexpectedly graphic scene about what birds, bees, and each of these parents do - or did, at least once, when they made the shiny-eyed wonders brightening my classroom - would it all come down in flames?⁴

And would they make allowances for the fact that I first found the book in the school library? If I went down, should I bring the librarian with me? (Joking. Joking.)

I was jealous, suddenly, of math teachers. They never had problems like this.

But there was nothing to be done, for now, but finish the homework by finishing Book One. In the end, I realized, it all depended on whether these three-week-old high schoolers could handle it. I couldn’t wait to check the chapter annotations I’d assigned.

I finished the chapter and went to sleep.

The Next Day

“Beautiful.”

“Profound.”

“Deep.”

“Lovely.”

I couldn’t believe my eyes. All the students’ annotations sang this section’s praises. Not a single immature reaction.

I was so proud of them. And I was saved.

The class discussion was even better.

“It’s a different culture, so it’s not surprising that sex would be treated with a different outlook,” said one.

Answered another: “The sex scene itself is wonderful for its simple narration of the events we study in biology - the voice is so objective, it’s almost scientific.”

A third: “And that shows how radically different this culture saw sexuality. It’s just another thing in life, described as simply as the weather, or a flower, or a beautiful sunset. It’s not pornographic or anything. It’s just part of life.”

A fourth: “But it’s more than that.”

“Explain that,” I said. “What do you mean?”

This student went on to give the most perfect explication of what happens after the sex scene, and what a deep, beautiful, mysterious, and alien point of view the world’s earliest civilization had, 2,000 years before King David and 3,000 years before Jesus, about the meaning of sexuality.

Before Shamhat

“Look at what happens to Enkidu after the sex scene,” he said, “and compare it to who he was before it.

“Before it, Enkidu was this weird wild man, created by the goddess Aruru - in exactly the same way, by the way, that the later god of Genesis created Adam - from clay - which makes me wonder if this isn’t another Judeo-Christian-Islamic borrowing from the older Sumerian/Babylonian culture.

“He was ‘one-third man, two-thirds animal,’ remember: the perfect ‘double,’ just as the god Anu ordered, for the ‘one-third man, two-thirds divine‘ Gilgamesh. And I mean ‘perfect’ in the ‘balancing’ sense too. Remember, Anu said Gilgamesh’s ‘double’ should ‘balance’ him - to bring ‘peace’ to Uruk by making Gilgamesh stop snatching all the new brides from his subjects’ beds.

“But the ‘balancing’ doesn’t stop there,” he continued. “It gets deeper.”

“How?” asked another.

“Setting, basically. Gilgamesh is the king of the first city in the world, and he knows that and is proud of it. He’s proud of civilization.  I would argue he sort of symbolizes it.

“But the setting associated with Enkidu?  ‘Wilderness’ - Nature. Enkidu drinks with gazelles at watering holes, runs with them (and as fast as them), and knows nothing, literally, about cities and civilized humankind.

“So Enkidu ‘balances’ Gilgamesh by symbolizing Nature - the opposite of the city, and its civilization, which literally has a wall to keep Nature out.

“But it gets deeper still, this ‘balance.’ Because contrary to what we’d expect, ‘civilized’ Gilgamesh is not superior to ‘wild and natural’ Enkidu. We see that because Enkidu saves the other animals from the ‘civilized’ hunter’s traps. He’s compassionate, this natural man. And he’s innocent. Gilgamesh, though, is screwing the brides of every groom in town. The civilized king is glorious, yes - he built Uruk’s walls and is semi-divine, after all - but he’s also really flawed by his heartlessness. Enkidu ‘balances’ this, too.

“Finally,” he continued, “Enkidu ‘balances’ Gilgamesh in his physical strength. It’s like Achilles and Hector in the Iliad - perfectly matched superhero types. So that’s it: Aruru did a bang-up job of creating exactly what Anu ordered - a ‘balancing double’ to Gilgamesh.”

I couldn’t believe my ears. Who was this kid? I had to break in: “Did you steal my annotations?” I asked. “Who are you? I haven’t memorized all of your names yet.”

“Not now, Mr. B.,” he said. “I’m on a roll. Don’t interrupt. I’ve only covered the ‘before Shamhat’ Enkidu. I want to get to the ‘after Shamhat’ stuff now.”

Could I adopt this kid? Buy him from his parents? He was too good to believe.

“Wow. My apologies. Go for it.”

After Shamhat

“I’ll keep it short. It’s this: Gilgamesh’s mysterious ’solution’ to the ‘problem’ of the wild man worked brilliantly - though I don’t quite get why. Sex with this prostitute from the goddess Ishtar’s temple transforms Enkidu. And it does it in clear stages. I numbered them when I annotated.

“First, this sacred sex lifted him above the other animals that he used to hang out with. He doesn’t realize it - this is the weird thing - but the other animals do. They all run away from him when he tries to rejoin them at the watering hole.

