The Bane (and Blessing?) of Assigned Reading

[Extollager]

Over at another thread, Teresa Edgerton's comment

Ranking the Novels of Dickens

raised an issue really pertinent to the discussion of literary fiction. We've seen it here at Chrons again and again: interesting and sometimes kind of heartrending comments from people who were Turned Off to a given author (Dickens!) or genre (poetry!) by being compelled to read therein as a student.

Here is a place to tell of one's woes or wonderment as a student assigned to read some literary work or other. Was it the work itself? Was it the environment? Was it the teacher?

Did your thought about the work change upon a later encounter? Often people mention how they "hated," say, Shakespeare in school, but love Shakespeare now. But perhaps there were literary works you "had to" read that you liked then, say Poe, and now don't esteem.

NOTE: to keep this thread from becoming cluttered, please restrict your discussion on this thread to literary fiction. Please do not write about "YA" books such as The Outsiders, Twilight, Hunger Games, etc. If in doubt about whether something qualifies as literary fiction, you are probably safe in assuming it is not "literary fiction."

Examples of "literary fiction" that many people of my age and maybe even younger encountered in schools: various plays of Shakespeare; novels of Dickens; Scott's Ivanhoe; Twain stories; works by Robert Louis Stevenson; Golding's Lord of the Flies; Steinbeck's The Pearl; The Light in the Forest; Gibson's The Miracle Worker... and so on.

Here is a good place to muse about how the presentation of literary fiction (and poetry and drama) in schools might be made more appealing for various readers.

Thanks.

 

[Overread]

I think there's several things that come into play including, and not limited to;

1) Great literary works tend to be old, which means that the language they use tends to be a little "out of date". The style of writing, the meaning of some words, the tone the approach etc... This creates a barrier that I think is stronger in those who have likely not read as widely at a younger age unless they were predisposed to being a heavy reader in general. So the average student hasn't got the experience to relax into reading such novels as easily as many others.

2) Wrong medium. Shakespear stands out here because shakespear isn't a book, its a theatrical script. It's designed to be performed with actions not just read in a room. Whilst its not the only one used as such its the most common and the language used is an extra barrier and, again, rather an extreme example once again.

3) Little relation to modern life/fashions/themes. Many of these books were written "in situ" of their times or of previous times, so they are set within a world that is far removed from that which the readers grow up within. Now if you look at many books aimed at younger generations you often see that the ones which can be most popular can often be set within a world comparable to those times. Harry Potter is a great modern example of this.


All these things get easier with age provided that the reader is actually reading and starting to read wider afield. However at school not everyone is a keen reader, indeed many might not yet have found their love of books; whilst others are caught up in other interests. As a result when English class then pushes upon them the requirement to read its a burden, but its an extra heavy one because of the points raised earlier. There's so little to relate to; the language is more challenging (and even not correct by modern standards); the characters are often very far removed or presented oddly etc... Ergo there's little to grasp their attention and draw them in in an easily accessible fashion.

So its a challenge to get started and get immersed into these kind of books, but that isn't where it ends.

The next stage is analytical and here things get really rather daft to just plain annoying. Because the student doesn't just have to read, but interpret and analyse the book. This is something most people never do; most readers don't go off on tangents musing about how the sexuality of the writer influenced their gender associations within the book or some other such strange connections. The students are encouraged to go somewhat over the top in seeing things; the red of the curtains in chapter one hints at the bloody events to follow in chapter five; the blue carpet is the sea that divides the lovers in chapter six etc...
This level destroys immersion and enjoyment for many because you have to pull the book apart; plus you've typically got to be somewhat led by the teacher to ensure that you pull it apart in the correct manner that the mark scheme is going to give you points for.
This stage will often require re-reading segments; focusing on key parts and generally totally pulling you out of the story of the book. This can destroy the fun and engagement even for those students who did enjoy reading the book. The idea of this section of teaching is to ensure that the students actually did read the book and to also try and get them to think in a more critical fashion with a view toward the English language and writing.



Of course its not all doom and gloom and there are many students to take to this and love it. Who either start out loving it or grow to enjoy it through their further studies. However I do think that it does sit there as a barrier. At this age if students are not already avid readers its unlikely to instil within them a reading interest; or interest them in the classics as chosen by people far their senior and with vastly different reading tastes.
You could say one failing is that students are not encouraged to read more at younger ages; indeed I would say that until GCSE ages (ergo when you start getting this kind of reading assignments) the only time prior that students are really encouraged to read by the syllabus directly is when they are first learning to read. Between then and the "serious" reading there's a gap where its suggested, encouraged but not mandated; so the pressure to encourage dwindles.


