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?

  • Indifferent_JackdawBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    I’m Irish and the curriculum I had (13-18) was very poetry focused and I have to say I don’t think that is a bad thing. If you hate the poem, big deal, it usually only took minutes to read. Maybe you spent a week analyzing it in class, then you moved on to the next. Even the longer poems on our list like Paradise Lost we didn’t study the whole thing. The skills you develop analyzing poetry transfer very well to prose. Poetry is also really good at developing vocabulary because you do analyze every word and the nuances of those words.

    We also did a lot of plays. Which was a bit more tedious if you didn’t enjoy it. But at least they would take us to see the play if it was available which helped.

    When I was going to Primary School (5-12) our teacher used to read a story for the last hour on a Friday, but only if we were good. I now know it was because she was knackered and wanted a easy last hour of the working week. My sister remembers her reading The Hobbit and the class being obsessed. For me it was Dark is Rising and we wouldn’t say a word during that hour.