“It’s mysterious, for sure,” he said, while I fought back exultations over this kid’s genius. “But the best guess I can give is this: All animals have sex, so it can’t be the simple sex that makes the other animals realize he’s no longer like them. So the only thing I can figure is that the poet is trying to say that sex seen as a holy thing - initiation into Ishtar’s mysteries, maybe? - is what separates man from animal. Seen this way, it’s not a brute act with Shamhat.

“And did you notice,” he went on, “that thing where Enkidu tries to run after the fleeing animals - before Shamhat, he was as fast as them, remember - but now he can’t catch up with them? Where is it . . . . yeah, here:

He tried to catch up
but his body was exhausted, his life-force was spent,
his knees trembled, he could no longer run
like an animal [he emphasized this line], as he had before.

–doesn’t that remind you of the story of Samson and Delilah in the Bible? It did me. I tell you, Mr. B., you’re right about that one. You see a million things in Gilgamesh that you thought were unique to the Bible. My preacher says the Bible is ‘the word of God.’ Well if that’s true, God sure seemed to plagiarize a lot from the Sumerians and Babylonians.

“But he also reverses them. Because in the Bible, Delilah is bad for Samson, while in Gilgamesh, Shamhat is good for Enkidu.”

“I never thought of that,” said another. “I think I see what you’re saying.”

“Yeah. It’s all there. The next thing that happens because of Shamhat is deeper still: Enkidu realizes - where is it -

‘his mind had somehow grown larger.
He knew things now that an animal can’t know.’

“So what are these things he ‘knew’? It doesn’t say. But it reminds me of the scene in Genesis where Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and it doesn’t tell us what they learned either. All it does is show us that they covered their private parts.

“But here, they don’t cover anything, and no god gets angry. Instead, Enkidu just keeps transforming. Since the bell’s about to ring, I’ll rush: the next thing he learns sitting ‘at Shamhat’s feet’ is language and communication:

‘He understood all the words she was speaking to him.’

“And man, those words were interesting:

‘Now, Enkidu, you know what it is
to be with a woman, to unite with her.
You are beautiful, you are like a god.’

“‘You are like a god‘” he repeated. “So what’s happening here? Gilgamesh is ‘two-thirds god,’ remember. Is it okay, Mr. B., to read into this that sex with Shamhat maybe makes Enkidu less of a ‘balance’ to Gilgamesh now?”

“It’s okay to read anything you want into it, as long as you can justify your interpretation with good evidence. And you’re doing fine so far.”

“Because I was thinking that again, it was Gilgamesh that sent Shamhat in the first place. He wants to bring Enkidu over to his ‘civilized’ side. And it seems like it worked.”

“How?”

“Because the next thing that happens is that Shamhat tells Enkidu that he should not ‘roam the wilderness and live like an animal,’ but should instead come with her to Uruk, to Ishtar’s temple, and to Gilgamesh’s palace. And he goes. Because of Shamhat, a temple prostitute, Enkidu is no longer an animal. He’s closer to the gods now; and because of Shamhat, Enkidu is about to become civilized.

“And that’s like Adam and Eve upside-down and inside-out.”

“What do you mean?” I asked.

“It’s obvious,” he said. “Eve seduced Adam and the result was God’s curse. Shamhat seduced Enkidu and the result was Ishtar’s blessings of godliness and civilization for Enkidu.”

“Strictly speaking, weren’t Adam and Eve cursed for disobeying their God?” I asked.

“Yeah,” he said. “But it’s still pretty opposite. After all, the gods here aren’t giving any orders at all - the absence of orders is the opposite of their presence, right? - and the result of the seduction is a blessing, the opposite of a curse.”

“Maybe,” I said. “We’ll see what happens. It’s been ten years at least since I read this story, remember - and I’ve never read this version, either. I’ve forgotten most of it. So I’m as clueless as you about what will happen next.”

“There’s just one thing I wanted to ask, though,” he said.

“Shoot.”

“The plot’s really weird. The gods create Enkidu to make Gilgamesh change his ways.  But now, instead, we see Enkidu changing, not Gilgamesh. What’s going on?”

“It’s a mystery to me, too. We’ll see. But you left one thing out.”

“What?”

“You didn’t mention the last way that Enkidu changed: when Shamhat described Gilgamesh to him, isn’t his reaction confusing? The narrator tells us Enkidu ‘felt‘ something ‘deep in his heart . . . . the longing for a true friend.’ So that’s one more point for your theory that Shamhat civilizes him - he wants to escape his solitude and join human society, enjoy friendship.

“Again, that’s what he felt. But what he says is totally unexpected:

‘Take me with you
to . . . the palace of Gilgamesh the mighty king.
I will challenge him. I will shout to his face:
I am the mightiest! I am the man
who can make the world tremble. I am supreme!’

“Those hardly sound like words of friendship to me,” I said. “So maybe the gods’ plan for Gilgamesh is not as off-track as it seems.”

End of Class

The bell rang.  I turned off the alarm, and rose to get ready for work. An interesting bit of fantasy that was. “Too good to believe” indeed? I could only hope. I’d find out after the shower and drive to work.

