Classics vs. Contemporary?

No Shakespeare in 12th grade? That's idiotic. Kids can't even understand Hamlet until then. As a parent, I advocate the classics first,

And as the parent of 2 high schoolers, I can tell you that when every book on the English reading list has something to do with race relations in the US, the kids become cynical about it very fast.

Can I send her a copy of The Western Canon as a present?

 

Why can't it be both? I was in a magnet program in high school (the program was a big part of why my high school sent more students to UCs than any other HS in California), and here are some of the things we read in 12th grade:

Gilgamesh
The Odyssey
Mythology, Edith Hamilton
Hamlet
Lord of the Flies
Death of a Salesman
Beloved
Animal Dreams (by Barbara Kingsolver)

As you can see, a bit of a grab-bag.

I do think contemporary literature is important, but The Kite Runner?

 

I'm with anteaters: why not do both?

Your head sounds like some of the people I remember from graduate school: if the poem or story couldn't be turned into sociology, then wasn't relevant. Basically, people who lack imagination shouldn't be teaching English, but sometimes they do, and when they do, the same thing happens pretty much every time: First, half-assed sociology from the teacher, and second (as DoctorD) predicts, cynicism from the student.

And focusing on the "contemporary" is a huge disservice to students... it's like teaching geography by focusing exclusively on the route from the students' homes to the school, and ignoring the rest of the big world that's out there.

I won't even start on the Shakespeare ban... that bugs the hell out of me most of all.

 

I can barely stomach contemporary literature outside of a few personal favorites and question its current relevancy as an art form. Classics all the way!

 

I really don't see why it has to be one or the other. Why not one semester of classics and one semester of contemporary? Or better yet, interweave the two so kids can see how literature has evolved as well as keeping their interest?

I don't think you can understand literary culture, such as it is in this country, without being familiar with the classics.

But at the same time, being forced to read in school (only classics, mostly in language that seemed flowery to my teenage ears) really destroyed my enjoyment of books.

I never read for pleasure until I was out of college.

If you can throw in some things that the kids might enjoy and relate to, you'll engage them better and encourage, rather than kill, their love of reading.

 

The Kite Runner? Jesus Christ. Was The DaVinci Code too expensive?

This is like hearing about the use of books by John Updike and Alice Walker in college English classes. If you need a teacher to guide you through these books, it means you're in trouble. It means you haven't cut your teeth on more challenging material.

Moreover, you're putting your kids at a HUGE disadvantage when they head off to college without at least a few classics under their belt.

 

Except for Animal Dreams, this is a pretty fine list. Beloved is contemporary, but it's also something that requires some effort.

 

Whilst not coming from a background where studying literature has ever been a high priority for me, I do feel as a teacher that at secondary age (or US equivalent obviously) pupils need exposure to a good base and some variety in the key subject areas.

So literature shouldn't just focus on either classics or more contemporary material but include elements of both (and those which fall in between too).

In some ways I'd have been delighted by that ban, but then it may well have made little difference.

 

Where does this line of thinking come from?

I mean, if you're going into English, ok, sure, you're probably right, but otherwise, really, it seems inconsequential.

 

I think you raise a good point--admittedly, I was viewing this from the perspective of an English major. But I also think that there can be a cumulative effect of an overemphasis on contemporary materials over classic materials. It's one thing to lack an understanding of classic literature. But what about when WWII, the Vietnam War, and the civil rights movement becomes the bulk of your history? Or if similar emphases are made for other classes to find material that's more "relevant" for the students' lives?

 

If you can read and interpret, you can read and interpret. I don't think it matters too much what you're reading.

However, teachers should be giving students a good mix of both contemporary and classical. But, even still, Beowulf and Chaucer are overplayed. There are other classical options besides these.

 

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I can remember when I was younger, being told quite often to read a lot of classics (I didn't) by one of my parents who, of course, had an English degree. I didn't read the stuff because I couldn't, I didn't read them because I found most of them to be so ********ing boring. Maybe it was the Jane Austen book in middle school that really put me off to that sort of shit, but either way...

As for your last point regarding history, I think thats a tricky subject. Yes, an understanding of the past is very, very important. It's also very important to know the relevant past, but, how far do you take that? College educations are taking longer and longer and longer to complete, as more requirements, etc, are added. There is going to come a time where, say, WWII is basically going to have to be skimmed over. You can't learn everything.

 

I don't understand what the rationale is for disregarding the classics. Is there one? I honestly cannot think of a good reason for omitting non-contemporary literature from the curriculum.

It's NOT true that interpreting literature is a skill in itself and that it really doesn't matter what literature you use. That's pure nonsense! English/Literature as a subject does not just involve the acquisition of reading and critical skills. It also involves becoming familiar with a certain body of work. Omitting non-contemporary work is like teaching a class on Art History in which the students don't look at any work from before 1980. They're not really learning Art History then, are they? English/Literature is not just reading; it's also a study of literary history.

Furthermore, there are tremendous educational advantages to teaching the "classics". Through reading literature of bygone eras, students learn about history and culture. They make connections between facts learned in other subject areas and the literature they read, which actually makes them smarter.

