Comments on: Make ‘Em Read the Classics?

By: Megan

Megan — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:20:17 +0000

The great irony of that NY Times article was that the teacher hyped “The Story of Edgar Sawtelle” to her students as a book they might like, and succeeded in getting one student interested enough to borrow it. Unfortunately, because that student will have had no instruction on the classics, she won’t know that the book is a contemporary retelling of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and therefore may think the plot makes little sense, will miss why the characters behave the way they do, and will not interpret how the author sees one of Shakespeare’s most famous plays as relevant to humanity.

It’s extremely important that we teach kids to love to read, particularly as our culture becomes more and more digital and attention dividing with more focus on immediate gratification. And certainly we do a disservice to kids in assigning classics they are not at a level to understand. But if teachers spent more time drawing kids into the world in which a classic work was created, giving them the context of the time and place, and pushing them to understand how that work is relevant to today’s society, perhaps it would make more sense to kids who are being asked to read “classics” like The Scarlet Letter, or Hamlet. With “the classics” we can cultivate an appreciation of the craft of storytelling and writing that will help them understand WHY they should love reading.

By: MikeC

MikeC — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:08:34 +0000

This thread’s getting long and presumably at risk of going away so I’d like to chime in, too. First, I note in the NYT article that there are several recognitions that it doesn’t need to be / shouldn’t be all classics or no classics – agreed; Also, I feel there is great value of a shared set of historical / cultural references (George Steiner makes this point in a wonderful little book, Bluebeard’s Castle, re. the very valuable shorhand provided via what he calls ‘cultural primatives’ .. commonly understood cultural set-pieces, if you will, which may be built upon to move communication / understanding further along. When that language is lost, as someone noted earlier, you’re back to square one.. Kind of like losing the Rosetta Stone. OK – rambling now.. To wrap up, I’m kind of sanguine about the diversity question, as the ‘canon’ has been augmented richly over the past few (or more) decades with quite a few diversely sourced additions (Morrison, Naipaul, Langston Hughes -mentioned in NYT article- and Ursula LeGuin [my pick - does SciFi count?], etc…) Further back, one finds Beecher-Stowe, Dickinson, Austen, and Eliot (though she chose to use a male pen-name). IMHO, It’s good to spend your reading time on material that’s a bit demanding (if it’s rewarding, too), but sometimes a page-turner is what’s needed. For that, I like Stephen King or Robert B. Parker, among others. Then there’s the more ‘classical’ A. C. Doyle, too.. Let ‘em choose, but also expose ‘em to stuff they might never find otherwise. (Now the thread’s WAY long..)

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:53:45 +0000

Thanks for chiming in here, Judd. You basically said what I wish I’d said the first time.

By: Judd Owen

Judd Owen — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:21:36 +0000

I agree that it should not be either/or, and if a “classic” can’t speak to us today then it’s not really a classic. But there are indeed classics. But it requires some effort to foster a taste for them. A taste for what’s current comes more easily and is reinforced by a belief in progress, that the old = the outdated. Now, I happen to teach classics — philosophy and literature — and it can be a hard sell. But there are many student for whom it is quite a revelation to find that an old book really speaks to them. ANd in fact, for precisely the reason Scott mentions, many find that these old books have more to say than contemporary ones — older books that are debating universal truths rather than assuming that there are none. So I say teach both. But if contemporary lit gets short shrift, I don’t fear it will get lost. If the classics get short shrift, they’re at greater risk and something important could be lost. But your account of your own rediscovery of the classics, DM, suggests that real classic can fend for themselves too sometimes.

I will also add that one of the favorite books of my daughter (age 10) over the last year or two is Tales from Shakespeare by Charles and Mary Lamb (written 1830 or so and, warning, needs some parental editing). Because of that, I’ve taken her to the Shakespeare Tavern twice and she’s done their Shakespeare camp at Glennwood. She loves it. The first trip to the Shakespeare tavern was a performance of Midsummer Night’s Dream, a weekday afternoon performance with almost all school-age children in the audience — say, 10-15 years old. They followed intently, laughed loudly, and erupted in applause and cheering at the end.

By: Paula

Paula — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:17:56 +0000

I also meant to add this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/books/review/Straight-t.html?ref=books

It’s about the widespread use of software called “Accelerated Reader”, which assigns point values to various books.