We all know the drill.
It’s the first day of
class and the teacher flips through a power point, hands out a sheet of paper,
directs us to a class web server—all to point out our class reading.
As if we could forget.
It doesn’t matter what the
book is or what we’ve heard about it. As soon as it’s on the syllabus, we know
we’re that going to hate it. Isn’t that the point
of a “required text:” that it’s long, complicated, and about as
entertaining as the time your grandma pulled out her cat-filled photo album?
I’ve had my fair share of
terrible textbooks. I still cringe
every time I see a calf (thanks, Beloved)
and John Steinbeck makes me sob like a toddler. Still, in spite of all the
painful page-turning, there is hope. There are a few books that, though
required, are actually great reads.
Here’s two of them.
Book One: Robinson Crusoe
 |
| steveevetts11.blogspot.com |
“If you were trapped on a
desert island, what three things would you bring?”
Robinson Crusoe
is the literary answer to that question.
This painstaking diary
account of Robinson Crusoe, island dweller, was published in 1719 by Daniel
Defoe. Despite being the “father of the British novel,” Defoe promoted his
story as a true-account, written by someone actually named Robinson Crusoe, who
was actually alone on an island for twenty-four years (and then slightly less
alone for four more). It was immensely popular in England, leading to the
creation of two Defoe-written sequels, and continued to intrigue generations
until a list of reboots and modern interpretations “Danger, Will Robinson”-ed
into existence.
Though a large portion of
the book is spent on Robinson’s daily activities—there is a lot
of talk about goat-milking—there’s a reason we’re so fascinated with
desert islands. What would we bring
to twenty-eight years of solitude and, if we couldn’t bring anything, how would
we survive? More importantly, how crazy would we get? Robinson Crusoe gives us
these answers and the profound humanity in his struggle—against
loneliness, fear, and the cute little
kitty cats—makes his story one of the most interesting
I’ve read this year.
Plus, after this one scene
where he fights off a bunch of wolves, it’s impossible not to picture him as
Liam Neeson in The Grey.
Book Two: Twilight:
Los Angeles, 1992
 |
| www.freebooknotes.com |
All of that is what my
Tumblr is for.
I’m including this little
warning because I understand how easy it is to overlook the three words after
“Twilight.” Believe me, when I saw it on my syllabus freshman year, I did the
same thing. But it’s those three words that make all the difference.
Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992 is not only a historically-accurate play, written by Anna Deavere
Smith and performed in 1994—it’s a historically accurate play, written by
Anna Deavere Smith, performed in 1994, and likely one of the coolest concepts ever introduced to theatre.
Coming from an Emerson
student, that’s really saying something.
Twilight tells
the story of the Rodney King riots: the trial, verdict, and disastrous
aftermath of police violence in South Central LA. The story is told in brief
narrations, focusing on both sides of the story. Rodney King speaks about his
beating and, pages later, a jury member explains his decision to rule “not
guilty.” This method can be jarring at times, and even confusing, but it
mirrors the “feel” of the riots. The story offers an undeniable truth, brought
to life by characters that are nothing, if not real.
And did I mention that,
when performed, Deavere Smith acted out all of the two hundred roles?
Yes, really.
By Erin Arata
