If there was any educational show that actually succeeded at it's job, that was it. Man I loved that show, and looking back, it's probably one my biggest influences in deciding I liked reading. (I'm tired and have a headache, and it irks me to no end that I can't make that sentence turn out non-awkwardly right now.)
A general requirement for reading of classics is absurd! If children being "exposed" to the classics are middle class kids with supportive parents and aspirations for higher level education, then reading the "classics" is arguably beneficial. But, imposing such reading on all kids, indiscriminately, is utter nonsense. What if a kid lacks a supportive home environment or aspires to vocational training instead of college? Then all you're doing is setting those kids up for failure. I HATED the Scarlet Letter. I LOATHED Shakespeare (still do). I never finished ANY of the "classics" assigned by my English teachers. Instead, I learned to be good at cheating...got real good at transcribing abridged cheat sheets into essays that my moron English teacher believed was my own work. Bottom line, I came to hate reading until I stumbled onto one of Andre Norton's sci-fi books. I got so excited about reading Galactic Derelict that I rushed to the library to check the sequel. Within a year, I went from fake-reading a couple of classics each year to consuming fifteen or twenty sci-fi novels a year. Thank God for non-classic reading. Without it, I would probably still hate reading. If I was an English teacher in high school, I would provide my class with a reading list from which to choose. They would be offered extra credit for choosing certain "classics" but I would also tell them that any other full length novel was acceptable as long as they had parental permission to read it. The first issue for any English teacher should be to instill a love and appreciation for reading. Everything else is secondary.
NaCl reminded me of something I forgot to mention earlier. Students should also read literature from different genres. In my four years in high school, we never read anything that was fantasy or sci-fi. In fact, we read no genre fiction at all. While reading literary fiction is good and all, we need to broaden our horizon and not limit ourselves to only one genre.
The texts you study at school are generally those that have been canonised as English Literature, and the fact is that there have been very very few works of genre fiction that have been accepted into the canon. Nowadays, things are more open, and a lot of higher instutions are incorporating courses that cover scifi, childrens lit, comics, etc. Give it a decade or so and it should start to trickle down. I don't think there can be any argument for abandoning the classics though. It is a study of literature, not a class on reading popular fiction. A distinction has to be made.
Yes, the classic literary fiction should definitely stay. But there are classics of genre fiction as well. It's a shame we didn't read stuff from Asimov or H.G. Wells, for example. I'm guessing more students would have paid attention in class.
You know, thirdwind, you just reminded me of a friend's creative writing teacher. I met him once, and I think he was a good teacher in general, but my friend said at the beginning that they were not allowed to write anything that had an obvious genre to it because they don't belong in a university classroom. He seemed to have a special aversion to science fiction and fantasy. Make me want to smack him and say, "Do you realize what Tolkien and C.S. Lewis did your a living?" They were professors at one of the most prestigious universities in the English-speaking world, and they wrote FANTASY!
And notice that there are some that might be considered "classics" who have been writing other genres ... "Though not as famous as his classical contemporaries, Bergerac was a successful writer. The playwright Molière even borrowed a scene from Le Pédant Joué. Bergerac's most prominent works are his duo of proto-science fiction novels, The Other World: The Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon (1657) and The Comical History of the States and the Empires of the Sun (unfinished at his death) which describe fictional journeys to the Moon and Sun. The methods of space travel he described are inventive, often ingenious, and sometimes rooted in science. They reflect the materialist philosophy of which Bergerac was a devotee. Bergerac's primary purpose in writing those early science fiction novels was to criticize subtly the anthropocentric view of man's place in creation, as well as the social injustices of the 17th century. The Other World was subjected to censorship." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrano_de_Bergerac#In_fiction (Besides those already broadly known ...)
