Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a college English major and I’ve read and loved all types of literature. I think we need to separate different kinds of “hard,” because one matters and the other is a distraction. One reason Dickens is hard is the antique language. When Bleak House was written it was the beach read of the times - it wasn’t considered difficult. Because it was written in the vernacular. I see no real urgency in making sure people can read Shakespeare or Chaucer. Should English majors? Yes, even if they don’t love it, they should read some of where our language and literature came from.

All kids should be taught how to read, analyze, and understand meaningful text, though. Plot, metaphor, argument, character development, voice…those are all important. I’m not particularly fussed, though, about what sort of books kids read in order to understand those things, though. Pride and Prejudice is chick lit, but “hard” to read because of language. Harry Potter is easy to read because of its simple language written for children, but it can serve just fine to train kids to identify the important elements in literature and enjoy them.

I wonder if this study had used modern literature - say, The Kite Runner, Life of Pi, etc - whether they would have had different results. Archaic language doesn’t making literature better, it just makes it old.

I agree, well written. Archaic language turns a lot of kids off. There are so many quality books written in the last hundred years that are overlooked because they won’t let go of Shakespeare.

I like fiction with stories that happened during a significant time in history. A family living in Alabama in 1963 for example. There are excellent quality books about the civil rights movement or the Holocaust that have much more value than yet another Shakespeare play.

Here's the value in the Shakespeare play and Dickens and Homer that you don't get in a well-written modern book (most especially a well-written completely contemporary book): temporal bandwidth. Cultures from the past thought differently about things than us, had different blind spots than we do, had different values than we do, thought different things were sins than we do, thought different things were admirable than we do. Sometimes they were right about their differences and we are currently wrong. Having that temporal bandwidth gives kids a chance to assess modern culture in a way they simply can't if they aren't exposed to the past. And there's no better way to get exposed to the past than fiction, myths and fairy stories, and possibly poetry. Essays and history are simply just not going to give that up-close-and-personal view of the values of a time period.

If we could hear the perspectives of future cultures they'd be valuable for the same reason, but we can't. If we could talk to people from pre-literate cultures in the past that too would be amazing, but we can't. All we have is writing. And we should use it. Even if it's hard work.

It’s a whole big world out there but when I was in school we only focused on Western Civilization. Why not expand and start to limit books from England. You mentioned Homer and Dickens and they are readable for high school students. Shakespeare isn’t and plowing through ancient English serves no purpose. Asian authors should be studied. Tang Xianzu has a play translated into readable English. A nice substitute for Shakespeare whose works should be retired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:English major here: I think this is a combination of phones and screens, which have killed reading for pleasure in many kids, and the fact that teaching of literature has become “politics by other means” and now almost entirely centers concern about inclusion and contemporary obsession with questions of identity at the expense of teaching challenging works. When you swap out The Scarlet Letter for some sort of Y.A.-level story about the challenges facing Identity Group X, it will have pedagogical impacts.

The Scarlet Letter is an overwrought and depressing story that relies on a visceral caring about social norms that have less power now. I agree that the current curriculum default is to assign identity politics literature. However, replacing long dreadful works with shorter dreadful works isn't going to fix things. Vanity Fair or Pride and Prejudice would be better choices.

My personal wish is to add more autobiography (including from diverse authors). I think real people do a better job of conveying their perspectives and struggles than fiction. It helps so much with the authenticity question. The difficulty of comprehending the writing would naturally vary based on the vintage of the material.

I also think getting kids interested in reading the type of writing found in the New Yorker would be useful. My own kid picked up a lot about voice and style from reading it during high school. The articles in the New Yorker are at a level that's reasonable for college grads who don't go into academia.

I've read a lot of the most acclaimed classic novels and liked very few of them. I'm not fond of depressing subject matter. A lot of them are dramatically tragic. I don't mind that they are long. They just aren't enjoyable enough.

I obviously can't defend my reading skills very well over the internet, but I had a 780V, am a PBK, and took a writing-intensive senior English seminar as a junior in college. I'm sure I would have at least made it into the top bracket of that Kansas reading study.

The way back from today's low baseline is to find content that stretches kids' reading capabilities while also being interesting to them. That just might involve permanently deprioritizing James Fenimore Cooper and others of that ilk. Most of the faces on a set of "Authors" playing cards. Times change.

Some things I would keep:

Canterbury Tales
Shakespeare
Anne Bradstreet
Colonial political writing
Vanity Fair
Moby Dick
Walden
Things Fall Apart
1984
A work by Jane Austen
A Chekhov play
Writing by Frederick Douglass
My Indian Boyhood by Luther Standing Bear
Textual analysis of fairytales

Of Dickens, I'd do Great Expectations if I had to. Certainly not Bleak House. I read most of Dickens' famous works voluntarily in high school (received a giant volume from a best friend as a birthday present in 1985). Bleak House was assigned in college honors freshman composition. I remember thinking there were good reasons it was less frequently assigned.

