To Kill a Gove

Gove, mockingbird killer

I can understand why any tory would want to see the back of To kill A Mockingbird. Difficult to mount a convincing counter-attack out UKIP-ing UKIP in terms of racism and nastiness when the nation's schoolkids are reading a work of art that has central themes of race, justice, and human rights for all, not just the wealthy and powerful. Not that the new labour tories are far behind. Apparently Ed (Talks) Balls is urging them to match the other parties' “what a wonderful place if only...” line.

Alternatives, proposed by the experts

What would our authors and playwrights want to see on the syllabus?

There's some common themes, including To Kill A Mockingbird, presumably as a protest, as well as because it is such a good read, such an opportunity to fire up young imaginations and get kids reading more, realising that just because a book is considered worthy or a classic doesn't make it hard going or unenjoyable.

Mary Beard suggests I Claudius. Apologies if I get things wrong – it's a long time since I read a lot of these. This is a great call. Generally packaged in an unpromising cover: bloke in a toga with a wreath on his head, no sign of spaceships, aliens, guns, drugs, or rock 'n' roll, this is a real page-turner. The lesson it teaches is don't judge a book... It may be a historical novel about the political intrigues of ancient Rome, but it's a bloodbath, something happens on every page if not every paragraph in a breathless, furious, all-steam-ahead narrative.

I think Eng Lit should include something like my 10% rule. 400 pages? Give it at least the first forty. Then take an informed decision to carry on or dump it back on the shelf.

William Boyd hits the nail on the head (he's not the only one with the theme, but the only one to exclusively make his choices on this basis) “[his books of choice are]...designed expressly to be doors giving on to other doors and then, exponentially, in the huge sprawling house of literature. This, surely, should be the sub-plot in any choice of text for a curriculum.”

Well said William. My (cynical) nature tells me that politicians of all parties may not necessarily want a well-read populace, preferring the proles to spend their down time vegging out in front of Ant, Dec, and the latest Simon Cowell. 1984, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, Money, too many to mention might not be quite the thing to get people falling for the bullshit and into the polling booths.

Margaret Drabble puts forward Riddley Walker. There's a book everyone should read. There's a few votes for Lord of the Flies, not just a reflection of how rapidly civilised values can erode and disappear. There's at least two suggestions for The Catcher in the Rye, Hanif Kureishi bases his list on sparking debate about free speech, immigration, religion, which literature can do like nothing else.

Will Self proposes Down and Out in Paris and London. I can't imagine reading that and not, then, going on to devour all the Orwell available.

Someone quotes a five year old relative, just able to read for himself: "we eat books with our eyes, don't we?”. Yes we do, and the Westminster philistines are the last people in the world who should have a say about our diet.