It's funny, but ... they didn't teach what they wrote. As well as Einstein (in his early life), Newton, and ... Many people produce art being office workers, or at least it used to be very common. And it is quite common, 'cause, generally, a man wishes a job, because he wants to live. Sometimes, he doesn't want his writing to be his job, because ... he'd become attached to it as to some sort of an obligation he doesn't want his art to be in his life. But what does it have to do with what sort of literature is taught in schools, anyway? ... NaCl brought one interesting point here: what do people wish to become, or ... "what would you like to be, when you grow up?" I don't want to be a Literature Teacher! ... (Er ... well, I grew up already, or should have )
Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon, and he felt he was creating a mythology for that culture because whatever they might have had was either wiped out or merged with French because of the Norman Invansion, so I would say it's related to what he taught. And why would they write it if they didn't think it was valuable?
This is precisely why I enjoy being an AP (entry-college level classes in the USA given to high school students) student: we are considered responsible and intelligent and therefore given more leeway in what we read. Now, most of it is still literary fiction, I've never seen an Orson Scott Card, Iain M Banks or Isaac Asimov on a reading list in my AP or honors English classes but we aren't just reading Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Shakespeare.
I adore the classics. I definitely think it should be a requirement to read them, because as Cog said they show how writing and language has evolved. But also, because few people in my class actually pick up something mildly challenging, so "forcing" them to read the classics will, if not now, then later, open their mind and make them realize that they should expose themselves to more worldly things and get out of their shallow minds. I would excel at reading them, and love it, too. But that's just me.
You're forgetting the rebelious nature of teenagers, gigi. The harder you push this kind of stuff on them, unless you present it to them in just the right way, the more likely it is that they'll be turned off by it.
That's why I'm saying the problem lies within the school system itself, and even many teachers. Most public systems seem to think that throwing money at a problem will make it go away --or throwing money at a success will make the success stay. I usually agree with you, NaCl, but even if you dont like a work, there are ways to make it fun; just like I will never like math, but I've sincerely enjoyed my math classes the past two years because my teachers have been fantastic. It's all about presentation. It's too bad that it seems to obviously not be working. If you ask me, after the boys in Washington get all this health care **** settled, the next place we need to turn to is our public school system (not that I particularly trust them with that subject anyway). I volunteered for a while as a tutor for our inner-city schools. Kids in 4th and 5th grade who had no idea how to read --it was just heartbreaking.
I used to volunteer to read to 4th graders a few years ago, and I had a similar experience. The books I had to read to them were something 1st graders would read. On top of that, the kids I was reading to had to interest at all. One of them took out markers and started drawing random figures on his hand while I was reading. And probably the worst thing is that the teacher didn't really seem to have an interest in teaching. This is one of the poorest areas in my states, and raising the quality of education in these areas really needs to be a top priority.
It's really sad to hear stories like that. I worked in what was probably one of the "poor" schools when I was in college, and there were lots of behavioural issues and learning disabilities, but they all wanted to be there. They usually cared and put their best effort into it, and the teachers were awesome.
That is a very interesting take on it. My hubby would agree with you. He used to read military fiction (based on reality) and loved Edger Allen Poe, but hated most of the books or plays they were forced to read in school. I actually read Scarlett Letter on my own, liked it as far as those types of books go, but won't read it again unless I am having insomnia! I do think the genre books are greatly ignored, even the ones that are more than a 80 years old. Sometimes I think there might be a plot to discourage kids from actually learning anything by killing their enthusiasm for reading by forcing the so called literary classics on them. It does tend to encourage cheating by kids who are bored to death by the work, don't understand it, or don't give a rats backside about it. I am just on the fence I guess. I would like to see a greater range of choice in the assigned reading material, but it should be on a challenging enough level to enrich the vocabulary and excite the senses.
All too true. I really, really hope and pray that all the immature people in my school that can't see past their own nose grow up and realize the world doesn't revolve around them. Otherwise I fear for our future. What really breaks my heart is how some kids don't want to read anymore. Don't they see the joy of it? It's like daydreaming, but someone else did it before you--you can escape to a new world. It doesn't have to be a difficult book--read Harry Potter or Twilight for all I care--but I wish they would want to read more. Thank god there are so many reading campaigns starting up.