Now one thing that does come into this is that as students get older their reading desires and choices, if they do keep reading, are going to change student to student. This seriously complicates things if you want to pick a more contemporary novel for them to read because what do you pick. The choices are legion and the range of books on offer vast to the point where if you force fantasy on them the non-fantasy lovers will hate it; etc... I think this is where something like Harry Potter suddenly starts to be suggested.
At first people think "wait what, why its a nice book but its not a "great literary work" as such. However they are simply looking at the language not the potential for its popularity across a wide segment of the student population. Ergo a book that is more likely to be actually read by the students (as opposed to the classics which are often skim read at best or read in class to ensure students to make it first to last page - coupled with heavy note taking). Indeed it wasn't till I started writing this post that I actually understood why such a book would be suggested.





EDIT - and because I kind of wandered off point I think - to get back to my experiences
The Go Between and Romeo and Juliet were the books we had to read.
Go Between was odd, difficult to enjoy and mostly we read the entire thing out loud in class (which showed up a few students who couldn't read out loud quite a bit). We seriously over-analysed it and by the end were convinced that the author was a total oddball and that the lead character was somewhat if not totally strange.

Romeo and Juliet was as Shakespeare is for most kids. A simplistic overall story woven with threads of hardly understandable English that feels far more difficult to read than it should be. As such all the complex literary interplays and such which are supposed to be within it mostly bounced right over the head.

I left the experience with a love of neither author nor any desire to really explore them further.

 

[Parson]

I don't know if I would ever have read things like "The Pit and the Pendulum" or "The Gift of the Magi" without being required to read them. On the whole I think requiring teenagers to read classics is a wise and wonderful choice.

 

[Toby Frost]

I don't feel as if school ruined any books for me, but I probably should be less willing to agree with my 17-year-old self. Generally, my English teachers were very good, and by then reading was enough of a hobby for me that I would have kept going even if the teachers had been very bad. I have my parents to thank for that.

Jane Austen's Persuasion persuaded me that what she had to say wasn't much to do with me in any way and, to be honest, I still don't think it is. The Mayor of Casterbridge put me off Thomas Hardy pretty much for good: even then it seemed clear that this was a pointlessly miserable book. 1984 and Brave New World were downbeat, but they had things to say: Casterbridge was miserable because Hardy seemed to feel it was more picturesque with a few well-meaning peasants lying dead in a ditch.

Seamus Heaney's poems didn't rhyme. He probably is pretty good, but I am still suspicious of poems that don't rhyme, because

Anything
Becomes poetry
If
You write it down
Like this.

I liked Hamlet and Macbeth, which both seemed very good. Likewise The Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, Oliver Twist, Animal Farm and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. I think I'd still like all of them.

The one that I ought to re-read is Howard's End by E.M. Forster. I hated it at the time: it seemed mannered and pompous, like an elderly relative telling you that you should be more cultured. The sheer amount that I loathed it makes me think that I was wrong.

 

[kythe]

My daughter is 17 and (like most teens!) dislikes Shakespeare. The language is so antiquated it needs to be explained, and some of the stories themselves have settings that are not relatable to a modern audience.

Last week I saw a local production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" through our Shakespeare in the Park organization. This makes the second time I have seen this play - I saw a different production of it once before, years ago. This is my favorite Shakespeare play, probably because I never read it in school. I've only seen it performed live.

I want to take my daughter to the next showing so she can experience Shakespeare as it was meant to be - watched, not read. I can't say if she will like it, but it is a different experience and worth doing at least once.

 

[Parson]

@kythe .... Please report back. I think she will at least have a greater appreciation for Shakespeare, even if not quite to the point where she could admit to "liking it."

 

[hitmouse]

I was lucky to have a brilliant English teacher for O levels. Made it all interesting, subversive, made us feel like clever, perspicacious, articulate teenagers when no-one else did. Was exacting in his criticism of our essays. He was really valued, and anything we read with him would probably have been ok. Merchant of Venice opened up its peculiar layers like an onion. Macbeth (plus Polanski film) was gruesome, arcane, and thrilling, and endlessly quotable. Ash on a Young Man's Sleeve was about a boy our age clearly articulating the thoughts going round in our heads (girls, artistic pretensions, political idealism.) The Aerodrome was better than 1984 (which we also read) because it was obscure. Down and Out in Paris and London was funny and an eye opener, and we loved Orwell for his commitment and conviction. Of Mice and Men was good but Death of a Salesman was great and The Crucible was even better.
All this was 35 years ago and I still remember how thrilling it was for us as a group. How lucky we were.