~     ~     ~

Just kidding. I wouldn’t pull that on you. Here’s the real story:

Most of the annotations from the girls in the class were minor variations on: “ewwwww.” Sometimes three w’s, sometimes ten.

The boys? Smiley faces in the margins.

I wonder if those gender reactions for this age group are cross-culturally similar, or different. And I don’t know.

I imagine I tried to elicit discussions like the points made by the dream student above.

When I explained to them that I was as shocked as they were to read the scene, and was afraid they wouldn’t be able to handle it, they all assured me it was unexpected, yes, but nothing they hadn’t seen before online, on TV, in the movies.

“But it was weird to see it in English class.”

~     ~     ~

Can You Take a Minute?

If anybody has made it this far, I’d appreciate feedback on the three approaches I’ve tried so far in this Gilgamesh series. Number One was straight lecture style; Number Two was told as a “teacher story,” but in the second-person “you” point of view - I wondered if that would make the experience more immediate for readers, but also feared it might get old, especially if I continued it for months. This one was still a “teacher story,” but told in first person, with heavy Socratic dialogue.

If any of you care to share which of the three you think I should stick with, I’d be very appreciative.

Photos:
Belly-Dancer by macwagen
Bizarro World © DC Comics,
used under Fair Use Law

http://www.FeedBurner.com).gif" />

If you like this post, please spread it: (But don't tag it "education." That will bury it.)

1. I stole this “wee-wee/hoo-hoo” line from Bill Maher’s brilliant “New Rules” rant about how American Puritanism silenced John Edwards, the most important voice for the poor “since Robert Kennedy,” per Maher. It’s very relevant to the discussions we’re having in this series.
2. And did I later joke in class, “This guy’s a walking Viagra commercial”? Or, “And you thought the Six Days’ Creation was impressive”? Or, “Talk about needing a rest on the seventh day”?  I don’t remember. But if asked, please say that I did.
3. all excerpts taken from Stephen Mitchell’s admirable 2004 translation of Gilgamesh.
4. If you think I’m exaggerating, check out this and this from readers who have seen it happen to other teachers.

---

33 Comments

• At September 4, 2008, The Day I Thought Gilgamesh Would Cost Me My Job | Beyond School wrote:

  [...] [The Unsucky English series so far: Gilgamesh 1: Dangerous Questions ~ 2: This Post ~ 3: Adam and Eve in Bizarro-World] [...]

• At September 4, 2008, Unsucky English, Lecture 1: On Gilgamesh | Beyond School wrote:

  [...] [This post had major problems in its original draft. I heavily edited it for all you stumblers. Subsequent posts in this series: 2. The Day I Thought Gilgamesh Would Cost Me My Job, a serious farce ~ 3: Adam and Eve in Bizarro-World] [...]

• At September 4, 2008, Narro87 wrote:

  Your posts on this topic are absolutely wonderful! It's a highlight of my day to see another ready to be read. Keep up the amazing work! And as for your style, simply do what's more natural in your mind--all of them are very effective and very engaging.

• At September 4, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Thanks for that. Please spread the word. I'm possibly losing a lot of readers uncomfortable with this series. I'd love to find new ones who might appreciate it. :)

• At September 4, 2008, Jack641 wrote:

  Came across your site quite by accident but I've read up on the Gilgamesh series you've had going here. This is some really great stuff; everything so far has been easy to read and fascinating at the same time. I had a teacher in high school who would teach a bit like this, and he really opened my eyes to a lot of things. Surprisingly, no one ever gave him any trouble for challenging us and making us uncomfortable with our preconceived ideas, even though we went to a catholic high school.

  Anyway, reading stuff like this makes me think about a career change. Keep it up; I'll be reading.

• At September 4, 2008, Alyce wrote:

  I stumbled upon the first lecture in this series and have since added your blog to Google Reader. I am loving it!

  I must say that I enjoyed the first post's format the most. With the latter two, the story of Gilgamesh seemed to get lost in the story you were creating of the classroom. We are the students, and I think your brilliance has a better chance of standing out if your writing takes the form of a lecture. Believe me: your thoughts can stand on their own!

  My two cents. :)

• At September 4, 2008, Louise Maine wrote:

  I particularly cared for the third followed closely by the first. Love the posts and will be coming back to them when life is less hectic to digest further. Religion, science... great fuel for the mind...

  Louise Maines last blog post..Wiki woman?

• At September 4, 2008, Hannah wrote:

  Hello!

  I particularly liked the writing style of this one. The first one was enjoyably readable as well, but the second I couldn't finish - wayyyy too much teacher-jargon on how to teach a subject. I was lost.

  I guess I should actually get a copy of this book before continuing... :D

  Hannahs last blog post..What I'm Going To Do With My Life

• At September 4, 2008, Jazzyblueteach wrote:

  The third was definitely my favorite of the three, but you killed me when that alarm went off! Don't ever ruin a perfectly good dream again! I was in awe of this boy wonder and then you had to go and wake up. For shame!!

