What children are reading–and not
May 5, 2008, 5:27 pm
Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
Today’s Washington Post has an article about a recent survey of what grade-school and high-school students are reading. Not having any children and being of a certain age, I am not familiar with most of the books mentioned. I was amused by the comment of the man who was reassured that some of the classics he read as a child are still being read. It could seem that “classic” here means “what I read as a child.” It reminds me of the couple who, asked what kind of music they might want for their wedding, replied: “Oh, one of the classics, like ‘On Eagle’s Wings.’” The texts for high-school seemed rather thin to me. Does anyone read Dickens any more?
I think Dickens is still popular among street urchins, but they probably do not get much chance to take online tests of reacing comprehension and so got left out of this survey.
Oliver Twist did make the list (#18) of books popular among 9-12th graders who are among the top 10% performers in reading, just ahead of Ender’s Game and The Fellowship of the Ring. OT was also the second most difficult book on the lists, after The Scarlet Letter which was popular among 9-12th graders in the South.
Do you have a better definition for “a classic” than “what I read as a child”(and is still being read)?
An eight-year old of my acquaintance is on vol. 5 of Harry Potter (2nd time around, first time read by parents), reads Asterix and Obelyzk (sp?), a french or belguim comic-like saga throwing the Romans out of Gaul (multi-volumes, anti-imperialist), and there are some narnia-like volumes as well as a series about Dragon education.
I certainly hope he will get onto Dickens in due time, Dickens being one of the all time great reads.
The characters in Lee’s TKAM are all older or younger than high school. I think that’s fine; sometimes publishers seem too concerned with having heroes of the same age as the (young) audience.
My own definition of a “classic” is a book that says something so profound about the human condition that the reader is willing to overlook archaic forms and language.
Our son loved “Huck Finn” when we read it to him in the fourth grade. Dickens is a tough sell, though he liked “A Christmas Carol.”
He has also read “Holes” and “The Giver,” two books that I hope will BE classics one day. Fr. K., you should read them if you haven’t!
I could also write a short dissertation on similar imagery and theme in “Horton Hears a Who” and Julian of Norwich’s “Divine Revelations.”
But I’ll spare you.
I incline to give a definition of a “classic” along the lines that Jean suggests. I’d want something more than lasting for twenty or thirty years.
Jean, I’ve never even heard of “Holes” and “The Giver.”
More about Dickens in another post.
I’ll second the “classic” title for Holes.
Is there, as one commentator in the article suggests, an overemphasis on fiction? At what point should teachers and libraries begin catering to interests and aptitudes?
I should have begun serious reading in theology in junior high; it was a clearly defined interest. My best friend could have begun extracurricular anatomy and physiology studies at that time as well. But for free reading in school, we had a selection of fiction.
My son has the advanced reading program (mentioned in the story) in his school, and it includes fiction and non-fiction. He was stuck on astronomy for awhile, but got in trouble for writing “WRONG!” next to all the paragraphs that said Pluto was the outermost planet.
My big beef with ARP, though, is that it tests comprehension, not the ability to analyze what’s been read. In fact, it works against analysis because the kids have to set high goals, and move quickly from one book to another to meet the goal.
Devouring books is all well and good, but I think the reason reading dwindles in later years is because nobody bothers to engage the kids with the ideas in them. But schools love ARP because it hikes up their standardized test scores (which also test only comprehension), and that helps ensure their funding allocations under various state regs and No Child Left Behind.
Which is why we made sure we read “Huck Finn” at home.
Nonfiction was probably excluded by the data collection process. In any event, it would be hard for a single subject work to earn a place among the top 20. (but is Wiesel’s Night fiction?)
Science fiction would have been excluded for similar reasons when I was young, but it has a healthy presence on these lists.
“A “classic” is a book that says something so profound about the human condition that the reader is willing to overlook archaic forms and language.” This strikes me as a romantic definition of a classic, and not easily used. Does Dickens cease to be a classic if too many are unwilling to overlook archaic forms and language? Shakespeare? Chaucer?
And how does one judge modern works? I rememer Number the Stars more vividly than The Giver, and would probably choose that as a classic. Or The Bridge to Terabithia, The Outsiders, and a number of other things sprinkled through the lists. Harry Potter maybe, but it appears repeatedly, as does Lemony Snicket, for faddish reasons, not for its classic qualities.
I guess I am more inclined to accept the more democratic definition offered initially — something I read as a classic in my youth, that is still read today. It must have said something profound to someone, or it would not still be around.
To be young again…
Glad Dickens is a consernsus choice here and delighted to se Mark Twain mentioned.
What about Fennimore Cooper? RL Stevenson?
I must be getting old…
Jim McK, I am heartily offended, offended, I say! to have anybody refer to anything I’ve written as “romantic.”
But I would say that a classic ceases to be a classic if nobody reads it anymore, though people can “rediscover:” it. That’s been known to happen. Shakespeare wasn’t particularly popular in the 18th Century until Samuel Johnson took him up and talked about his being “not for an age, but for all time.”
Walter Ong has some good things to say on this topic.