 

[soulsinging]

I think it's about knowing your audience/students, and finding things they can relate to. Even when I found Great Expectations to be overwrought and incredibly boring, I liked Shakespeare, who at least had some wit and some fun behind the tortured (later, as it turned out, poetic) language. Street urchins in the industrial revolution meant nothing to a bunch of teens who grew up under labor laws preventing them from even having jobs until 1-2 years after reading the book. Animal Farm and Huck Finn (fighting the man and racism) both were much easier to connect to as a teenager. Later in AP class we tackled Crime and Punishment, an in depth examination of guilt and justice that makes total sense in a Catholic school setting.

I recall reading the Pearl, and again finding it a pointless drudge... because again, I was a 14 year old suburban American and couldn't wrap my head around anyone KILLING someone over such a menial job. Now, a few decades later, I have East of Eden on my shelf and am incredibly excited about it. Because I've got some life context that can compare.

Granted, all students aren't alike, so what works for one won't always for another. But overall, books set in pre-automobile days are kind of by default going to seem slow and antiquated to Americans that grew up with highways and cell phones, so without a heavy dose of romance or adventure, I suspect it'd be an uphill battle to find an appreciate class.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

My English Teacher was fab - she even made Death of a Salesman something other than dull. We did Macbeth overlooking what was left of the castle that King Duncan died in (the historical character rather than the Shakespearean one) and she introduced us to Roman Polanski's film.

I fell in love with Lewis Grassic Gibbon, Sunset Song and the whole Scots Quair. It's a magical singsong book that I would never have picked up otherwise, but because I did it opened Doric literature and poetry to me.

The only work of literature she couldn't convince me on was Catcher in the Rye...

Oh and prior to that particular English teacher I was forced to read The Hobbit which is the first book I didn't finish.

 

[Randy M.]

I recall the soul-deadening works we read in grade school: A Separate Peace and Animal Farm were books I hated (the former rather more than the latter) probably because I was young and didn't want to know the world worked that way. My detestation bled over into our reading of Fahrenheit 451. Perhaps oddly, I ended up enjoying -- if that's the right word; maybe appreciating? -- The Old Man and the Sea, The Bell Jar and Catcher in the Rye (a book my daughter later read and liked as well, which prodded me to reread it and I still enjoyed it).

I loved Of Mice and Men like I loved the old Frankenstein (1931) movie, Lenny just another big innocent misunderstanding and so blundering through the world like a child and, really, who doesn't want to pet the bunny? Because of that I tolerated Steinbeck's The Pearl and tepidly liked The Red Pony.

Julius Caesar was boring until he was stabbed but MacBeth was a terrific crime story, like film noir before I knew what film noir was, even though I already liked it (they had to fill the TV hours with something back then, so there were lots of old movies). And in 5th grade (as I recall) for Halloween the teacher's student assistant dressed all in black, blacked out the classroom windows and sat at a table covered with a black cloth on which were lit two candles in tall candle holders and read us "The Tell-Tale Heart." Whoa, was that great! Somewhere around that time we also read "The Most Dangerous Game" and between those two I was off and running at reading mysteries and horror stories.


Randy M.

 

[Montero]

Well, for me, it was Dickens - and still is. My otherwise wonderful English teacher got ecstatic about how with a one sentence description Dickens captured a personality I remember something about "a mouth like a letter box" - and how he used that to identify them on subsequent appearances. Still can't stick Dickens.
One fun thing from the English teacher was us reading Donne - "Busy old fool, unruly sun." and as teenagers working out the meaning of the poem was the writer wanting the sun to bog off, because he'd rather stay in bed with his lover. That was unexpected. In English class. Adults admitting they "do it". Hherm.

Shakespeare, Austen both great. Funnily enough did Julius Caesar at school - I loved the grandiose language - "bestriding like a Colossus". I saw it many years later in the theatre as a Mussolini era production which worked quite well.
In my teens I actually used to read Shakespeare's comedies for pleasure (my parents were keen and had them on their book shelves) - especially fond of Much Ado About Nothing. Still not read his tragedies and probably won't.

Hardy - wasn't assigned - tried The Choir (if I am remembering title correctly) which I liked for the information on how the village worked and the choir would have been and the feel of the country year, and disliked most of the characters. Only ever finished that one Hardy and never again.

 

[kythe]

I'm pleased to report that my 17 year old daughter actually enjoyed the live performance of "A Midsummer Night's Dream". I didn't know if she would like it, but I told her that of all the boring Shakespeare plays she's read in high school, it's worth at least viewing a story in its proper medium.

To my pleasant surprise, she said this is the first Shakespeare work she has actually enjoyed. "A Midsummer Night's Dream" is light and funny, in contrast to some of the tragedies which are required school reading. The actors engage with the audience before and after the show, still greatly in character, which helps people connect with them.

