From the department of “Again already?” there’s hyperventilation about whether or not kids are reading and growing more stupider by the minute because they don’t read.
Truly, take a breath people. Remember that annoying song in 1997 about how everyone has to wear sunscreen but not credit the correct source of all that wisdom? (It wasn’t Vonnegut, fyi). In the middle is this bit of perspective:
Accept certain inalienable truths, prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old. And when you do you’ll fantasise that when you were younger prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected elders.
Add to that: you’ll also insist that children should read great and sometimes cumbersome works written by those whom someone has deemed among the great minds and because children are not doing so, they are now growing more stupider by the minute.
No, I don’t think that’s true at all. I don’t think kids are stupid, judging by the ones I meet. I don’t always understand the things they worry about – but I bet the things I worry about are as baffling to them.
When I see histrionic articles like this one about what kids are reading and how they’re growing more stupider by the minute, I think to myself:
1. Take a breath.
2. How are you defining “reading?” Can we agree that the definition of “reading” is increasingly nebulous in its boundaries?
Are they reading text in ways you can identify? Are they interacting with stories in forms you have quantified in your estimation of Here Comes Teh Stupids Oh Noes? There are more ways to consume narrative on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
According to a Daily Beast article on the subject of teens reading,
…children should read newspapers and magazines, texts about nature and technology, and biographies—genres that increase real-world knowledge. This is especially important for poor children, who may not be exposed to as much “background” information at home: the random vocabulary, facts, and associations that make it easier to do well on tests like the NAEP and SAT, and to succeed in the workplace.
But for the most part, kids aren’t reading this kind of material. “One of my big gripes is the imperialism of literature, of trivial fictions and poetry,” says E.D. Hirsch, a literature professor and advocate of “cultural literacy.” Hirsch rejects the idea that storybooks are the only books that appeal to children. “Fiction doesn’t have a monopoly on narrative,” he says. “Take, for example, biographies. They have the form of fiction. It isn’t whether kids can read it or not, it’s whether it is taught or not.
In other words, there is value in imagination, whether the intricate narrative is coming from text on a page or screen, or a interactive dynamic world projected on a screen. The narratives and issues dealt with in video games or in comics are not at all worth less than the narratives of classical literature, (just as romances are not of less value than other works of fiction). Alas, the bulk of the article is not so innovative, and rehashes a lot of the Oh Noes Here Comes Teh Stupids hand-wringing while recommending nonfiction in addition to fiction. Why not… let kids choose what they want to enjoy?
Peter M. Dickinson wrote about this back in 2002 in “A Defence of Rubbish” and said,
Nobody who has not spent a whole sunny afternoon under his bed rereading a pile of comics left over from the previous holidays has any real idea of the meaning of intellectual freedom.
Nobody who has not written comic strips can really understand the phrase, economy of words. It’s like trying to write Paradise Lost in haiku.
While I immediately bristle at the use of the word “rubbish,” as it’s so often applied to that which I hold most dear (and to my bosoms, of course) I agree with Mr. Dickinson like damn howdy. Especially this part: “Third I am convinced of the importance of children discovering things for themselves.” And this other part, which addresses my rubbishy fears: “it may not be rubbish after all. The adult eye is not necessarily a perfect instrument for discerning certain sorts of values.”
Sing it, Brother P. I shall hold up a lighter. (Thank you to Christine D. for the links.) We’ve discussed the idea of youth reading and required reading before, and the discussion follows a similar route each time.
but I want to stop short of the shrill and earnest whining that at least kids are reeeeaaaaaaading when seen toting Harry Potter or Twilight or whatever mammoth hardback is capturing attention and making hands wring in agitation. I want to stop well short of that crap, to be sure, because it’s just as patronizing to say so, as if kids should be reading because doing so is good for them and they’ll all arrive at the same level of intellectual joy and wonderpants so long as they consume pages of text.
I disagree with that, and the idea that there’s only one way to learn, and the idea that identifying, quantifying and assigning to value to what a child is reading is more important than asking that child what he or she thinks. I drew a whole set of conclusions about Twilight, but some of the most interesting conversations I’ve had about the first book were with individuals between the ages of 10 and 15. (Note: I used to work in overnight camping so I’m often around children of camp age. Also, summer camp freaking rules).
It seems that as technology changes the way we consume and access information, articles about the state of reading among young people emerge that have all the calm and reasoned tone of a Weather Channel meterologist in the middle of a snowstorm in July. Calm down already.
I was a heavy reader from the moment I figured out how. Until adulthood I specialized in thick heavy books that give educators a thrill.
I do not have any wonderpants, and I want some this instant. Where are my wonderpants?!
As an adult, I have gone pleasantly to pieces, and indulge my actual tastes. So I guess this is proof I shouldn’t have read the classics when I was younger, because it prepared me for a life of trashy reading.
Is Gone With the Wind literature? I always considered it too good to be literature. But then, I’m a history buff and it was the first view I ever had of the Confederacy from the inside. I still love that book. Though Scarlett was definitely in need of the gay best friend to tell her what’s what.
My view of reading and teens is based on my own 16yo boy. He is homeschooled so I have bookshelves filled to bursting with literature and pop fic alike. I have to teach him enough to cover English lit through high school, but I’m always surprised by the choices he makes, the opinions he forms, and the authors he likes. He is different from me as day is from night, but his brain is so fun to watch.
The one thing from the comments I’d point out is that kids aren’t being taught to read with any comprehension, to form an opinion, to analyze what they’re reading. It isn’t hard to teach them, but I have no trouble believing that freshman lit in college is full of wide-eyed high school grads who cannot make a well-documented argument on why the heroine of The Scarlet Letter didn’t just up and move to a new community.