It's not all about presentation; it's about relevance. There is a tendency in sites like this to speak in generalizations. Not everybody lives in a middle class, college-bound stable home. Where is the respect for people with different needs and perspectives? Study of classics are simply NOT needed for ALL kids. If a person is/was raised in a stable, middle-class (or higher) environment, then imposition of "classics" should be required. However, such reading assignments can be damaging to kids who come from other social settings or who aspire to non-academic futures. Remember, the world NEEDS auto mechanics, construction workers, cement layers, finish carpenters, glaziers, dairymen, painters, factory workers, soldiers, etc. Not everyone wants or needs to go to college. There are many productive jobs in society requiring no knowledge of the "classics". So, how does an English teacher nurture a love of reading in these kids? You do it with relevance. If they like Twilight, Harry Potter or Hunt for Red October, then give them credit for reading those books. In fact, ENCOURAGE them to read such material. Even comic books can help some kids begin to enjoy reading. Also, classic literature is completely irrelevant to ghetto kids who are worried about getting mugged on the way home, or to those who don't know if they are going to get food on any given night. Similarly, kids who are struggling with English as a second language suffer classroom disadvantages when attempting to understand nuances or subtle cultural differences expressed in many classics. Their grades suffer and they feel embarrassed (or worse) when the teacher asks them questions in class that reveal their lack of understanding. Again, the single most important responsibility of English teachers is to promote a love for reading. I get annoyed by the self-centered arrogance of some members of this site who profess that all kids would benefit from the "classics". A writing website naturally attracts people who love to read, so their opinion does not surprise me, but it is a sad day if those people can not appreciate the needs of the large number of kids for whom struggling through the "classics" will do more harm than good. I speak from personal experience, having grown up in poverty. There were winter days when I walked home from school with a book on Shakespeare or Moby Dick or Oliver Twist under my arm while the sole of my shoe flapped in the ice cold slush on the side of the road. Do you think I cared about those "classics"? All I wanted to do was get my shoes off so I could hold my frozen toes close to the single space heater that "heated" our whole apartment. At the time, I refused to do my assignments and told my English teacher that I would simply "take" the F grade because there was no way I would "read that crap". Then, one of my friends, who aspired to become a truck driver (like his dad), showed me how to cheat using those abridged summary booklets. Neither of us felt a need for "classics" in our futures and we both came to loathe reading, all because of our self-centered English teacher who had no respect for the social realities in our lives. In my case, I stumbled across a sci-fi book (cost me twenty five cents at a church bazaar...bought it because of the cool scene on the cover) and this yellow-paged, used book triggered a love for reading that still exists today. Yes, I eventually read all the classics, out of curiosity, but I still prefer sci-fi and action-adventure over any classic. I learned more about loving reading from a twenty-five cent paperback than from four years of English classes in high school. Consequently, I respect the needs of all kids and believe a "one size fits all" approach shows no understanding of or sympathy for the widely varying needs of kids from all walks of life. Merc, this is not directed at you, personally. It is meant to criticize all the rigid opinions from people who would impose "classics" on all kids without regard for cultural, social or avocational differences.
I hated my English teacher. She made us read things that left me reading the same page over and over, not taking in a single part of it. Then we read The Odyssey and The Iliad and I was consumed...only A I ever got in that class lol. I grew up around people who read Steven King and VC Andrews, I would sneak the books and read those. Classics to me at that time didn't exist. As an adult I have branched out and read some wonder classic books. I think if teachers had more of a one on one sitting to find out what absorbed kids as far as reading goes and set assignments in that area, kids would benefit more. Instead of assuming everyone is the same, granted some homework is supposed to suck but things like reading shouldn't be a chore. If I had been given Misery by Stephen King or a book like Harry Potter at the time I would have excelled in that class.