You speak very confidently for someone who didn’t major in English. Sorry, but your intensive writing class doesn’t qualify you to offer your absurd opinions on literature. And this statement absolutely disqualifies you, “I've read a lot of the most acclaimed classic novels and liked very few of them. I'm not fond of depressing subject matter. A lot of them are dramatically tragic. I don't mind that they are long. They just aren't enjoyable enough.


You just told us you have literally no understanding of the books you read or why they are important.

There is a big difference between the importance of a work and it's enjoyment. Or do you read the Bible and the Constitution for fun?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a college English major and I’ve read and loved all types of literature. I think we need to separate different kinds of “hard,” because one matters and the other is a distraction. One reason Dickens is hard is the antique language. When Bleak House was written it was the beach read of the times - it wasn’t considered difficult. Because it was written in the vernacular. I see no real urgency in making sure people can read Shakespeare or Chaucer. Should English majors? Yes, even if they don’t love it, they should read some of where our language and literature came from.

All kids should be taught how to read, analyze, and understand meaningful text, though. Plot, metaphor, argument, character development, voice…those are all important. I’m not particularly fussed, though, about what sort of books kids read in order to understand those things, though. Pride and Prejudice is chick lit, but “hard” to read because of language. Harry Potter is easy to read because of its simple language written for children, but it can serve just fine to train kids to identify the important elements in literature and enjoy them.

I wonder if this study had used modern literature - say, The Kite Runner, Life of Pi, etc - whether they would have had different results. Archaic language doesn’t making literature better, it just makes it old.

I agree, well written. Archaic language turns a lot of kids off. There are so many quality books written in the last hundred years that are overlooked because they won’t let go of Shakespeare.

I like fiction with stories that happened during a significant time in history. A family living in Alabama in 1963 for example. There are excellent quality books about the civil rights movement or the Holocaust that have much more value than yet another Shakespeare play.

And this folks, is what modern schools produce...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a college English major and I’ve read and loved all types of literature. I think we need to separate different kinds of “hard,” because one matters and the other is a distraction. One reason Dickens is hard is the antique language. When Bleak House was written it was the beach read of the times - it wasn’t considered difficult. Because it was written in the vernacular. I see no real urgency in making sure people can read Shakespeare or Chaucer. Should English majors? Yes, even if they don’t love it, they should read some of where our language and literature came from.

All kids should be taught how to read, analyze, and understand meaningful text, though. Plot, metaphor, argument, character development, voice…those are all important. I’m not particularly fussed, though, about what sort of books kids read in order to understand those things, though. Pride and Prejudice is chick lit, but “hard” to read because of language. Harry Potter is easy to read because of its simple language written for children, but it can serve just fine to train kids to identify the important elements in literature and enjoy them.

I wonder if this study had used modern literature - say, The Kite Runner, Life of Pi, etc - whether they would have had different results. Archaic language doesn’t making literature better, it just makes it old.

I agree, well written. Archaic language turns a lot of kids off. There are so many quality books written in the last hundred years that are overlooked because they won’t let go of Shakespeare.

I like fiction with stories that happened during a significant time in history. A family living in Alabama in 1963 for example. There are excellent quality books about the civil rights movement or the Holocaust that have much more value than yet another Shakespeare play.

Here's the value in the Shakespeare play and Dickens and Homer that you don't get in a well-written modern book (most especially a well-written completely contemporary book): temporal bandwidth. Cultures from the past thought differently about things than us, had different blind spots than we do, had different values than we do, thought different things were sins than we do, thought different things were admirable than we do. Sometimes they were right about their differences and we are currently wrong. Having that temporal bandwidth gives kids a chance to assess modern culture in a way they simply can't if they aren't exposed to the past. And there's no better way to get exposed to the past than fiction, myths and fairy stories, and possibly poetry. Essays and history are simply just not going to give that up-close-and-personal view of the values of a time period.

If we could hear the perspectives of future cultures they'd be valuable for the same reason, but we can't. If we could talk to people from pre-literate cultures in the past that too would be amazing, but we can't. All we have is writing. And we should use it. Even if it's hard work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:English major here: I think this is a combination of phones and screens, which have killed reading for pleasure in many kids, and the fact that teaching of literature has become “politics by other means” and now almost entirely centers concern about inclusion and contemporary obsession with questions of identity at the expense of teaching challenging works. When you swap out The Scarlet Letter for some sort of Y.A.-level story about the challenges facing Identity Group X, it will have pedagogical impacts.