But at that point? They’re in college. They will be taught.
You should snag a copy of The Read-Aloud Handbook. In it, Jim Trelease talks a great deal about the myth that reading the “wrong” books will make kids dumb. There’s a relevant excerpt here: Whatever happened to the classics? When I was a kid, we read Ivanhoe and Kidnapped and . . . (This bit starts near the bottom of the page.)
Also, check out what he wrote about Captain Underpants and Junie B. Jones.
I’m a firm believer that the first priority is to make reading fun for kids. If that means they get to read Captain Underpants books, so be it. No matter what they read – Twilight, Harry Potter, Battle of the Red Hot Pepper Weenies – they are increasing their vocabulary, learning how to spell, witnessing (hopefully) good grammar and sentence structure in action, even to a degree subconsciously absorbing an appreciation for plot, conflict, etc. Reading improves language skills, so it should be encouraged in whatever way necessary to make it a desirable habit.
That said, I do admit to a belief that it is important to introduce, encourage, and yea, maybe even “require” kids to read some classics. I say this not so much because I believe kids can’t be smart if they don’t read classics. For me, it’s more a matter of context. Classics form a sort of glue that binds us to a common frame of reference. They are a part of our history and our culture. I think it’s key for kids to maintain that connection. The themes and history and allegory found in classics are important to preserve if for nothing more than they serve as a snapshot on our culture’s evolutionary timeline. If we don’t pass them on to future generations, they will become lost.
Too, I think classics – on the whole – tend to require more processing than mainstream fiction. It’s like learning algebra – most people don’t need to solve quadratic equations on a daily basis. But knowing how to solve problems when you only have a limited amount of information/resources is a life skill that is crucial. Reading classics – looking for themes, identifying allegory, discussing conflict, character, plot – helps kids stretch their brains in ways that can only help them.
Problem is, who decides what is “classic”?
I really think people get way too invested over “classics”. Shakespeare and Dickens wrote for the masses, and opera and theater were entertainment for everyone, not just the elite.
There are some things people should read or know because it’s difficult to really comprehend or appreciate some things if you are not aware of them.
For instance,
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”
You have to know a little about Shakespeare and who Caesar is in order to understand that(and also know that not everything needs to be taken literally) but you’ll see versions and references to it outside the play.
Or, my personal example of cultural ignorance- never having had any exposure to the New Testament as a child, I was fifteen before I learned that the Narnia books were a Christian allegory. My lack of Biblical knowledge also meant that I missed out on understanding Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End. I can’t say that I have read the Bible cover to cover, but I don’t think anyone will argue that the Bible isn’t relevant. Heck, there was a cultural revolution to make it commonly available to people. Or that Romeo and Juliet’s “starcrossed lovers” didn’t have some kind of impact on the formation of Twilight.
The dichotomy of classics vs. “trash” is a false one, really. But there are good reasons to expose kids, and everyone, to a wide variety of books and points of view.
Famous Quote by Mark Twain: “A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.”
As a high school librarian I pulled all of my “classics” off the shelf and created a separate section for them. They were getting in the way and made it harder for kids to wade through and fine “the good stuff” as they put it. I didn’t throw them out, (because they’re “classics”) but I did move them.
Argh, I just typed up a whole comment and my machine ate it. I’ll retype, but if it ends up posting twice, my apologies. And, of course, the remark that got eaten was so much more eloquent etc than this one.
@Suze,
I totally agree that you can’t separate the personal from the historical, but by the same token, you can’t separate the historical from the personal. The tidbits that we find interesting/noteworthy/scandalous/titillating/whathaveyou don’t always mean the same things in the period they occurred that they mean for us. So, what the personal means is historically determined. That James liked to have attractive men around, and that Edward liked to have attractive men around, while to us might mean that James and Edward were both homosexuals, signified something else to contemporaries, and didn’t signify the same thing to James’ contemporaries, as it did to Edward’s. More a problem was that Edward showed what was seen as excessive favor to his purported lovers, and while James showed lots of favor to his favorites, it never tipped the balance into “let’s raise an army and rebel” territory. So, what looks to us, today, on the surface as similar characteristics of the two monarchs, looked to contemporaries pretty differently, and certainly inspired a very different type of response (can you tell I’m a professional historian? 🙂 ).
Anyway, since the discussion has gone elsewhere, I’ll stop being pointy-headed now unless asked for more.
Further famous quote by Mark Twain (about Huckleberry Finn): “Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.”
It is sometimes rather difficult to tell when Twain is being serious and when he is being ironic. But how nice that no student will accidentally pick up Geoffrey Chaucer when looking for John Connolly, or any of the other wonderful anomalies of alphabetically shelved novels. (For years as a kid I was happy that Hamlet and Black Beauty were next to each other. I finally deformed my alphabetical organization of books so that the prince and the thoroughbred could stay together. It seemed so appropriate.)
@kirsten – thank you because you gave great examples of exactly what I was talking about.
There are aspects of classics that have become a sort of short-hand that, if you have no background or understanding of those classics, end up being lost.
And since Mark Twain has been brought into the discussion, a perfect example is Tom Sawyer. I think the name/character/phrase “Tom Sawyer” serves as a short hand for our culture. If you describe someone as being a Tom Sawyer, I would guess most of us can form a very close idea of what that person is like. If, however, kids are never required to read Tom Sawyer, eventually that ability, that frame of reference will be lost.
Not to mention that Tom Sawyer is just a great book.
Famous Quote by Mark Twain: “A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.”
Further famous quote by Mark Twain (about Huckleberry Finn): “Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.”
This made me think of one we use on bookmarks for Banned Book Week