Since when did getting an education have to be "easy?"
An article from the Seattle Times today (
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...glists26n.html, quoted below) discusses how many high school students simply can't "get" the classics anymore... they prefer to read contemporary novels that are easier to digest and relate to, that aren't written by long-dead white males whom they have no "connection to."
The argument seems to be against requiring students to read something that is unpleasant or unfamiliar to them, or is hard to understand because of its old-fashioned writing style and hard vocabulary. Some argue that it's actually oppressive to teach the classics, since they are in fact written by mostly white males.
Now, I don't think that reading Shakespeare is necessary for "realizing yourself" or becoming a responsible citizen, as they quote later in the article. People don't always *need* to read certain books in order to become a responsible person. And anthropologically, it's inane to expect something like Hamlet to appeal to or be understood universally. Additionally, I do think that there *is* too much dead white male literature out there, but that the alternatives are sometimes "too easy" to read. (Jon Krakauer? Come on, good for summer reading but not for teaching critical skills. Toni Morrison? Kick-ass, she takes a lot of work to read.)
Apart from the politics, though, what about the sheer power of reading challenging literature that is abstract and hard to relate to? As a former English teacher who fell in love with literature in the 11th grade while reading The Great Gatsby, I am puzzled about why kids have so little willingness to dig into these books and give them a try. Is it because of the instant information on the internet? The fascination with visual images rather than the written word? Do parents not read to their children anymore? What's behind this??
Yes, Grapes of Wrath is HARD. But it's worth the effort of reading it. It's not easy reading, it may not always be politically correct... but it takes work, and yeah, it does suck sometimes. But learning to read and think critically, to be able to express oneself clearly and effectively, to not have everything spoon-fed to you in one-bite chunks that go down easily... that's an education. I teach college students as well, and their critical reading and writing skills are reprehensible (often at or below high-school standards, certainly not college level)... I credit that to the dumbing-down at the high school level.
But maybe I'm just a bitter old fogey.
Thoughts?
Quote:
Largely in response to their more ethnically diverse student bodies, high schools in the area are broadening their literature selections to include more contemporary writers, more women and more minorities.
Students say the books engage them more immediately than the classics yet still raise timeless questions about existence and meaning.
Teachers say the contemporary books appeal more to students who don't like to read and need an introduction to the power and pleasures of literature.
The classics haven't been discarded, though. Despite their drubbing the past decade for being elitist, inaccessible and written almost exclusively by dead white males, the traditional literary canon — Homer, Virgil, Dante and Shakespeare, to name a few regulars — still makes up the bulk of high-school reading. -snip-
Mariner students sometimes rebel against the books teachers think they should read. Rossana said students shove back at her "The Grapes of Wrath," a weighty John Steinbeck classic, and say, "Just give me an F."
"It's too much dry, dusty detail," she said, but added that the same students "devour" Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men."
In the past, advocates for teaching the great works of Western civilization insisted the classics were essential to develop citizens in a democracy. Nesting remembers hearing in college the argument that you must read "Hamlet" to be a completely realized person.
"You know, you don't," she said. "There's no one book you need to read to become a human being."
|