Why the "classics" don't suck

[AdminAssistant]

From the math thread:

That being said one of the reasons I saw literacy rates falling when I was a kid was because kids weren't allowed to read books they thought were interesting but were forced to read the same book everyone else in class was reading regardless of if it was a topic they gave a shit about.

In classes where someone told an athlete, sure you can read a book about your favorite sports hero, vocabulary would go up and the person would be more excited about reading.

If I had been forced to read the "classics" I would have hated reading as well. I have known people that hated reading for the longest time because their teacher believed anything written after the start of the 20th century to be crap who discovered Sci Fi/Fantasy and became reading fanatics.

Many adults are discovering reading for the first time as a fun past time because suddenly they are being pointed to books that fit what they are interested in instead of books they could care less about.

Every time somebody says something like this, I feel that I have to stand up and defend the classics. First of all, teachers don't have to require you to read books that you would read on your own. Should English teachers be assigning Twilight? When I was taking a two-semester course on American Theatre, some of the other students (MFA actors, whiny bitches) complained that we stopped in the 1970's. My teacher said, "I have to tell you to read Sam Shepard and Marsha Norman and David Mamet? You already know about them. I need to teach you what you don't know." It's about learning, not enjoyment.

Classics usually also have a greater importance beyond just being a work of literature. For us theatre folk, it would be unspeakable to teach a basic theatre class and not require them to read something by Shakespeare*. For American Lit...yeah, you need to read The Scarlet Letter, the poems of Walt Whitman, and the short stories of Edgar Allen Poe. That's our cultural heritage. An early World Lit class will and should require The Illiad, The Odyssey, and The Aeneid. Hopefully it will include writings by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle as well...since they are the foundation of pretty much all pre-Enlightenment thought.

Frankly, I think we need more classics. Again, in theatre, we obsess over England and France. (Sorry, English theatre hasn't produced anything of worth since the death of the Restoration comedy.) But German and Russian theatre are sorely overlooked. Romanticism may be the single most important literary and artistic movement in history, since it broke the hold French Neoclassicism had over all culture. Yet, most students don't understand Romanticism because they haven't read Lessing, Schiller, or even *sigh* Goethe. Mary Shelley doesn't cut it. Victor Hugo and Dumas pere don't cut it (as much as I love both of them). You MUST know Goethe. And no Russian? The Russians have been kicking the world's ass in literature (dramatic or otherwise) since the 19th century. Pushkin, Lermontov, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Ostrovsky, Gorky, Mayakovsky, and especially Bulgakov should be better known. I mean, can you honestly tell me that your average sci-fi book has more importance than The Master and Margarita? A highly subversive work written during the peak of Soviet realism?

Furthermore, don't blame literacy rates on schools. Blame it on lazy parents who don't read to their kids. I could read at 4, because my mother taught me. And don't feed me the "parents are too busy" line. Nobody is busier than a farm wife, and mom made the time. The schools should not dumb down their curriculum to cater to kids who think the classics are stupid. Teachers can, and should, make these works as exciting as possible. But they should still be required.

*Although for me, the greater crime is that they aren't generally required to read Marlowe, who would've written circles around Shakespeare if he hadn't been stabbed in the eye.

[lupo pazzesco]

Where's the applause smiley?!?!

AA, you're my hero right now. I agree 100% because while I do like reading some of the more modern stuff, again, it's stuff I know. I took a poetry class a few semesters ago, and most people didn't even know who Walt Whitman was. Granted, he's not one of my favorite poets, but sheesh. And worse, when I asked if we were covering Poe, the teacher was surprised I even knew him. Sad, in a way.

