Though I wish I could substitute "Lecture" with "Save the day", I'm not mighty mouse. I will be lecturing Intermediate Microeconomics at the University of Cape Town during April and May. We are using Perloff's Microeconomics: Theory and Applications with Calculus which is a demon of a book technically (mathematically rigorous) and will be a challenge to teach with, but still good because of its comprehensiveness and the mathematical preparation the students will have received at the end. I am lecturing on Monopoly, The Discriminating Monopolist and Oligopoly. I hope to throw in some other theory of the firm and behavioral economics. The challenge, I think, when teaching a course like this is to find additional orthodox and heterodox readings to make the course more interesting intuitively and historically for the students. So far I've been thinking of articles on the following list:

• Alchian and Demsetz, 1972, 'Production, Information Costs and Economic Organization'
• Alchian and Demsetz, 1973, 'The Property Rights Paradigm'
• Arthur, 1990, 'Positive Feedbacks in the Economy'
• Bowles, 1975, 'Economists as Servants of Power'
• Coase, 1937, 'The Nature of the Firm'
• Coase, 1960, 'The Problem of Social Cost'
• David, 1985, 'Clio and the Economics of QWERTY'
• Hayek, 1945, 'The Use of Knowledge in Society'
• Machlup, 1967, 'Theories of the Firm: Marginalist, Behavioral, Managerial'
  
• Marglin, 1975, 'What do bosses do? Part I' and 'What do bosses do? Part II' [I haven't read these yet, they were recommended by a friend]
  
• Simon, 1961, 'New Developments in the Theory of the Firm'
• Simon, 1959, 'Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science'
• Stigler, 1976, 'The Xistence of X-efficiency'
  
• Williamson, 1981, 'The Modern Corporation'

Now the list is far too long, far too various, and far too historical (and thus not contemporary). Some of the articles are too radical and just show my wish to present the other side. But I do want to show the students several things:
Economics is Contested: that is, economics admits orthodx and heterodox views on things, but that one set of views often gets taught because of the success of particular schools (Chicago, MIT, Harvard). The problem, however, is that the recent crisis, and economic history and philosophy of economics generally, have shown that this one view is problematic and should probably be taught within a pluralistic framework. Now here I want to show the coherent debate between people about the methods, empirics, history and philosophy of economics as it pertains to what they're studying: monopoly, oligopoly, property rights, the 'rational' firm, the 'profit-maximising firm', etc. It pays to be sceptical and think about flaws as well as to show what economist agree upon.
Economics is Historical: see above, but so many students seem to believe that reading anything that's more than 10 years old is silly. No, no, no. Coase, Hayek, Simon, are as readable today as then and as relevant (I'd add Smith, Marx, and several others, but I can't think too much of prescribing them in 'Intermediate Microeconomics'). Moreover, so many recent articles are highly technical, especially articles in Industrial Organization. I can't prescribe Tirole to my second year students who cross the gamut of faculties: engineering, sciences, humanities, commerce, law. What to do? Go back in time to the classics.
Economics is Radical: as was shown recently in an interview with Sam Bowles, neoclassical theory can produce some rather radical results, results that are consistent from Friedman to Bowles - give everyone some money (implement a negative income tax) when they reach a certain age, stop other social welfare if that troubles you. Experiment.
Economics is Conversational: playing into the ideas of economics as contested, historical and radical, is the idea, argued by people like Arjo Klamer, Deirdre McCloskey, Steve Zilliak and others, of economics as a conversation or an ongoing debate. When all students see are the symbolic representations of profit maximisation, they often lose touch with the intuitions. Robert Frank's book The Economic Naturalist captures the idea well as does Tim Harford's The Undercover Economist - think economically, enter the economic conversation, and you can apply the ideas to a host of examples in the real world. Converse about it, create dialogue and you will edify yourself and, we hope, others too.

Anyway, if you hapen about theory of the firm, about teaching Monopoly and Oligopoly and can think of fun(!) and interesting articles, then let me know. I've lectured the course several times since 2005, the syllabus has changed regularly and I've lectured everything in the syllabus, but I wanted, this time, to try to make a wider appeal before getting in there. I look forward to your comments.