Lit Lawvers discussion

I've already started this book and love it! Can't wait for you all to get reading so we can discuss :)

Hey everyone, my book still isn't here, so I won't be ready to lead the discussion for till about Friday or Saturday, but i'm excited to read and discuss it.

Feel free to start discussing the book without me, and i'll chime in with some questions and comments as soon as I can.

I thought maybe we could start by discussing what everyone thought of the way the author breaks down the groups. Do you think she broke them down too much, too little, or in the correct amount of groups? Did you feel like the groups you were part of in school are not represented enough?

Personally, I think I might have been a floater, which she only mentions briefly in the beginning. Someone part of several groups, but not actually belonging in one or the other.

(You should be done with 4 chapters or so by Monday...)

Yeah, I agree that she didn't really talk much about floaters and I feel like there were a lot of them in my high school.

Personally, I think that me and my geek-dom is well represented on two levels. In high school I was in band, therefore Noah fits the bill for that one. But in band, I was part of the "popular" group. I was friends with all the powerful and important people in the band - whether it was a section leader or a drum major, etc. However, I was on the fringe of that sub group of the band - so I relate to a lot of what Whitney is feeling. My group made of fun of the even more dorky or odd members of the band and it made them feel more popular or powerful. I didn't want to be mean to others, so I usually wasn't. But then I felt like I was left on the outside of the popular subgroup of the band because I wasn't exactly like them.

All the stats, theories and experiments/studies that are talked about in this book are so eye opening!

What do you all think?

I think that all the groups depicted tend to portray the 'worst case scenario' for each one.

What did you-all think when the author revealed that some of the "students" were actually teachers.

For me, it was annoying, it made me want to go back and re-read each section and see if there were any hints. I realize that the author was trying to get a point across, but her point was hazy.

Was she trying to say we never outgrow our high-school personas?

Thoughts?

Was she trying to say we never outgrow our high-school personas?

I think the author mentioned that she thought remaining in the high school environment, even as teachers, made it more likely for people to fall into those sorts of social groups.

I'm about halfway through this book right now, and I can't say I've been all that impressed with the observations the author makes. "Quirk theory" sounds like it would be an interesting concept, but it seems like there's not much to it except for the not-quite-revolutionary idea that sometimes, what makes someone an outcast in high school is what makes them successful outside of that environment. It just seems a little... obvious. That said, I think there's some interesting subject matter in here about group psychology and dynamics as related to the high school social scene.

Sometimes I feel like I'm reading a book meant for junior high students due to the combination of the extremely simple writing style and the subject matter. I don't particularly like any of the characters (with maybe the exception of Joy) or care where their stories are going. I'm trying to figure out of this is just a by-product of my irritation with the writing style or because of a lack of personal identification with these students.

I went to a high school where the "jock/cheerleader" and "geek/nerd" subgroups were on about equal standing, popularity-wise. My class president was a guy whose campaign posters were decorated with Pokemon, math jokes, and Tux, the Linux penguin. My high school experience doesn't really line up with what Robbins describes, and maybe that's part of the reason I have difficulty sympathizing with the plight of the students.

Also, I have to point out one thing that made me laugh on pg. 67:

"The other large bookshelf was her literary shelf: Tolstoy... Gabriel Garcia Marquez, both Brontes."

Aww, poor Anne! Always being forgotten. Relevant webcomic: http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=202

I thought that the author dropped the bomb about "weird girl" being a teacher because her nemesis, Mandy, was more immature than any of the students profiled in the book. It certainly made for an entertaining twist. I had to adjust my mental image of her after I found out she was a teacher. I agree that the author's point was hazy, though, because Mandy seemed to be a powerful/successful grown-up, even though she wasn't exhibiting the "outsider" behavior that is supposed to serve you well in your adult life.

I have two high schoolers, so this was eye-opening for me, and also pretty different from my high school experience. Did anyone think that the kids who kept their pricetags on their clothes were just insane?

I'll admit that I ended up skimming through most of the book and took it back to the library. I think I was also expecting more about the "thriving after high school" portion based on the title and it never delivered for me.

Maybe I missed it, but I also didn't seem to find much of a definition of success. In the Mandy/Regan relationship, one could argue, as Kim noted, that Mandy was the successful one within that school system microcosm. Blue (I think) was adamant about not joining the military, but many people would consider that path a success.

For what's it worth, I was definitely many things in HS - band geek, new girl, skate rat. I was even on the math team, but never thought of myself as a mathlete. I really just wanted to be Molly Ringwald (in Pretty in Pink).

Although this book was my suggestion, I feel the same way many of you do. I just can't really get through it, though i've been forcing myself to try and finish so I can hold discussions here.

When I was home, my dad stole the book and read it. (Probably to get some insight into his FIVE daughters!) He disliked it too, and told me not to bother reading it.

I would have preferred more about girls after they graduate and beyond. All the stories seemed odd. Why would a teacher (who was trying to remain in the closet) bring her girlfriend with her to the first day of school? Who brings moral support to their JOB?

I guess maybe I was disappointed to find that I didn't fit into any of the groups depicted.

Ok, I'm glad that I am not the only one struggling to finish this book. I really liked it at the beginning - but I took was hoping for the author to get to the after the high school success stories - not just tell me about now successful people, that I already know about, that weren't popular in hs.

Anybody make it to the challenges? I've left off on that part now and I'm not impressed with the challenges - they seemed very surface-y.

Ditto. And i'm a little sad about not getting through it. I will probably finish it this week, just to be done with it...

So... Did any of you finish the book? I would love to hear the opinion of someone who did.

I finished it. There was a bit at the end that seemed like it was tacked on as an afterthought giving advice to teachers/high school students/parents about how to create a better school environment for the non-popular kids. There wasn't anything particularly interesting at the end; it was just more repetition of what was talked about elsewhere. The stories were kind of wrapped up, though none of them were all that interesting. Even if I had been in the targeted demographic for this book (parents/teachers, I guess?), I don't think I would have found it any more interesting or useful.

Sigh.
I'm putting the book down on page 197, just after Eli is issued his "challenge." I just can't get past two major themes that really bother me:

1. That the overall goal of "outcast" or fringe kids is, or should be, to become accepted by their peers; and

2. The implication that the very traits that make popular kids popular (specifically, assimilation and being mean) are absolute, and will preclude them from doing well in real life.

I think my problem with #1 is pretty self-explanatory. I strongly disagree that kids should work hard to become more accepted. Yes, kids should be encouraged to get out of their comfort zone and challenge themselves; and while I appreciate what the author is trying to do with the "challenges," the message rubs me the wrong way.

#2 is a little more complicated. We've already covered that not all popular kids (a) sacrifice their identity for the sake of popularity; and (b) are mean. But more importantly, and something that is completely ignored by the author, is that a lot of the traits which make kids identify other kids as popular are, in fact VERY useful in the real world. The ability to get people to listen to you, to see your way of thinking, and to like you are important. Yes, being able to express new and unique ways of doing things leads to innovation, but only if you can get people to listen to you. We've all worked with that super-smart but awkward person and it's just...awkward.

Also ignored are those high school d-bags and bitches who just go through life without changing, and without any negative consequences. Many of them go on to be very, very successful.

And with that, I will not be finishing this book.

Sadface. :(