I also took a class titled The History of the Novel, and sadly, again the focus was on novels written by European (primarily English) heterosexual white males. The professor, and class believed the first novel ever written was The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan written in the 17th century. I asked about The Tale of Genji, and even Don Quijote, and was promptly shut down because neither author was English. In fact that was the first class I had to go to the dean about the professor because after challenging him repeatedly my grades suspiciously dropped, despite completing all the assignments on time and meeting all criteria. And the grade on my final presentation on Kafka's The Castle received the lowest marks in the class, even though I had more of my classmates asking me questions and sparking dialogue far better than the prof's lectures.

I too could read at an early age (3), and my grandmother and mom made sure I read the classics. Grandma had me reading Chaucer with her in middle school, and I plowed through the Iliad and the Odyssey the summer before my freshmen year in high school. They don't suck, but in today's educational system, unless you're an english or theater major (or just like taking random classes like me!) they're greatly underrated and misunderstood.

I babbled. I hope I made sense here.

[McDreidel09]

AA, are you me in the future?

I hate this with a passion. Oh noes! You HAVE to read a certain book? Oh the horror!

There is nothing wrong with the classics at all. I was reading those when I was still in grade school (my biggest accomplishment was Lord of the Rings when I was just 10 years old). My parents and grandparents encouraged my rabid love of reading. From the moment I was born, I was read to all the time and then I started reading around the tender age of 4 or 5.

[AdminAssistant]

Well, not even theatre majors anymore. The undergrads in my program really don't read that much that isn't "new" and "edgy." I TA'd a theatre history class, and they griped constantly about having to read old, outdated stuff. Granted, I didn't really agree with the professor's selections (Life is a Dream? The Shoemaker's Holiday?), but they couldn't see why they should read The Republic (Plato) or even The Poetics (Aristotle), which is the base of most dramatic theory.

Oooh, Kafka! I haven't read much Kafka, but I tend to like the odd and offbeat. Oh, and the Intro students (non-majors) last semester had to read Rock'n'Roll by Tom Stoppard.* It's about Czechoslovakia during the period of Russian occupation up to the Velvet Revolution. Needless to say, Vaclav Havel is all over the piece, even though he isn't a character. I was trying to explain to my students how awesome Havel is and the importance of subversive art during periods of oppression...and got blank stares. Most didn't even have a clue about the history. That's another importance of classics....it's history, too! Actual history classes can be boring, but tie it all in with art, and it's a lot more interesting, IMO.

*I have to withdraw my earlier statement about British theatre. I do love some Stoppard.

[Rageaholic]

Hmm, I agree that if it's a literature class, there's no reason not to teach this stuff as they are relevent to the history of it.

My issue is the idea that everyone must learn this stuff. I agree with Jack, when you're forced to do learn something, you will resent it. There's nothing wrong with wanting to read stuff that is interesting to you, even if it is that god awful twilight. The way I look at it, literature is meant to be enjoyed. As an art, what's good and bad is subjective to who's reading it. Sure, the classics may have relevence historically, I get that, but I don't see how it's absolutely necessary for everyone to learn them unless they are majoring in the arts.

[Hobbs]

Furthermore, don't blame literacy rates on schools. Blame it on lazy parents who don't read to their kids. I could read at 4, because my mother taught me.

My mom was an English teacher, and for the first 5 years of my life, a single-mother. She was always swamped with work, but always read to me. She read me Beowulf as a bedtime story to me. When she would teach it to her high-school students, she would get the old line, "It's too hard to understand." To which she'd retort, "I read it to me 4 yr old son, and he gets it."

[MadMike]

My issue is the idea that everyone must learn this stuff. I agree with Jack, when you're forced to do learn something, you will resent it.

Agreed. Personally, I think the so-called classics are highly overrated. I learned to read at an early age because I wanted to read, and I enjoyed reading once I was able to. But once I was forced to read these "classics", that just sucked all the enjoyment out of reading. I don't think I've read for pleasure since before I was a teenager.