  Ok, I can say this much. The version I am being forced to read for this Babylon class is not even close to as much fun. I am tempted to suggest a text change. Of course I can read what I want and no one will ever be the wiser. :)

• At September 4, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Your teacher was a lucky person.

  If you're thinking of going into teaching because of me, that's ironic - I just left it :)

  School-teaching, anyway.

• At September 4, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Thank for that, Alyce.

  I hear you on diluting the message with stories from the classroom.

  I think I just wanted to paint a picture of the silly but very real fears teachers have because of all these social forces at play in schools.

  Now that I've got that out of my system, I'll probably do as you suggest for most future posts.

  Thanks again.

• At September 4, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Louise, Hannah, Jazzy,

  Thanks for the feedback.

  Without being defensive at all (I'm really not), it's ironic that my own favorite so far is the second one - "The Day I Thought Gilgamesh Would Cost Me My Job."

  I think it has something to do with the set-up via the Sedaris stories. That "seeing with your ears" syndrome is so real, and Sedaris proves it with "Us and Them" (and what a pregnant title).

  But I know, anyway, that I'm pulled in two directions at least when writing these: to write for the old "edublogger" audience that I said (and meant) I was bored writing for; versus to write for students anywhere.

  I'll figure it out (or not).

  Hey, Jazzy, what translation are you reading? A.R. George? Mitchell has taken some heat for his liberties. He claims to have based them on the most accurate translations - and George's is acknowledged to be that - but others charge him with too much lassitude at times.

  It would be interesting to hear what your prof thought of the Mitchell translation - would love a report back if you do :)

• At September 4, 2008, Tim wrote:

  Hi Clay.

  All of the posts so far are fascinating, but I have to say the first was my favourite, stylistically-speaking, but then I'm neither a student (currently) nor a teacher so maybe I'm not your intended audience.

  In any case, I'm loving this series and can't wait to see where you take it next. Keep up the good work!

  Tims last blog post..http://caananite.stumbleupon.com/review/24728827/

• At September 5, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  I loved all three, but I enjoyed the second the most. I could analyze all the reasons why I love blueberries, too, but I come here to be entertained.

  (I enjoyed the third, and maybe I am too naive, but I've had the rare kid take off in thought in science, and I was going to compare notes, then you woke up. That hurt.)

  Any sort of well-crafted Socratic dialogue is always welcome. (Works well in the class once kids get used to it, but it leaves them a bit exposed. I have to work hard to erase any hint of "aha!" when using it--but if I can get the dialogue going on in their heads after class, I've done my job.)

  Michael Doyles last blog post..First day of school, biology (sophomores)

• At September 6, 2008, Uniasus wrote:

  Well, I totally wish I had you as a teacher in high school. I haven't actually read Gilgamesh, but have always wanted to get my hands on it. I'm enjoying your series immensely, and as for the feedback you requested I liked the second one the least. It might be because I find it hard to imagine myself as a high school freshmen. Personally, I enjoyed your latest edition the best. It was amusing at times, the dialog certainly broke things up and made it less daunting to read, but the information still got across. Your first installment wasn't bad either. I could picture a professor pacing the classroom and accenting his lecture with dramatic hand gestures. That lecture would have stuck.

• At September 6, 2008, Ted Mateoc wrote:

  I stumbled upon this blog, and I really enjoyed reading it.

  Speaking as a current student in high school in NYC, I really enjoyed the Socratic dialogue in this post. The first post and the second post also made incredibly stimulating late-night reading; however, I liked exploring the implications of the main characters' actions.

  What you said concerning indoctrination in your first post really struck a chord with me. Last year, for example, I had an English teacher who was a very nice person, but extremely...in touch with modern ideals, to put it nicely. For example, when we read Gabriel Garcia Marquez's "Chronicle of a Death Foretold," she refused to accept the idea of moral relativism, and that different cultures will have different takes on (among other things) honor killings. And she also exaggerated when grading papers; one time I lost a full 4 points on a paper because I used the term "mankind" instead of "humankind" - she commented that it was a "dangerous term" to use.

  Oh, and I don't know if you've seen

  http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/ap-reading-exam.php already, but I can actually picture some of my English teachers taking that approach. I found it funny - I hope you will, too.

• At September 6, 2008, Agnes wrote:

  I liked the first straight lecture style. I like to feel like I'm being taught something and not just mildly entertained.

  Keep up the good work though. :)

• At September 7, 2008, Bunny got Blog wrote:

  Well I stumbled upon you literally. I enjoyed all three and my favorite is Lecture 3.

  Keep up the great work.

  Bunny got Blogs last blog post..Bunny’s Bucket List - In Celebration of Dave Freeman’s Life

• At September 7, 2008, diane wrote:

  Never thought about it this way before, but Eden was a "wilderness". No original sin, no journey into the larger world and the future...including technology.

