There's something funny about reading books for school. The books you read in class 100% of the time come from some 'must read' list. Newbery winners in elementary school, Pulitzer prize winners later. Every book you touch has been pre-approved by a committee (or ten) who declares that this book is a classic. By reading it, you will learn more about humanity, about society, about philosophy, etc. Basically, reading and comprehending this book will make you a better human being.
Generally, I agree. Most of the books I've read in class really are classics, and I really do enjoy reading them (sometimes only after re-reading them as an adult. Lord of the Flies was terrifying in seventh grade. At twenty-five I think it's genius).
But there are exceptions. There are books I've read that are allegedly 'classics' that I either couldn't stand or just didn't like. I put Lolita down almost immediately after opening it. Pedophilia is not my thing. I found The King Must Die to be little more than glorified pornography. And The Stranger? I could tell the writing is fantastic, but I just didn't enjoy reading the book.
I can say that now, but in school it was a different ball game. If we were reading it in class (especially in Honors/AP high school courses and college) it was a classic. You didn't argue. If you didn't like it, it's simply because you're a philistine.
And so I dragged myself through books, trying to convince myself that I really did enjoy them. There's nothing an English major dreads more than misplacing value on literature. We like Ulysses. We hate Twilight. Got it?
After I graduated, it was a strange sensation to realize I could read whatever I wanted! That kind of freedom is a little intimidating after decades of guided reading (not that I didn't read on my own before--I did). But the greatest revelation I had was that I didn't have to like what I read, even if it was 'a classic.' And so what if I read Twilight and happened to like it, despite the terrible, terrible writing? Does that really make me a hopeless neanderthal?
I think there is a definite need for guided reading. Without a teacher assigning books, 80% of kids would never touch them. And I can tell you from experience that exposure to good writing will forever ruin your taste for bad writing. Thank heaven. But once you've learned to recognize what is good and what is not, stop worrying about what other people think of the books you like. You don't have to justify your taste. Even to a book-snob like me.
4 comments:
oh what strides, Megan. ;) (you know I just like to tease you about the book snob thing.)
This past week, my friend and I (who both use Charlotte Mason philosophy for HS, which focuses on "living books" and not using "twaddle") were having a conversation pretty close to what you expressed in this post. I was telling her how much Garrett loves reading Ricky Ricotta's Giant Robot and Captain Underpants. yes, its not high quality literature. But its fun! I told her about a book I read that examined why boys do so badly with reading, compared to girls. Its an interesting topic with lots to say on it. Boys need different types of books then girls. What appeals to them is much different then what appeals to girls (normally). Almost all the books on the "must read" book lists are "girly" books- books that appeal to girls and not so much to boys. (After all, most librarians and teachers are female, sorry to say.) Our poor boys...they have some roadblocks places before them. Anyway... I was telling her that the one reason why I was slow to warm up to Charlotte Mason approach was that it seems to me a lot of the people who subscribe to her philosophy are "books snobs." I want my son (and myself) exposed to great literature on a regular bases. But, man, Captain Underpants, is just darn fun. And I sure do love reading my Christian Romance novels. And shouldn't reading be about fun too? ;)
Balance in everything?
I definitely agree--reading should be fun! Most of the great literature is beautiful, but it's definitely not all fun. Which is why I read Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games! Although I'm still squarely in the 'Harry Potter IS great literature' camp...
PS--Dawn, you'd better keep a list of good 'boy books'--I'll be asking you for them sooner than I want to think about!
I love this post because I like to read all sorts of trash mixed with great lit. One of my favorite quotes by one of my favorite authors (it's long but I'm pasting it here anyway):
"Please stop patronizing those who are reading a book - The Da Vinci Code, maybe- because they are enjoying it. For a start, none of us know what kind of an effort this represents for the individual reader. It could be his or her first full-length adult novel; it might be the book that finally reveals the purpose and joy of reading to someone who has hitherto been mystified by the attraction books exert on others. And anyway, reading for enjoyment is what we should all be doing. I don't mean we should all be reading chick lit or thrillers (although if that's what you want to read, it's fine by me, because here's something no one else will tell you: if you don't read the classics, or the novel that won this year's Booker Prize, then nothing bad will happen to you; more importantly,nothing good will happen to you if you do); I simply mean that turning pages should not be like walking through thick mud. The whole purpose of books is that we read them, and if you find you can't, it might not be your inadequacy that's to blame. "Good" books can be pretty awful sometimes."
— Nick Hornby (From Housekeeping vs. The Dirt)
Post a Comment