The Scarlet Letter is an overwrought and depressing story that relies on a visceral caring about social norms that have less power now. I agree that the current curriculum default is to assign identity politics literature. However, replacing long dreadful works with shorter dreadful works isn't going to fix things. Vanity Fair or Pride and Prejudice would be better choices.

My personal wish is to add more autobiography (including from diverse authors). I think real people do a better job of conveying their perspectives and struggles than fiction. It helps so much with the authenticity question. The difficulty of comprehending the writing would naturally vary based on the vintage of the material.

I also think getting kids interested in reading the type of writing found in the New Yorker would be useful. My own kid picked up a lot about voice and style from reading it during high school. The articles in the New Yorker are at a level that's reasonable for college grads who don't go into academia.

I've read a lot of the most acclaimed classic novels and liked very few of them. I'm not fond of depressing subject matter. A lot of them are dramatically tragic. I don't mind that they are long. They just aren't enjoyable enough.

I obviously can't defend my reading skills very well over the internet, but I had a 780V, am a PBK, and took a writing-intensive senior English seminar as a junior in college. I'm sure I would have at least made it into the top bracket of that Kansas reading study.

The way back from today's low baseline is to find content that stretches kids' reading capabilities while also being interesting to them. That just might involve permanently deprioritizing James Fenimore Cooper and others of that ilk. Most of the faces on a set of "Authors" playing cards. Times change.

Some things I would keep:

Canterbury Tales
Shakespeare
Anne Bradstreet
Colonial political writing
Vanity Fair
Moby Dick
Walden
Things Fall Apart
1984
A work by Jane Austen
A Chekhov play
Writing by Frederick Douglass
My Indian Boyhood by Luther Standing Bear
Textual analysis of fairytales

Of Dickens, I'd do Great Expectations if I had to. Certainly not Bleak House. I read most of Dickens' famous works voluntarily in high school (received a giant volume from a best friend as a birthday present in 1985). Bleak House was assigned in college honors freshman composition. I remember thinking there were good reasons it was less frequently assigned.

You speak very confidently for someone who didn’t major in English. Sorry, but your intensive writing class doesn’t qualify you to offer your absurd opinions on literature. And this statement absolutely disqualifies you, “I've read a lot of the most acclaimed classic novels and liked very few of them. I'm not fond of depressing subject matter. A lot of them are dramatically tragic. I don't mind that they are long. They just aren't enjoyable enough.


You just told us you have literally no understanding of the books you read or why they are important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, maybe I'm a snob, but I wouldn't expect a college freshman w/ 550 SAT attending school in Kansas to understand any Dickens.

Maybe not a snob, just ignorant. I love Dickens. We started reading Dickens in 8th grade and I was not in an advanced English class. I’m not from the Midwest but they have students who excel in reading and writing.

Anonymous wrote:If the English majors can’t read, imagine how poorly the STEM majors read.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The key terms are “regional Kansas universities.”

There are a lot of kids at regional universities, in Kansas or elsewhere. And these are definitely not the worst group of students moving through higher ed -- 74th percentile or thereabouts is nothing to sneeze at.

The paper also pairs nicely with stories from Harvard et al about students unable or unwilling to read. Would be interesting to replicate, and see to what extent the more selective schools have also been selecting on the basis of ability to process complex text.

My own kid would fall right around here. Her test scores aren't great. She has a host of disabilities, but I had her read the opening paragraph from Bleak House, and her understanding was excellent. She's a writer though and uses figurative language all the time so she understands how to use it and how to read it.

I really think that's part of the difference. Kids are not exposed these days. They have very little reading stamina (see the article on reading stamina and book assignments at Columbia) and very few kids engage in creative writing. Most of their exposure outside of tech is to non-fiction and short excerpts from fiction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The key terms are “regional Kansas universities.”

There are a lot of kids at regional universities, in Kansas or elsewhere. And these are definitely not the worst group of students moving through higher ed -- 74th percentile or thereabouts is nothing to sneeze at.

The paper also pairs nicely with stories from Harvard et al about students unable or unwilling to read. Would be interesting to replicate, and see to what extent the more selective schools have also been selecting on the basis of ability to process complex text.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The key terms are “regional Kansas universities.”

There are a lot of kids at regional universities, in Kansas or elsewhere. And these are definitely not the worst group of students moving through higher ed -- 74th percentile or thereabouts is nothing to sneeze at.

The paper also pairs nicely with stories from Harvard et al about students unable or unwilling to read. Would be interesting to replicate, and see to what extent the more selective schools have also been selecting on the basis of ability to process complex text.

I agree with this, and also with the critique that the study is not well-designed to establish what is claimed. I was taught to read Beowulf (in public school!) but I would not have been able to do that without guidance, and using the opening of “Bleak House” for this exercise is almost as intentionally obscurantist today as using “Beowulf” with no notice would have been 30 years ago.