  In Adam's fall,

  Benefited we all

  dianes last blog post..Classroom Rules Part 2

• At September 7, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  [F*ck technology, the internet just ate my last response. And that I am even responding here highlights my hypocrisy. Read at your own risk.]

  Ahem. Of course Eden was "wilderness", that's the beauty of The Fall.

  No original sin, no journey into the "larger" civilized world, an arc that will, I suspect, end disastrously in the next few hundred years. I'm thinking your sympathies lie on the other side of the fence.

  At 3 AM, when a tropical storm howls over my roof, the electricity fails, I (for a moment) can imagine my mortality. I glimpse wilderness, and lulled by my belief in technology and immortality, I fall into an abyss, a Nietzschean nightmare where god is dead, and I have nothing left to hold.

  Before the apple, Adam and his love were in the wilderness, with boundaries. (Clay talks of happiness and limits in an earlier post--reduce the options, and people smile.) Adam dared to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and got tossed out of the garden.

  Eden was indeed a wilderness without a "future," just the herenow. Before Constantine and his ilk defiled what was worthwhile in the Christian sect, the focus was on the herenow.

  Should Clay live long enough, I hope he tackles the Tree of Knowledge and original sin. (Yeah, I know, ClayClayClayClay, but it is his blog). Clay has bitten me on the nose for my occasional lapses into irrationality, but he gets the gist of the question, and I may be one of the few westerners left who think maybe Adam should have left that apple alone.

  Clay's discussion on Gilgamesh has strengthened my resolve.

  I would gladly trade technology, even my indoor toilet, for that peek into the web of wilderness we are all a part of. We lost our way once we put knowledge above wisdom.

  (Yes, Clay, I'm overstating my case. Still, we need some kind of substitute for that Man With The White Beard, some formal way to acknowledge our limits of knowledge. Many Westerners (particularly those with any power)would not recognize hubris if it smacked them in the nose.)

  I'm ranting. I'll stop.

  But maybe, just maybe, Adam screwed up.

  Michael Doyles last blog post..Science, dogma, and the American Way

• At September 7, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Hi Michael -

  I think the "F-bomb" may have thrown you into the spam bucket. (And you know I don't mind colorful language, but I don't think I've ever tossed an F-bomb in these pages, probably out of some hangover from Camp Joy.)

  I take it the bulk of this comment is a reply to Diane, commenting above you?

  As for the rest, I'll only ask you to hold on and be patient. We're only approaching Book Two of Gilgamesh, and by the end, I think you'll find it a pretty superior substitute for the Man in the Gray Beard - the teacher with all the rules and schooliest god I've ever had the displeasure of meeting.

  Seriously, I think you'll be impressed by the way the "Nature v. Civilization" theme plays out in this oldest book.

  And Michael, I've never bitten you in the nose or anywhere else. At most, I've rubbed you behind the ears. As you have me.

• At September 7, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Thanks Bunny. It's interesting getting instant reader feedback. Lots of cognitive dissonance, which isn't necessarily bad. What a new world for writers :)

• At September 7, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Thank you, Ted. I love the link and hope others follow it for a good sad laugh.

  You point to a variation of schooliness I haven't dwelt on much - the teacher who actually docks you for any "critical thinking" that differs from his/hers. Ugh. I would have fought her on the "mankind" thing, though I'm sympathetic enough to her argument. Half a grade is a harsh way to make a feminist point about terminology.

  Thanks for your help re: style, too. Hope you comment again soon, as seriously, I'm trying to stay true to the intended audience, which is people like you.

• At September 7, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  The only problem I have with that argument is that the wilderness has no authoritarian rules telling the wild-life what it "shalt and shalt not" do.

  Eden seemed more a sort of theocratic monarchy with Adam and Eve as the lucky goat-herds. They didn't have to worry about predators, foraging, inclement weather, shelter, etc, because it was a fairy land of nude-friendly weather, always-fruitful trees, and toothless lions, etc.

  The "fortunate fall" thing is very Milton. I've always liked Blake for calling the entire notion of an angry god and a guilty humanity as an "invisible worm" that makes us all "sick roses." (That's my reading, anyway, of the great Billie Blake.)

• At September 7, 2008, diane wrote:

  Ah, but you know my feelings on this

  http://tinyurl.com/22wrqw

  Better to have sinned and known

  Than never to have known at all

  dianes last blog post..Transformation

• At September 12, 2008, Unsucky English, Lecture 4: The Blessings of the Flesh (Gilgamesh, Book Two) | Beyond School wrote:

  [...] Dangerous Questions ~ Gilgamesh 2: The Day I Thought Gilgamesh Would Cost Me My Job ~ Gilgamesh 3: Adam and Eve, Backwards (Book [...]

• At September 13, 2008, Peter wrote:

  Awesome posts, really peaked my interest. I really dug the style in the first one, I wish I had a teacher like you in high school!

• At September 14, 2008, Charlie A. Roy wrote:

  I think I need to reread Gilgamesh. I don't remember it being so entertaining during high school.