I still believe if people had more of this type of interaction with Shakespeare instead of dry required reading, it would be far more memorable and enjoyable.

 

[Extollager]

I teach a college-level Shakespeare course, and find that usually students seem to approach it with a good attitude. Something good seems to have happened for them, since they seem always to have encountered Shakespeare in high school. However, there has been talk about dropping the Shakespeare course and just including Shakespeare in a British literature survey.

 

[Parson]

I teach a college-level Shakespeare course, and find that usually students seem to approach it with a good attitude. Something good seems to have happened for them, since they seem always to have encountered Shakespeare in high school. However, there has been talk about dropping the Shakespeare course and just including Shakespeare in a British literature survey.

Bad idea.

 

[Danny McG]

It's mentioned in this thread about the reading aloud, I know I moaned about in another thread in here.
In my early teens I was a voracious reader, I often stayed at my grandmothers and she had shelves full of Dickens, Scott etc.

Many a night I went to bed with one of these weighty tomes, therefore when we started them in class I was already well familiar with most of them, leaving me to shrug and re-read them.
This caused problems for me when the reading out happened, some kids who clearly read nothing but TV guides or football magazines now found themselves struggling with long words.
I tuned them out and was often several chapters ahead (or reading a totally different book!) when I'd be called by the teacher to stand and take my turn.

Frequently scolded at that point for "not keeping up" and then have some lumbering moron smirking at me for being, in his limited world, slower than he was.
Of course when it came to exam times the same moron, without any sense of irony, would then deride me for being a 'swot and teacher's pet' for doing better than him.

All in all I wasn't fond of assigned reading, I still fail to see how it helped me in any way at all

 

[hitmouse]

A letter Albert Camus wrote to his schoolteacher when he won the Nobel Prize for literature. Presumably the original was not in English.

 

[Extollager]

I'm finishing a fourth reading of Great Expectations. I might have encountered this novel first in a severely abridged version that the class was reading in 9th grade as the school year ended, and that we didn't finish (?). (If anyone here remembers a thick English textbook for use in 9th grade in the 1960s, that contained this Dickens material, please say so. I'd like to track it down.) It was a good experience that must have helped to dispose me favorably towards Dickens when the time came to read what he actually wrote.

 

[Caliban]

We read

Lord of the Flies - I was vaguely interested at the time and now I love William Golding and have read more of his novels since. So it took a while but it worked.

Blood Brothers - Really Loved at the time and still have fond memories though I haven’t read it since. We even watched it performed at school.

Of Mice and Men - Enjoyed studying this and have since been inspired to read another novella by Steinbeck called The Moon is Down.

Poetry of Elizabeth Barrett Browning - I can’t reme much good or bad about her poetry, except that it was definitely her. Never been very good at poetry. I’m probably too stupid for it.


Generally though English made me want to read more. Also if I wasn’t enjoying something I would attribute this to me not being clever enough and i would try to understand better rather than blame the text. To this day reading good reviews of a work helps me to read something I’m not enjoying.

 

[Cathbad]

I don't know if I would ever have read things like "The Pit and the Pendulum" or "The Gift of the Magi" without being required to read them. On the whole I think requiring teenagers to read classics is a wise and wonderful choice.

Yes and No. It depends on the teacher.

Want a "horror" story? We were assigned Moll Flanders in my 12th grade Humanities class. I was intrigued! Read the entire book in one evening! We were given a quiz the following day. I received a D. I don't get D's. I waited patiently until the end of class, then approached the teacher. "Mrs. Byrd? Why did you count all these answers wrong? I'm sure you know they were correct!" Mrs. Byrd throws her pen hard down on her desk, and responds angrily, "Yes, they were correct; but for later in the book! You were assigned only the first fifty pages, and you shouldn't have read any farther!" Me: "Mrs. Byrd, I loved the book! I could write you a full report on it?" Her: "I don't care how you felt about it! Maybe next time, you'll follow instructions!"

Yeah. Right. Teacher (after my receiving 6 more D's): "Haven't you even read the assignment!?" Me: "Every word, Mrs. Byrd. Though I can't tell you exactly what page Moll thought this way, then changed, I am sure of one thing: I haven't answered a single one of these questions incorrectly."

Yeah - I was a stubborn one!

Teachers like this turn students off reading. Luckily, I had already decided that I would learn, despite the best efforts of my teachers, and one of the three worst school systems in the USA.

 

[J Riff]

The Death of a Salesman's Son's Lover? Something like that, I fit it in between Asimov and Zelazny, can't remember a thing.