Freshman Snowflakes Rebel Over FUN HOME — Page 2

I guess I didn't realize that discourse about sexuality was too overwhelming for college freshmen while it's not for most high school freshmen.

And it's rife with literary references.

I think the book is actually smarter than Fantod thinks he is.

The graphic novel was also not yet utilized as a legitimate literary medium at that time when Bechdel went to school, so perhaps your own ideas of what constittues worthwhile reading can progress out of the 1970s, as well.

My opinion is hardly miniority- which is why Fun Home is read in many colleges across the country, and received great acclaim upon its release, and continues to be extremely well-regarded as a work of literature.

To imply that Fun Home, or other graphic novels of literary merit like Maus or Persepolis, are less worthy of study in higher education because simply they are graphic novels is wildly off-base

Updated On: 8/25/15 at 03:47 PM

I gave numerous reasons of why I think its content is good and of merit to study. Its length has no bearing on whether or not it is worthy of that; essays and short stories are essential reading in all English courses and given their deserved time in curricula.

I also made no reference toward your age- in fact, you are closer in age to me than you are to a great number of regular members on this board.

And I know what pretentious means and chose it for that reason, given that you seem to think you know what's worthy of being suggested as reading material for college and what is not. In this instance, I should invoke your age.

Updated On: 8/25/15 at 05:49 PM

I say that the book is light on content and can be read in about 30 minutes. Maybe you could talk about it for one day? But to actually study the book as a work of literature is ridiculous.

What's more ridiculous is your rather antiquated and stringent view of what should be deemed worthy of study. In a college literature course I actually took (by a fabulous Dutch lesbian who spent half a class discussing Sonntag's definition of "camp" and later, the merits of the Derek Jarman's Blue), we spent one lecture each on Hills Like White Elephants and The Rocking Horse Winner, yet by your standards, these would not qualify. What are the talking points of discussion and analysis for Fun Home? Specifically which class is requiring it? How long did they plan to discuss it? Do you know? If you have ever even tried to register for college classes even once, you know how incredibly varied the classes and curricula are even within a single department. But I would be interested to hear how you would express to my literature professor precisely why Fun Home is not worthy of discussion or analysis at a college level.

The Little Prince is a book that is primarily drawings, and can be read in less than 90 minutes. However, you get much more out of the book reading it in college than you do reading it younger.

Fun Home may be a simple read, but the complex themes and characters make it worth exploring in an college setting, especially when, even in 2015, there is still a lot of discomfort when exploring homosexuality in public schools.

Fine, I'm wrong. Happy?

15 minutes? I'm not well read but the constant references to literature kept me active a lot more than 15 minutes. If you blow through a story like that you're missing things. This story, in my opinion, needs to read and absorbed, especially by judgmental people fresh out of parochial school.

I have nothing against graphic novels and no dog in this fight.

But I seriously doubt you could get more than 1% of students--even at a top-tier school--to read ULYSSES in this day and age. And that 1% will be those who end as English majors and they will read the book in a graduate seminar. Students are used to receiving words in short bursts via texts and the internet.

Even my upperclassmen found reading two full-length plays and a chapter in a theater history textbook a chore to complete in one week. (The decline in their ability to read actively is another, but related, matter.) And for the most part, I only taught material that students had liked in years before.