  Charlie A. Roys last blog post..The Debate on Drug Testing

• At September 16, 2008, Shannon wrote:

  Clay,

  I am currently living in Wichita Falls, TX, getting my Master's in Curriculum and Instruction. I hope to be teaching high school English by Fall of next year. That said, I have been trying to catch up on all the reading I know I should do, and your series of Gilgamesh has been absolutely lovely! I have never even heard of it before, can you believe that?! Now I want to read it on top of my 18 hours of graduate course work. Posts 1 and 3 were my favorite, but your writing style is so amazing and clear that any way you post will bring new insights and ideas. Thank you for your wonderful reads.

  -Shannon

• At September 16, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Shannon, it's weird that we in the West fairly ignore the first half of recorded history - I mean the Sumerian and Egyptian above all (not to mention the Chinese, who've been literate for 5,000 continuous years, if memory serves, without any of the "dark ages" breaking Western literacy in Greece for 400 years, and Europe during the Medieval Period - and China's rightly proud of that, I learned while living there).

  We seem to act like civilization started with the Greeks and Hebrews, when they're really at the mid-way point. It's just weird.

  Anyway, this is a horribly convoluted comment. Tired. Just wanted to say thanks, really, for the kind words. And good luck in the classroom (hint: those Sedaris stories mentioned in Lecture 2 are great light vehicles for heavy lessons).

• At September 21, 2008, speroni wrote:

  There were rules in the Eden wilderness before civilization. The punishments were pretty harsh, by and large breaking a rule means death. They weren't authoritarian rules though. They're more subtle than that. I don't want to say the rules were as simple as kill or be killed, but one did have to learn how to survive. The rules kind of revolved around a limited aggression pact. You have to hunt to eat, but you can't go crazy and start killing all willy-nilly. Even with other tribes, you have to fight to protect your territory but it doesn't work well to go commit genocide either. I think one theme in the garden of Eden was when Adam and Eve broke these rules. Not the rule of God says don't eat this apple, but the rules that people had been living by to keep in balance with nature for the hundreds of thousands of years before our brand of civilization came along. Since then we've extinct how many species? Polluted how much of the planet? Our society may well come crashing down around our ears in the next few hundred years. Perhaps not, we do have a pretty good track record for pulling through.

  At the same time there's this idea of the noble savage. That these ancient tribes had more virtue than current humans. I don't know about this, there was still murder and adultery in tribal life. On the other hand it really meant something to be part of your community, not to have it was death. Now, I don't even know my neighbors.

  Still its not the technology thats to blame. Humans a hundred thousand years ago still had tools. Thats part of what defines being human, thumbs are cool. (Aaayyyeeee!) This doesn't take us out of the web of nature though. I own a computer but I was made the same way that all animals are made. I'm at a point in my life where I'm considering making some of my own. Am I less of an animal because I can do this on a space age memory-foam mattress? I'm well aware that I'll be returning to the earth as well. I accept that. I don't envy those who live long enough to make it into nursing homes. I know if you were to ask me at any given moment if I was ok with dying right now, the answer is always going to be no, but in the general sense I'm ok with it. All that and I don't even believe in God. Or if there is something that powerful out there he's literally beyond our comprehension. Its not some father figure with a swishy white beard who wants to save me. (Or in my case condemn me.)

  (I've just ordered my very own copy of Gilgamesh. From stone tablets to amazon.com)

  speronis last blog post..Spore

• At September 21, 2008, speroni wrote:

  I like the style in part one. Sounds more like you're talking to me directly, more engaging. The others were good stories, but felt more like being told a story with its own conclusion and less like a conversation that is starting out.

• At October 1, 2008, Chris wrote:

  I wouldn't worry about picking just one style for all of this. The content is superb. I like the variety in style. Keep it up.

  I don't recommend using this as a venue for extreme experimentation with style, but I do suggest keeping things varied. Your writing has thus far been easy to read, regardless of the style. The variety makes reading the pieces all in one go more pleasant than if they all shared the same tone.

[The Unsucky English Gilgamesh series so far: 1: Dangerous Questions ~ 2: this post ~ 3: Adam and Eve, Backwards ~ 4. The Seven Deadly Sins, Backwards ~ 5. Good and Evil, Nature and the Hero - Backwards.]

[Note: This and the next post take a detour from "lecture" to "story-telling." Gilgamesh is still the focus, but I want to show with these two posts the ridiculous pressures teachers are under to not offend anyone when trying to teach classic literature. I'll return to lecture mode in post #4.]

~     ~     ~

So you’re in Week Three of your two World Literature classes for those wonderful, squeaky-clean ninth-graders.¹

You spent Week One warming them up with a couple of fun David Sedaris shorts.  “Big Boy” - the story of Sedaris’ epic Easter Sunday struggle to flush someone else’s stuck turd down the toilet, so the person waiting outside the door won’t think it was his - is only a page and a half long, and is suitably light and hilarious for a first read. It’s also the perfect story to trot out for the lesson on plot.

