Reading Culture
I am a huge proponent of exposing young people to great literature. I am a huge fan of trying to instill a thirst for reading and self-education, when people are young and more malleable so that such notions might take root and flower and grow throughout their lives.
But there is a danger as well.
The danger is that by having 14-18 year olds read great literature, they will assume for the rest of their lives that they have read great literature, and never see a need to revisit it. Having been made educated by reading Orwell or Steinbeck or Whitman, they in fact retain little if any of the lessons of those works of art. And while one can be very precocious at that age, one cannot be said to have lived a whole lot. While one might appreciate the beauty of words, or their pathos, or their humor - there is very little room for interacting with the work based on the experience of one's own life. The words remain like a painting under glass, unassailable in their designated and authorized Beauty or Truth.
But great works of art are meant to be more than just intellectually apprehended. They are meant to be worn. Like a shirt or a dress, something that we take into ourselves, and there determine in part the Beauty and Truth of the work. And without that lived experience, we simply remain receptacles that Beauty or Truth can be poured in and out of, incapable of assenting in any meaningful way to that Beauty or Truth, and reliant almost completely on the authority of others to determine what is Beautiful, what is Truthful.
So educate and expose young people to great art, great literature, great music, great film - but also firmly plant the notion that they don't know this stuff. Not really. Not yet. Regardless of what grade they get on their essay or exam. That they need to come back to it in time, over the course of their lives. Like visiting an eccentric aunt or uncle every decade or so. The relationship changes over time. The understanding and empathy grows. The impact deepens.
Paul,
Two interesting posts that resonate strongly, as a English teacher and lover of literature.
When I taught seventh grade, Night was on the approved curriculum. At the time, I was grateful to have something "meaty" beyond the normal Young-Adult dreck I was required to teach.
I was also 23, and obviously, not a parent. It wasn't until I was a parent, and I held my own babies that I truly had some understanding (and really, I never really can have such understanding unless I live it) about the horrors described in the book.
When Wiesel describes the babies being used for skeet shooting, some of my students (mostly the boys) laughed. While I admonished them, I understood the impulse. Take immaturity and add horror far beyond experience and you get nervous laughter. It's so atrocious it's like a Tom and Jerry cartoon.
I'm rambling. My point is that people need to revist books, like you say, and educators need to balance between intellectual and emotional needs when selecting literature.
Does this make sense at all?
NC
Reply to this
The difficulty of trying to elicit serious thought from boys and girls in the throes of puberty is profound, I believe. And this comes from someone who spent all of grade school, junior high, and high school in college prep and AP courses. The desire to expose young people to the wisdom of other times and situations and peoples is a valid one. But, as with so many things, implementation is so difficult. Having taught college-level literature, I know it's difficult to really get students to engage with the text and to go beyond a cursory I'll-read-this-as-fast-as-possible-so-I-can-write-what-my-teacher-wants-me-to-say-about-it-and-then-spend-the-next-four-hours-texting-my-best-friend. At the junior high and high school level, it must be truly an epic struggle.
Reply to this