And to extend on NaCl's comments, I think not everybody should be forced to be in a regular high school setting. Where possible, technical schools should be available for juniors & seniors who would be better served going that route than taking 9th grade algebra for the 3rd time or cheating on a Shakespeare test because they're just not interested. We need tradespeople, and some people are happier learning a trade. It keeps them occupied once they graduate because they can start an apprenticeship program or immediately be fully employed in their profession. It's better than the alternative for some of these students. Presentation, though, as Mercurial pointed out, can make many students, including the type I've described above, be interested and maybe even be willing to crack open the book; but it won't change the future employment outlook for the student. EDIT: As an aside, there's a great segment on This American Life (a radio program) in which they cover a group of inmates in a high-security prison who are staging a production of Hamlet, act V. It's really fascinating to hear how the prisoners react to the storyline and how it impacts them.
I understand what you mean, but I disagree that this is what English classes should be about. A love of reading is something that should be developed outside of school, and if your study at school supports it then good, but its not a English teacher's job to inspire, its their job to educate. At the end of the day, the amount of choice they have over exactly what and how they teach is very limited; the course is determined by a set syllabus based on texts that academics agree have value and are worthy of study, and will be of the most benefit to a student's education. English at school is, and must be, strictly academic - educational value has to be considered above anything else, and a standard of education would be very difficult to maintain if you simply let kids pick and choose what they read. The texts are chosen in general because the are thought (by experts and educational professionals) to serve the best interests of the kids.
I agree wholeheartedly with what arron has said. I would also like to mention that classics do have relevance to each and every person regardless of background. Not all characters from a classic novel are from a middle-class background. I'd argue that students from a lower socioeconomic background have more in common with a lot Dickens' characters than do middle or upper-class students. Similarly, the characters of Moby Dick are hardly what you would call middle-class. So I don't see how coming from a middle-class family has anything to do with relating to the classics.
While I recognize your final statement, I shall respond to it as it is directed at me, among others. I do agree with you on a lot of what you are saying, NaCl; I had no idea we were headed in this direction though, and so I had not mentioned it. I dont agree with the 'one size fits all' method either. I actually would have really preferred to go to an alternative school. 'Alternative' often conjure connotations of kids who cant do work required in public or private schools, but the schools I am talking about instead represent a lot of apprenticeship programs. In New York especially a lot of these alternative, 'hippie' schools are growing and many of these students have gotten into very prestigious schools --why? Because Harvard looks at a kid who 'wants' to be an engineer and a kid who has been training and learning the skills an engineer needs all of his life; who do you think will be more successful? The one size fits all approach is certainly something I do not advocate, and I do agree that relevance plays a major role in how likely a student is to responding to a subject. Edit: I'll spare you the diatribe on the arrogance comment. But I certainly am not disrespecting anyone; in fact, while my experience cannot compare to yours in relation to poorer lifestyles, keep in mind that your experience shows limited relation to mine as well. We simply cannot walk a mile in each others shoes, but please know that I am not oblivious or ignorant to the world around me. And I would argue to the notion that reading the classics could do more harm than good. In the end, even a lover of the classics like myself realizes that it is a book. Okay, Math has done me more harm than good in terms of my GPA and my self esteem, but it also gifted me with some problem-solving skills that I do recognize I need to know. I would argue that certain jobs dont need mathematics. Some jobs dont need a mandatory course in biology. No one needs to know a foreign language unless they are in the linguistics, translation, or international career fields (and my state requires a student take three years of a single language or two years of two separate languages in order to even graduate). Some jobs dont need high school at all! And so we must decide, is education for the job force, or is it for knowledge? (We will keep out the fact that high schools are mostly to help kids conform by learning corridor and hidden curriculums. I would welcome the conversation, but this is not yet the place for it.) I would argue that primary and middle schools are generally for socialization processes. I would argue that high school, as of lately, is becoming more directed toward pre-college. Am I being too singular to my own lifestyle? I dont think so --this is a widespread trend across all economic and social classes. If it is for the job force, then we should probably toss out literature all together. What can it do for us that is relevant to our careers, save certain language and literature based careers? (In which case, these careers would die out anyway, with the eradication of literature from the high school curriculum.) Toss it. And if we are to change the Literature curriculum, we are calling for a reformation of the entire public school curriculum, something which I have mentioned earlier, is, if done correctly for once, necessary. (I really dont understand how I am being disrespectful or insensitive to anyone unlike me in this respect.) And if we are to reform the literature curriculum, then we should certainly reform the mathematics, foreign language, social sciences, and other requirements that students need to, since not everyone needs them. We have already started doing this, to an extent, with the No Child Left Behind program, and look at all the good that has done for the educational systems. Or, is high school education for gaining knowledge for knowledge's sake? There is so much to learn from any book, but classics in particular. These books hold lessons in history, culture, language, and social sciences, and all the while they help students learn to utilize context clues, expand vocabulary, and other critical reading skills. I have always said that fiction is often more truthful than nonfiction. This is why I think we need to bring back apprenticeships. If you dont want to read the classics --then dont. Take up an apprenticeship instead and leave academia behind. Over the years, the two have become synonymous, which I think has been one of education's greatest downfalls.
