spin off- what would you consider the "canon' in lit these days?

[Anonymous]

like the title says- which books/authors do you assume most people would have read by the time they are finished?

I think a lot of people have the misfortune of not getting assigned any Austen -b/c the patriarchy- but also id find it easy to believe that most under 50s these days have read no dickens or twain at all. kids nowadays read no Shakespeare at all as well.

I was surprised that so many people hadn't read Gatsby in the original since it was assigned to us as "The Great American Novel" but then I never got assigned any Hemingway!

I'd say that I think people should have a passing familiarity with shakepeares' work, Austen, Elliot, the Russians as group (maybe at least read some short stories) same with the Nigerian and Indian writers - should know the post colonial literature as a category and some names and themes like know who Jamaica Kincaid is at least. Yeats, Auden, Keats, ee Cummings , Salinger b/c I like his work and rich kids are people too. Dickens, twain .. if you don't know these you miss out on references in current literature . I think the purpose of a literary 'canon" is it is a body of work that we can use as a common reference point and better inhabit the role of the "implied reader"

[Anonymous]

Schools (at least around DC) have made an effort to include a wider range of contemporary authors and diverse authors. This leave less room for the largely white, male canon that we read in the 90s. I think it's great. There's no way to read all the books, and maybe reading books that feel more relevant and are still excellent will spark a love of reading in a kid that Hemingway or Great Gatsby or Dickens wouldn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools (at least around DC) have made an effort to include a wider range of contemporary authors and diverse authors. This leave less room for the largely white, male canon that we read in the 90s. I think it's great. There's no way to read all the books, and maybe reading books that feel more relevant and are still excellent will spark a love of reading in a kid that Hemingway or Great Gatsby or Dickens wouldn't.

❤️

[Anonymous]

Reading Hemingway in high school left me with a string dislike of Hemingway. Not a love for literature.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you OP— I think the Russians are blind spot in many American schools and that it’s crazy someone may never read Austen. I thought my high school had a great lit program and I still didn’t read any Austen until college. My high school had some representation of post-colonial lit and I hope that this has continued.

I’m surprised by the Gatsby thing because Gatsby is kind of perfect for high school readers— very short, simply written (though rich with metaphor/meaning to dissect), funny, and modern. I was assigned a good amount of Hemingway. I think he excels at short stories though— not the novels we were assigned.

And at least a few works of Shakespeare should be read in high school, IMHO. The works are foundational to modern English language/storytelling.

[Anonymous]

"Read Gatsby in the original"

The original what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you OP— I think the Russians are blind spot in many American schools and that it’s crazy someone may never read Austen. I thought my high school had a great lit program and I still didn’t read any Austen until college. My high school had some representation of post-colonial lit and I hope that this has continued.

I’m surprised by the Gatsby thing because Gatsby is kind of perfect for high school readers— very short, simply written (though rich with metaphor/meaning to dissect), funny, and modern. I was assigned a good amount of Hemingway. I think he excels at short stories though— not the novels we were assigned.

And at least a few works of Shakespeare should be read in high school, IMHO. The works are foundational to modern English language/storytelling.

A ton of the high school English class canon seems to be chosen for being short. I get it, but it's funny that lots of people read Ethan Frome which is not at all like the rest of Wharton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools (at least around DC) have made an effort to include a wider range of contemporary authors and diverse authors. This leave less room for the largely white, male canon that we read in the 90s. I think it's great. There's no way to read all the books, and maybe reading books that feel more relevant and are still excellent will spark a love of reading in a kid that Hemingway or Great Gatsby or Dickens wouldn't.

Not true, though. My kids have read all of the authors OP mentioned and a full range of diverse an international authors as well. I think the problem is that some schools don't assign enough reading. There was plenty of time for my kids to real all of this from middle through high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you OP— I think the Russians are blind spot in many American schools and that it’s crazy someone may never read Austen. I thought my high school had a great lit program and I still didn’t read any Austen until college. My high school had some representation of post-colonial lit and I hope that this has continued.

I’m surprised by the Gatsby thing because Gatsby is kind of perfect for high school readers— very short, simply written (though rich with metaphor/meaning to dissect), funny, and modern. I was assigned a good amount of Hemingway. I think he excels at short stories though— not the novels we were assigned.

And at least a few works of Shakespeare should be read in high school, IMHO. The works are foundational to modern English language/storytelling.

A ton of the high school English class canon seems to be chosen for being short. I get it, but it's funny that lots of people read Ethan Frome which is not at all like the rest of Wharton.

I don’t disagree (especially about Wharton)! I think it’s partially a function of not enough time/too many books. I think some schools were heading towards assigning passages or sections from books so that they could do a wider survey, but that’s also a disservice to a reader.

[Anonymous]

Even in my high school in the 1980s there were inconsistencies in the same grade levels. I was always in the honors English track and yet I never got Animal Farm or Hemingway. I read Animal Farm as an adult and liked it a lot. Ethan Frome was taught in the College Prep classes but not in my tier, so I missed it. I gather it was thoroughly miserable.

I think Romeo and Juliet is still nearly universally covered.

[Anonymous]

Interesting that you mention Austen OP. Jane Austen's Bookshelf by Rebecca Romney is eye opening about how Austen's own women author influences have been stripped from the canon. Seems like deleting Austen from standard reading takes this even further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that you mention Austen OP. Jane Austen's Bookshelf by Rebecca Romney is eye opening about how Austen's own women author influences have been stripped from the canon. Seems like deleting Austen from standard reading takes this even further.

I think Austen is more popular now than when I was in high school in the 1980s.

I got a copy of Pride & Prejudice out of the Scholastic Books pamphlet when I was in 7th grade. I read it but because I was a kid, I couldn't really appreciate the romantic nature of the plot. I'd already read some Regency romances. By comparison, not much action happens in an Austen romance. It helps to be a grownup to understand the mores and restrained behavior.

That said, I don't remember anybody my age telling me they had read Austen for a high school class back then.

I think the high production values of more modern film and t.v. adaptations have helped spur more interest. As well as derivatives like the Austenland properties and various published semi-derivative books by modern authors.