And schooliness aside, it serves to start the conversation about how real literature finds grist for its alchemical mill everywhere, from the ridiculous to the sublime, and is not the trite moralistic stuff they’ve probably been taught to believe it is in k-8 English classes.²

“From the bathroom to the bedroom to the throne of God,” you intone, “literature knows no limits. Get used to it. You’re in high school now.”

Sedaris’ “Us and Them”³ is equally fun but infinitely more subtle, with its narrator making his bad self seem good and his good enemy seem bad, and is another perfect vehicle for trotting out the “unreliable narrator” lesson:⁴

“Beware of the authority of the author, kids,” you warn them, “in every book you read and speech you hear - including mine.

Suspect the narrator.

This story’s narrator made a fool of you. Worse yet, he made you a hateful fool.

Sedaris showed you that narrator was a hateful ass, but had his narrator tell you that he was the good guy.  Sedaris also showed you a good, kind character,  but had his narrator tell you this kind person was the bad guy.  And every one of you believed the narrator instead of your own eyes.

You followed the bad guy, and joined him in hating the good guy. All because you are suckers who trust the authority of the written word.

Look how dangerous books are, how books can blind you if you don’t think. Sedaris just showed you that books can turn you into hateful followers of hateful writers - while all the while thinking you’re the “good people.”

Can you think of any other books that do that?  They surround us. Maybe you’ll notice them after experiencing this story. But you probably won’t.

Learn from it. It’s probably the most important lesson anybody could ever teach you in life, but you won’t get that. Learn to see with your eyes, instead of continuing to try - as all of you did in this story - to see with your ears.”

You don’t tell them that Sedaris, being gay, knows from experience how many bad “good people” find it good to hate good “bad people.” One thing at a time. Almost all of these kids have been conditioned once a week since infancy to hate gays and other types different from them. Let them read more Sedaris on their own for now - they’re all begging to borrow your personal copies - and come to love him as a person first.

Then tell them.

~     ~     ~

That was all good fun. You like them and they seem to like you. And they’re annotating the margins of what they read, as you require, more than they text message their friends in a year - thinking back at the text, inscribing it with their own interpretations. Life’s good.

In Week Two, you’re ready to lay the foundations for the chronological survey of (mostly Western) literature you’ve been lucky enough to design from scratch. You’re not yet ready to plunge into mythologies of Gilgamesh, Genesis, Hesiod and Homer, because you want them to write their own myths first - from the imagined perspective of the pre-historic, pre-literate, pre-scientific, and pre-iPod tribes that originated all those myths in the Stone Age.

The best way you can figure to bring fire to the imaginations of these 14-year-olds is not with an ancient book. Instead, you dim the lights, draw the blinds, fire up the LCD projector, and show them “The Dawn of Man,” that great paleolithic prelude to that great space-age myth in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.

(The Youtube clip below leaves out about half of it, but it’s a good taste:)

As they watch, you’re driving them crazy by pausing the film, pointing to details and asking questions, probing and pushing.

“What is that? … Exactly! Paleolithic war!”

“And what is that? … Brilliant! The discovery of tools, of technology!”

“And that? Yes, yes, yes - the first murder. ‘Cain and Abel,’ the evolutionary version.”

When it’s done, the lights go up, and you ask them if they understand now why Kubrick is a name to remember. Then, you give them their first major writing assignment of the year: decide on some aspect of the natural or subjective world that you, like the homos in Kubrick, don’t understand, that fills you with maybe wonder, maybe fear, maybe both - but above all, with the need to “explain” it. “Points taken off if any of your explanations are drawn from what was claimed or known in later stages of human history.”⁵

When they turn in the final drafts of their myths, my god are you impressed with their imaginations. Daniel, particularly, blows you away with that scene in which his god reaches into his own mouth, drives his hand down his throat into his chest, withdraws it with a fireball he then flings into the sky - and which has stayed there to this day, giving light to us all. You want to throw a parade for his brilliance, and really don’t care that the grammar is non-standard. He’s Korean, after all. You’ll take broken grammar with perfect imagination over a broken imagination with perfect grammar any day. Broken grammar you can fix.

Now You’re Ready for Gilgamesh

You’re so excited you can’t stand it. The Kubrick and the creative mythologizing maybe, just maybe, prepared these young imaginations for the world’s oldest story.

You’d read Gilgamesh yourself in college, maybe a time or two since then, in uninspired translations, but you haven’t read the Mitchell translation from 2004 that your students are reading. You’d ordered it the year before after skimming a copy in the school library. You know Mitchell from other works he translated, and this one looks fine indeed.

You’ll read it for homework just like your students do. It’s a stimulating thing to do anyway.

The first chapter was fun: a “Prelude” that was both an introduction of the hero (with nice rhetorical use of the “delayed subject” to create suspense, using the pronoun “he” for several pages before ever telling us “he” was Gilgamesh), and an ode to that other star of the story, Uruk: the primal city itself.