Lastly, what the hell is an education for if you don't actually gain a foundation of knowledge? An educated person should be familiar with Shakespeare. Period. His work is part of our culture and history. When a student gets to college he or she can start deciding which literary movements/eras she prefers to study academically, if any at all. In high school, you get the background, the foundation which will allow you to make those decisions later. I would consider a person who hasn't been exposed to the literary classics to be an ignoramus. He won't even get half the jokes and references on television, much less be able to hold an intelligent conversation. That person is not prepared for college in any way.

 

I'm not really sure how [since you don't really explain it] you've come to this conclusion.

I'm pretty sure that any literary theory can be applied to any literature. I don't know how that can be refuted. Seriously, where does the term "classic" begin and end?

What 20th century literature makes or doesn't make that distinction? I happen to think that certain works of science fiction makes a great tool for studying literary theory. Is that perspective any less meaningful than others?

 

So, I guess mechanical engineers, surgeons, physicists fall into the "ignoramus" category?

 

I guess if they didn't take high school English they would be. But I guess they probably did take high school English.

 

I misspoke. Lit crit is a skill in itself. What I meant to say was that this is not relevant. The fact that interpretation can be applied to any text doesn't matter in the context of high school English. Instruction in English at the secondary school level is not intended only to teach literary interpretation.

 

Lit crit is not relevant? Seriously?

That is the problem with High School English. And, it's why too many kids are tuning out "literature" in favor of YA lit and contemporary lit.

 

I'm getting the sense that you didn't actually read my original post.

I did not say that literary criticism is not relevant. I said that the fact that literary analysis can be applied to any text is not relevant in planning a curriculum for high school English.

The reason is that interpreting literature is only one aspect of high school English. Students also must learn the history of literature written in English. It's general knowledge which educated people need to know. Also, it would be false and misleading to allow students to think that literary interpretation is something that occurs in a vacuum, and that they need only to draw upon whatever happens to already be inside their underdeveloped little brains. On the contrary; intertextuality is an important aspect of literary criticism. A work of literature is part of a larger discourse. If students haven't been exposed to the major works in that discourse, then they're at a disadvantage culturally/educationally, and their literary interpretation will be lacking as well.

As I said before, allowing high school students to read only contemporary literature would be like teaching an Art History class in which students only have to study contemporary work. Boticelli? Michelangelo? Rembrandt? Manet? Cezanne? Screw them! They're just dusty old classics and the students are tuning them out. All the kids have to know is how to analyze art. Let them look at Banksy and Damien Hirst. Or a cereal box for that matter. What's the difference?

 

Sounds like your county English head is one of those poor souls who misunderstood the point of the canon wars of the 80s. The point (for smart people) was never about canon destruction but reformation. New texts elbowing their way into the discussion ALONGSIDE the ones that were already deservedly there. Morrison doesn't make Faulkner less relevant, after all. Indeed, she probably makes him moreso.

Of course, such critics probably also have in mind the increasingly post-literate culture of American youth. Thank god for Rowling, because other than her, most 18 year olds have never read a book. So some people think that if you can hook kids on "slightly" more adult books than Rowling, it can be like a bridge so that they'll like reading and move on to Shakespeare eventually.

Still, that's no excuse to throw up our hands and decide to just teach contemporary/sociology lit. And as a few have noted, I think it backfires.

 

But, again, at what point does it just become too much material?

 

This is exactly correct. It's not an either/or proposition.

I do take issue with what you said about Rowling, though. I question the conventional wisdom that her books encourage kids to read who otherwise would not. In my experience, the choice of whether to read for pleasure has much more to do with the child's reading ability, than the availability of engaging reading material. Also, Harry Potter books are appropriate for readers aged about 10 or 11. Teens who are reading them may not actually be able to read more "serious" literature, if they are still reading at a ten-year-old's level. The problem there is not one of interest level.

There is certainly a limit to the volume of material kids can be expected to read. That's one of the challenges inherent to curricular planning, but it's hardly an insurmountable obstacle. Discarding the classics would be a foolish way to skirt around that obstacle.

 

Right, I'm not saying dismiss them altogether, but, at what point does a classic become irrelevant? If not, do new books eventually become classics? Is there a
'replacement' process, so to speak, or will kids 25 years from now be reading more or less all the same material? Do we dismiss recent works just because they are recent? How is all of this decided?

 

That's a frequent - and I think, relevant - criticism of the Harry Potter books. Namely, that they don't necessarily create new readers, but rather they create readers who only want to read Harry Potter or the slew of recent teen fantasy novels that have trailed behind the series' success like camp followers. I saw a lot of that type of thing when I was teaching middle school, although, granted, this was in a foreign country and the comparative lack of age-appropriate books in the local language may have contributed.

That being said, I'm generally a believer in the classics even if I do have some issues with them. I hate campus novels with a passion (although, ironically, my favorite book is a campus novel: Kingsley Amis' Lucky Jim) and I do think we need to supplement, but not replace, the endless parade of Dead White Men with some other perspectives. Faulkner makes so much more sense and is easier to appreciate when one has read Richard Wright. It sounds like, as Dr. Jones said, JMac has a case on his hands where someone took the de-DWMification of English classes to extremes and threw the baby out with the bathwater.