My school also had a policy that if you failed the test that was given on the story, you had to write an outline on it. I had to do that once (failed by one point), and it was probably the most boring, mind-numbing, tedious, pointless waste of time I ever had to deal with in high school. Even the teachers thought that it was stupid. I remember shortly before the test, the teacher told us to make sure we knew the material, because she'd hate for any of us to have to do a "stupid outline." I'd love to know what the school board was smoking when they came up with that one.

If someone enjoys reading the classics, more power to them, but I never saw the point of forcing them on people. I read them, passed the tests (except for that one time), and then forgot everything at the end of the school year. Surprisingly, I never ended up in a situation where I needed this information. It's not like I interviewed for a computer job and someone told me, "Well, you're computer skills are great, but I'm afraid I can't hire you if you never read The Scarlet Letter."

[Hobbs]

Mike, what would you have taught in an English class? At my school, I got to read my choice of classics, so I never felt "forced" and there was always a tie-in to our history class when we read a classic (ie. when we read Grapes of Wrath we were learning about the Great Depression). Classic books are necessary in learning not just a work of fiction, but the mindset of people at the time, the value sets and philosophies of the time.

Myself, I wouldn't assign an outline, but an interpretive essay on the book, with references, citations etc (maybe from historical works to emphasize the significance of the work) because anyone can write an outline, but it takes a good analytical mind to interpret a work and make a thesis that can be supported with the classic work and other research.

[Red Panda]

Reading the classics is fine but most teachers don't take the time to

1. Make sure its something there class can read well enough to understand

2. Make sure it is something that can hold the class's interest.


Its fine and dandy to want people to read The Scarlett Letter except its written in a way that is hard to understand and most high schoolers will not care about it in the least. Instead of struggling to get somebody to read that book why not substitute something that is more approachable?

It seems like most liturature classes in high school don't have a paticular theme or time period they must follow so there is no real reason to have to read The Scarlett Letter when One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is something the students will relate to better. Or better yet give a selection of book's and let the student choose what they want to read.

It would also be nice if there were a little more variety. Shakespear is good but there is no reason in four year's of English classes to read four Shakespear plays and then maybe two other plays by other writers. Escpecially since those four Sakespear plays will probably consist of two readings of Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet.

[jackfaire]

Admin correct me if I am wrong but is not American Theatre a college course?

I am not talking about college courses hell I am not even necessarily talking about High School courses. I am talking about when we are teaching kids to read and teaching them literature at the beginning.

If a kid wants to read Twilight then hell yes that is what that kid should be assigned to do a book report on and that kid will work harder.

I don't dislike all of the classics I dislike individual books for individual reasons. I loved Tom Sawyer was okay with Huckleberry Finn and didn't like a Conneticut Yankee.

I thought Three Musketeers, the unabridged edition, was an interesting read. Those books are not what instilled in me a love of reading. Some kids read those books and are hooked.

Others read Harry Potter and from there go on to read Treasure Island and other such classics but not because the subject was assigned but because they enjoyed Harry Potter and were eager to know what else they would enjoy.

I hated reading until I got a teacher that let me read whatever I chose. Since then reading has been a great joy to me and I read books that sound interesting whether it was written hundreds of years ago or last year. Most people I know that love reading do so because of teachers like that.

My older brother hated reading until I handed him a copy of James and the Giant peach a book that his teachers had never assigned because it wasn't a classic. He fell in love with reading and went on to read Tolkien.

Shocking that not everyone likes everything you like. College is a completely different animal and yes if someone was majoring in a Literature or Theatre or taking any English class then yes I would expect them to study both modern and the classics as that is a college level course.

The point is not to make every Junior High and Elementary school student into a collegiate scholar but rather to get them interested in reading in the first place so that their love of reading like mine advances their vocabulary improves their spelling and helps teach them about the world around them.


Edit"

Also like Red was saying something more modern can be more approachable. It can be something you relate to more because you have more in common with the characters it can help teach you themes and basics of literature that can then help you understand the more difficult classics that are written by people who have less in common with you and allow you to see how somethings are universal.