It is a ridiculous generalization to say people of will find relevance in certain books because of their social class or how financially secure they are. I don't see how it has anything to do with it at all. How does "My parents have lots of money, so I'll enjoy Dickens" make any sense at all? Even if it did, your social class or racial background are only a small part of what define you. Besides, Dickens wrote about poverty all the time, so I don't see why it can't be relevant to the poor "ghetto kid". And I think almost every ten-year-old boy would rather read modern adventure stories than Dickens. I've known poor kids who find comfort in classics and rich kids who only ever want to read Twilight. Think about this. I recently read an article about the pulp mags. It pointed out that they sold far more copies than the glossies, which were supposedly the more respectible ones, and the people who read them spanned EVERY age group and social class, regardless of what their level of education was or what they did for a living. yes, the needs of all people should be addressed, but your social/financial status and career goals have nothing to do with what books will mean something to you. It is about the attitude of the teacher and your own attitude toward the book than the relevance of it that causes problems in this sense. Sure, ot may not feel relevant, but it isn't going to turn a kid off reading or lead to apathy and cheating if the teacher and student approach it with a good attitude. In my grade twelve English classes, I hated the books that they chose, but my teachers had a great attitude, and I was motivated to do well, so I ended up succeeding in those classes without cheating. And how can Harry Potter not be considered literature yet? Literature is defined by quality, not by how long it's been around. It's deemed a classic by how long it's been around. Semantics aside, why does a book have more value just because it's old?
I guess my point fell on some deaf ears. It's really quite simple...we need to respect kids from all walks of life and not impose college-prep academic bias on all kids. Try to impress a kid with Shakespeare when he holds pimps and drug dealers as his role models. Tell a young man in West Virginia that it's important for him to read Moby Dick before he goes to work in the coal mines like his father. Take some latchkey kids in Los Angeles and tell them how important Shakespeare is to their "future" when they have no after school supervision before their exhausted working mom gets home and has to choose between washing clothes, fixing dinner or reading their daughter's essay on King Lear. You folks keep talking about approaching the classics with the "right attitude". BS. The classics simply suck when imposed on kids who find no relevance in them. Did you ever wonder why the US has such a high drop-out rate from high school? Simple...it's not relevant to a lot of kids...we're talking 12 percent in California and up to 50% in low income communities. What disturbs me is the lack of compassion for the needs of those kids by some of you "enlightened" people. Instead of recognizing that the "classics" are harmful for some as they increase kids incidence of failure, you talk about changing the "presentation" of the same old irrelevant crap. I am arguing on behalf of the shadow kids who the mainstream "educational experts" do not give a damn about. Impose the classics where it is beneficial but restrict them in schools where they may do more harm than good. As far as English teachers' first responsibility being to develop a love for reading, I might point out that poor readers don't learn much about English!
