I’ve seen more than a few comments on other posts talking about how forcing middle schoolers and high schoolers to read dry and inaccessible literature (even if it’s important) spoiled their love for reading, or put some people off of reading for good.
Now I’m not a US native so my impressions regarding the US “required reading” education is second-hand, but I’ve had this talk with an American friend multiple times. He absolutely detested having to read The Scarlet Letter and As I Lay Dying and The Catcher In The Rye and said it basically ruined literature for him for 10 years.
I totally get that. And it’s similar in Germany where I went to school - you read some really old texts for their historic importance and to learn about the evolution of literature, and then some more contemporary ones which can be… dry. Not what you want to be reading at 14 or 15 or 16. But at the same time I think there is value in exposing teenagers to literature that they otherwise might never pick up, especially older literature and classics. Maybe nine out of ten kids will hate it, but it might be an eye-opening experience for one in ten. And I mean, some of the point of school is just to expose you to things so you can learn what interests you and what doesn’t.
So I’m torn on this. Personally I liked most of the stuff I had to read in middle school and high school, but then I was a voracious reader and very interested in (art) history and philosophy and all kinds of nerdy things. I was wondering what this (book-positive, literature focused) subreddit thinks? Should all literature education be opt-in, or is there value in making everybody give it at least a fair shot? Should education in literature be done differently? Are there any books that you had to read that you think are particularly bad or good choices?
I taught high school English/Literature for over a decade. My students were always the most engaged when they got to choose(duh.) I’d give them a list of 4-6 books that were thematically linked, then they would choose and sit with those reading the same book. They controlled nearly everything: the pacing at which they read, what they talked about on discussion days, etc. it was GREAT. They got way more out of those units than when they were forced to read a book they didn’t choose. There are a couple of exceptions(Perks of Being a Wallflower and Hamlet were always hits), but giving them agency was crucial to their enjoyment.
There are some texts that it helps to be familiar with because they’re referenced so much, but honestly I think it’s stupid to force kids to read books just because they’re “classics,” and it’s especially hard for students who grew up in adverse conditions/without access to resources and don’t read very well. Forcing a kid in that situation to read Faulkner or some other dead white guy is cruel.