Honestly I equate starting kids off on books written in styles of language that we don't even speak anymore like saying okay this year we will teach you calculus and then in a couple of years we will move on to addition and subtraction. You should start off simple and move to more advanced work not the other way around.

[Hobbs]

Reading the classics is fine but most teachers don't take the time to

1. Make sure its something there class can read well enough to understand

2. Make sure it is something that can hold the class's interest.

As the son of an English teacher, I can tell you that teachers do make sure it's something that the class can do. In high school, you should be able/expected to read a work and understand it, no matter if its worded wrong. As I said, I knew what Beowulf meant in elementary school. And I don't mean some Disney-ed version, I mean the Seamus Heaney[sic] version. Like others have said, its the fault of the student and parent for not taking their education seriously to the point where they can't understand a simple work of literature.

[Rageaholic]

If someone enjoys reading the classics, more power to them, but I never saw the point of forcing them on people. I read them, passed the tests (except for that one time), and then forgot everything at the end of the school year. Surprisingly, I never ended up in a situation where I needed this information. It's not like I interviewed for a computer job and someone told me, "Well, you're computer skills are great, but I'm afraid I can't hire you if you never read The Scarlet Letter."

Exactly. I know how to read just fine without knowing the classics, isn't that what matters, being able to read anything?

The point is not to make every Junior High and Elementary school student into a collegiate scholar but rather to get them interested in reading in the first place so that their love of reading like mine advances their vocabulary improves their spelling and helps teach them about the world around them.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I learned to read at age two. My mum used flash cards and read to me every night. When I was old enough, I joined the library; my parents encouraged me to read anything I liked from there, not just from the children's section.

Interestingly, when I studied for my GCSE, two of the set texts (Romeo And Juliet and Animal Farm), I already had read dozens of times and practically knew by heart. I read loads of books as a kid that some would say were too advanced for me; however, my love of reading was due to my parents encouragement.

I don't agree with the idea that no-one should be "forced" to read the classics at school. If a person is too pigheaded to even try to read certain books, then how do they know they won't like them? You can't just sit there, obdurately refusing to read books like Lord Of The Flies, Of Mice And Men or The Scarlet Letter and saying that they're boring, if you've never even bothered to try. If you read half a book and still think it's boring then fine; at least you tried.

[jackfaire]

So Lace then by that argument you should be forced to read modern books that you think sound like crap because how do you know you won't like it until you have read at least half the book.

You chose to read those books. Great awesome those are the books you wanted to read.

I am not saying people shouldn't read classics or kids should be told those aren't an option I am saying it is a matter of what is the goal.

GOAL: Get people to read and develop a lifelong habit of reading.

METHOD: Give them access to a wide variety of books and let them choose what sounds interesting to them. I knew kids that chose classic books to read because ones written in older times appealed to them other people didn't like those kinds of books.

I don't have to read the Twilight series to know that I have no interest in reading the Twilight series and I don't think that 200 years from now when the series is a "classic" that kids should be forced to read it simply because at one point a lot of people thought it was awesome.

Labeling a book a classic doesn't somehow make it magically always a great book and the only reason a person doesn't like it is because they just didn't understand it. In High School and beyond yes books from all different times should be assigned as mandatory reading so as to further educate the students but really would you want to have to learn how to read on a book series you hated.

What if your parents when you were a kid only let you read the books they picked out and what if the books they picked out weren't something you liked at all do you really think reading would be this great thing if all you remembered of it was everything you were forced to read sucked?

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

GOAL: Get people to read and develop a lifelong habit of reading.

METHOD: Give them access to a wide variety of books and let them choose what sounds interesting to them. I knew kids that chose classic books to read because ones written in older times appealed to them other people didn't like those kinds of books.

This is what one of my favourite English teachers in high school did. She gave us a list of about seven books across different genres and let us pick which one we wanted to read. I loved the one I chose.