The library thread up in Writing Novels rekindled my ire toward the literary canon of the American education system. I can't speak to the nature of other systems, and my personal experience is from being in public schools in the 70s and 80s. I also have some second-hand knowledge of what is taught currently, as my wife taught in both public and private elementary schools and preschools through 2005, my mother-in-law taught at a public high school level until her retirement last year, and my sister-in-law currently works in the office of a public junior high. Finally, I've got a whole bunch of nieces and nephews in various stages of public elementary-junior high. It's not in any way a comprehensive view of the American school system, but I think it's likely a fairly representative one. Your mileage may vary.
This is what I have noted :
Once you get past the very basic levels of reading, at about the junior high/middle school level, and into high school, the literary selections, for the most part, fall into some fairly rigid categories.
1) They are all originally written in English, almost exclusively by American or British authors. This always confounded me as a child. Here we are learning about the world at large in every class, yet we are spoonfed an incredibly limited subset of literature. Sure, you can learn all about the Czech republic in history, Dvorak in music, and Mach in science, but when it's time for lit, don't go looking for the Capeks.
Still, I can see reasons for that particular failing. If you need translations, everyone needs to have the same translation. And somebody has to decide which translation to use. It's more work that somebody has to do. It's not a good excuse, but I could see where there might be hesitation.
2) Outside of Shakespeare (and even within Shakespeare, to an extent), works tend to be fairly simplistic in both vocabulary and style (Hemingway is a prime example). Neither of those particularly bother me, mind you, and, in fact, I am very fond of quite a few authors that fit that description. However, there are other styles out in the world, and, yes, your honors level kids in high school are able to read those big words, make sense of complex sentences, and follow intricate plots. Speaking of plots...
3) Plots and characters tend to be simple and direct. Some (me) would call them forced. (I'm looking at you, Melville. Billy Budd? Billy Budd?!) Symbolism, which is everywhere, is blatant and impossible to miss. This is the one that makes me believe that the "literary canon" has nothing to do with actual literature, but rather the teaching of the analysis of literature. If a brilliant book came along that had, God forbid, subtle symbolism, and half the class didn't pick up on it and stared blankly ahead when it was explained, it wouldn't serve the purpose. So we get Joe Christmas. Try to miss that one. Go ahead, I dare you.
Furthermore, themes tend toward things academians believe children can relate to and comprehend. That's why we get Romeo and Juliet (ugh) and not King Lear or some other far superior work.
4) Novels and short stories rule the day. Poetry gets an occasional blip. Drama is limited to Shakespeare, because, as we all know, he was the only one that ever wrote a play. The only essays you'll ever read in school are the ones that you write for tests. Some other forms of writing are available, but not presented as literature. You have biographies, histories, and scientific texts, but they are offered strictly as informational.
5) The canon never changes. It's the same now as it was when I was in school. It's the same now as when my father was in school. I'm pretty sure some perfectly valid literature has come along since my father was in high school. I bet some of it even fits the other criteria of American or Brits writing simple, direct stories in English. But those stories never seem to slip in. The odd thing here is that they do work their way in at the lowest levels. There seems to be a pretty good influx of new material in the elementary schools, at least.
Relating back to the library thread, this is part of the danger of not weeding out those books that nobody reads. How many great books are out there in the world that could replace them, but never see the light of day, because we need seven copies of The Pickwick Papers collecting dust on the shelf?
I believe there are several ugly consequences of this narrow selection of literature. Most people would see the biggest problem is that it turns a lot of kids away from what they think is literature when they might have otherwise enjoyed it if they had a little broader selection. I do believe that is a problem, but I also know firsthand that a motivated reader can hate damn near everything they read in school (to the point where they still foam at the mouth ranting about it years later) and still find good literature elsewhere. To me, the biggest tragedy is that some people who do enjoy the types of works that are taught in school often accept that they are indeed the gold standard of literature. This can lead them to either eschew other kinds of literature or to be completely indiscriminatory.
Anyway, for those that were interested, that's my three cents on the subject. You may fire when ready.
This is what I have noted :
Once you get past the very basic levels of reading, at about the junior high/middle school level, and into high school, the literary selections, for the most part, fall into some fairly rigid categories.
1) They are all originally written in English, almost exclusively by American or British authors. This always confounded me as a child. Here we are learning about the world at large in every class, yet we are spoonfed an incredibly limited subset of literature. Sure, you can learn all about the Czech republic in history, Dvorak in music, and Mach in science, but when it's time for lit, don't go looking for the Capeks.
Still, I can see reasons for that particular failing. If you need translations, everyone needs to have the same translation. And somebody has to decide which translation to use. It's more work that somebody has to do. It's not a good excuse, but I could see where there might be hesitation.
2) Outside of Shakespeare (and even within Shakespeare, to an extent), works tend to be fairly simplistic in both vocabulary and style (Hemingway is a prime example). Neither of those particularly bother me, mind you, and, in fact, I am very fond of quite a few authors that fit that description. However, there are other styles out in the world, and, yes, your honors level kids in high school are able to read those big words, make sense of complex sentences, and follow intricate plots. Speaking of plots...
3) Plots and characters tend to be simple and direct. Some (me) would call them forced. (I'm looking at you, Melville. Billy Budd? Billy Budd?!) Symbolism, which is everywhere, is blatant and impossible to miss. This is the one that makes me believe that the "literary canon" has nothing to do with actual literature, but rather the teaching of the analysis of literature. If a brilliant book came along that had, God forbid, subtle symbolism, and half the class didn't pick up on it and stared blankly ahead when it was explained, it wouldn't serve the purpose. So we get Joe Christmas. Try to miss that one. Go ahead, I dare you.
Furthermore, themes tend toward things academians believe children can relate to and comprehend. That's why we get Romeo and Juliet (ugh) and not King Lear or some other far superior work.
4) Novels and short stories rule the day. Poetry gets an occasional blip. Drama is limited to Shakespeare, because, as we all know, he was the only one that ever wrote a play. The only essays you'll ever read in school are the ones that you write for tests. Some other forms of writing are available, but not presented as literature. You have biographies, histories, and scientific texts, but they are offered strictly as informational.
5) The canon never changes. It's the same now as it was when I was in school. It's the same now as when my father was in school. I'm pretty sure some perfectly valid literature has come along since my father was in high school. I bet some of it even fits the other criteria of American or Brits writing simple, direct stories in English. But those stories never seem to slip in. The odd thing here is that they do work their way in at the lowest levels. There seems to be a pretty good influx of new material in the elementary schools, at least.
Relating back to the library thread, this is part of the danger of not weeding out those books that nobody reads. How many great books are out there in the world that could replace them, but never see the light of day, because we need seven copies of The Pickwick Papers collecting dust on the shelf?
I believe there are several ugly consequences of this narrow selection of literature. Most people would see the biggest problem is that it turns a lot of kids away from what they think is literature when they might have otherwise enjoyed it if they had a little broader selection. I do believe that is a problem, but I also know firsthand that a motivated reader can hate damn near everything they read in school (to the point where they still foam at the mouth ranting about it years later) and still find good literature elsewhere. To me, the biggest tragedy is that some people who do enjoy the types of works that are taught in school often accept that they are indeed the gold standard of literature. This can lead them to either eschew other kinds of literature or to be completely indiscriminatory.
Anyway, for those that were interested, that's my three cents on the subject. You may fire when ready.