Good enough, fun, interesting.  We’re just warming up.

“Tonight I want you to read Book One,” you tell them. “And be sure to annotate it. I’ll check next class.”

You go home that night and read Book One yourself, just like your students.  And just like them, no doubt, you have one of the most unforgettable experiences of your years in school - as a student or teacher.

Because you read about the stuff covered in the last post - Gilgamesh outraging his subjects by helping himself to their brides, the chief god Anu telling the goddess Aruru to solve the problem by creating a double for Gilgamesh “to create balance and bring peace,” and Aruru doing just that by creating the one-third human, two-thirds animal named Enkidu - but you read more, too, that you hadn’t counted on.

It’s all good stuff at first. Finally, this 2004 translation dresses this regal story in the stylish regalia it merits. You’re annotating like a madman:

“Enkidu wild, an animal drinking among gazelles at a watering hole. Shades of Darwin - and Kubrick!”

“Hm. Enkidu as ‘animal rights activist?!’ - he frees animals from traps, saves them from hunter.”

“Hunter goes to Gilgamesh to complain.”

On you scribble. You notice an interesting parallel between Anu and Gilgamesh, and it makes you really admire the Sumerian story-tellers who crafted this story, and wonder at this second piece of evidence of a radically non-punitive and jarringly humanistic response to law-breakers or disturbers of civic order in this old culture.⁶  Because just like Anu dealt with Gilgamesh’s excesses by setting him up for an experience that will presumably give him the wisdom to outgrow those excesses,⁷ Gilgamesh reacts to the news about Enkidu with a similarly unexpected twist.

He doesn’t send out a posse to capture or kill the wild man, and he doesn’t gird himself for battle with the wild man himself.  Instead, you read, he tells the farmer:

Go to the temple of Ishtar,
ask them for a woman named Shamhat,
one of the priestesses who give their bodies
to any man, in honor of the goddess.

“WTF?!” you annotate in huge letters.

What you read next is intriguing too - but gosh, you can’t help but get a bit uncomfortable imagining your 14-year-olds reading it that night too:

“Take her into the wilderness. [-Gilgamesh continues]
When the animals are drinking at the waterhole,
tell her to strip off her robe and lie there
naked, ready, with her legs apart.”

Another huge interrobang - ?! - in the margin. A bit more graphic than that Victorian version you read years ago.  You’re nervous now, and read on:

“The wild man will approach. Let her use her love-arts.
Nature will take its course, and then
the animals who knew him in the wilderness
will be bewildered, and will leave him forever.”

End of section, you note with relief. Thank goodness.

~     ~     ~

A few pages later, though, when Shamhat does accompany the farmer to the watering hole, the jitters come again.

Shamhat and the farmer wait for three days, and Enkidu finally comes. “The man was huge and beautiful,” you read. “Deep in Shamhat’s loins / desire stirred….”

Then the bomb drops:

Shamhat stripped off her robe and lay there naked,
with her legs apart, touching herself.
Enkidu saw her and warily approached.
He sniffed at the air. He gazed at her body.
He drew close. Shamhat touched him on the thigh,
touched his penis, and put him inside her.
She used her love-arts, she took his breath
with her kisses, held nothing back, and showed him
what a woman is. For seven days
he stayed erect and made love with her,
until he had had enough.

Undeniably beautiful, wonderfully erotic, but again, nothing like those Victorian versions you read back in the day. And my god, you wonder how you’re going to deal with the lecture tomorrow. Most of the kids go to Sunday school (we’re talking today’s Korea here, where you’ll see more crosses in a city block than you’ll see in all of Alabama) - and yeah, they’re all “in high school now,” but only three weeks in. And they’re all only freaking fourteen.

“Touched his penis, and put him inside her”? - wtf indeed. Interrobang.

Sweat.

Next: Shamhat’s Lessons: On Teachable Moments, and Civilized Sex

The “Unsucky English Lectures” Series So Far:
1. Gilgamesh: Dangerous Questions
2. (This Post)
3. Gilgamesh Book One: Adam and Eve, Backwards

–

David Sedaris photo by Sporky

http://www.FeedBurner.com).gif" />

If you like this post, please spread it: (But don't tag it "education." That will bury it.)

1. for you non-Americans, those are 14-year-olds in their first year of high school
2. ”Big Boy” is from the laugh-until-you-bleed Me Talk Pretty One Day.
3. full story here, great student webcam-review here
4. ”Us and Them” is from the also-brilliant Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim.
5. You put them through their paces by familiarizing them with the writing process, using the Six Traits of Effective Writing model that they will follow all year.
6. But “beware the author,” you remind yourself. The story might not reflect the reality of Sumerian life. Yet it still reflects, if nothing else, an intended motif on the part of the poet. These unexpected reactions of Anu and Gilgamesh to troublemakers do clearly share, at root, a belief that experience, not authoritarian “Thou shalt nots” and punishments for disobedience, is the key to self-improvement and social order. And you’re deeply intri