In some ways: yes. But that is the shocking thing, that Bleak House is as inaccessible as Beowulf now to most English majors, because they have not been scaffolded through how to read a moderately difficult book by an author who one would have expected to be ubiquitous in English literature courses those 30 years ago.

Incidentally, 30 years ago was when I read Bleak House. It was one of the assigned texts, freshman year of high school.

Time has passed. It IS shocking!

I don’t know where people are coming from on Beowulf, it was written in Old English and basically nobody ready the original; its a work read only in translation and really is apples-to-oranges to this discussion.

It’s not an apples and oranges situation if you read the original—which we did (alongside transliterations and translations. It was a fantastic series of lessons).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The key terms are “regional Kansas universities.”

There are a lot of kids at regional universities, in Kansas or elsewhere. And these are definitely not the worst group of students moving through higher ed -- 74th percentile or thereabouts is nothing to sneeze at.

The paper also pairs nicely with stories from Harvard et al about students unable or unwilling to read. Would be interesting to replicate, and see to what extent the more selective schools have also been selecting on the basis of ability to process complex text.

I agree with this, and also with the critique that the study is not well-designed to establish what is claimed. I was taught to read Beowulf (in public school!) but I would not have been able to do that without guidance, and using the opening of “Bleak House” for this exercise is almost as intentionally obscurantist today as using “Beowulf” with no notice would have been 30 years ago.

In some ways: yes. But that is the shocking thing, that Bleak House is as inaccessible as Beowulf now to most English majors, because they have not been scaffolded through how to read a moderately difficult book by an author who one would have expected to be ubiquitous in English literature courses those 30 years ago.

Incidentally, 30 years ago was when I read Bleak House. It was one of the assigned texts, freshman year of high school.

Time has passed. It IS shocking!

I don’t know where people are coming from on Beowulf, it was written in Old English and basically nobody ready the original; its a work read only in translation and really is apples-to-oranges to this discussion.

Anonymous wrote:This is direct result of balanced literacy (for profit) movement

Anyone interested in root causes MUST listen to the podcast ‘Sold a Story’. Only in ‘Merica

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a college English major and I’ve read and loved all types of literature. I think we need to separate different kinds of “hard,” because one matters and the other is a distraction. One reason Dickens is hard is the antique language. When Bleak House was written it was the beach read of the times - it wasn’t considered difficult. Because it was written in the vernacular. I see no real urgency in making sure people can read Shakespeare or Chaucer. Should English majors? Yes, even if they don’t love it, they should read some of where our language and literature came from.

All kids should be taught how to read, analyze, and understand meaningful text, though. Plot, metaphor, argument, character development, voice…those are all important. I’m not particularly fussed, though, about what sort of books kids read in order to understand those things, though. Pride and Prejudice is chick lit, but “hard” to read because of language. Harry Potter is easy to read because of its simple language written for children, but it can serve just fine to train kids to identify the important elements in literature and enjoy them.

I wonder if this study had used modern literature - say, The Kite Runner, Life of Pi, etc - whether they would have had different results. Archaic language doesn’t making literature better, it just makes it old.

I agree, well written. Archaic language turns a lot of kids off. There are so many quality books written in the last hundred years that are overlooked because they won’t let go of Shakespeare.

I like fiction with stories that happened during a significant time in history. A family living in Alabama in 1963 for example. There are excellent quality books about the civil rights movement or the Holocaust that have much more value than yet another Shakespeare play.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a college English major and I’ve read and loved all types of literature. I think we need to separate different kinds of “hard,” because one matters and the other is a distraction. One reason Dickens is hard is the antique language. When Bleak House was written it was the beach read of the times - it wasn’t considered difficult. Because it was written in the vernacular. I see no real urgency in making sure people can read Shakespeare or Chaucer. Should English majors? Yes, even if they don’t love it, they should read some of where our language and literature came from.

All kids should be taught how to read, analyze, and understand meaningful text, though. Plot, metaphor, argument, character development, voice…those are all important. I’m not particularly fussed, though, about what sort of books kids read in order to understand those things, though. Pride and Prejudice is chick lit, but “hard” to read because of language. Harry Potter is easy to read because of its simple language written for children, but it can serve just fine to train kids to identify the important elements in literature and enjoy them.

I wonder if this study had used modern literature - say, The Kite Runner, Life of Pi, etc - whether they would have had different results. Archaic language doesn’t making literature better, it just makes it old.

I agree, well written. Archaic language turns a lot of kids off. There are so many quality books written in the last hundred years that are overlooked because they won’t let go of Shakespeare.

I like fiction with stories that happened during a significant time in history. A family living in Alabama in 1963 for example. There are excellent quality books about the civil rights movement or the Holocaust that have much more value than yet another Shakespeare play.