Contemporary high school English teachers are faced with a problematic choice: Harry Potter or William Shakespeare? Twilight or Gatsby? Do we teach quality literature that hits all curricular expectations, or do we choose popular literature that will engage—maybe even interest—our students?
Problematic question. If you think back to your own school days, you might recall that not everyone was a reader. There were always a few kids that it was impossible to bring in, whether the piece was Les Miserables or a Rob Zombie screenplay. That’s an absolute fact, but we’re being bombarded with studies lately that suggest that literacy levels of all Canadians have been on a steady decline since the early 1990s. People are reading less, and fewer of those who are reading are reading what is considered literature, and still fewer are approaching what they read critically or analytically. They’re reading for entertainment.
Now I could rant about “these days”, but in truth, our whole interest as a people has shifted. Teachers are competing with video games that demand hours and hours of attention for years—we’re just doing it more now. The Internet and social media gobble up reading time like Pac-Man on steroids, and again, the value in our pursuits seems to be entertainment.
We are teaching in the world of Avatar, where the “greatest” film of the last decade or so was all spectacle and little substance, all flash and dash with no little concern for, y’know, meaning.
“Writing? Oh, that’s the stuff we use to link explosion scenes.”
It makes for a conundrum when teaching literature. At the foundation, all provincial curricula in Canada call for a teaching of quality literature that hits the bullets: character, narrative, theme, struggle, language, all of that. Listen, we know that pulling out Hamlet or To Kill a Mockingbird will get us eye rolls—we read them in high school, too—but it’s arduous to find suitable replacements. Many of us have tried out modern(ish) novels such as Life of Pi or Crow Lake, meeting with varying success. The thing about Harper Lee is she really is that accessible, there are tried and true resources abounding, and when attacking a diploma exam or a university course, it’s true that having a “known” text in your bank is advantageous.
Some teachers bring in high-interest, plot-driven pieces like Harry Potter or Twilight, and as entertaining as they may be, as involving as they may be for kids, they’re hardly literary—and I say that as a huge Rowling fan. They don’t hit those bullets.
Other teachers—myself included—have tried teaching film as a narrative text. I’m a reformed comic nerd, and so I know the difference between a graphic novel and a comic book, and I’ve toyed with teaching that genre as literature.
All of these experiments speak to the problem of going down a level rather than attempting to bring our readers up. We begin questioning how many compromises we can make before we’re just teaching “books” instead of “literature”.
Ah, but it begs the question, just what is literature? Isn’t it just the stuff that pretentious CBC-radio listeners say they read? Isn’t it just writing that is harder to read than fun? Well, no. It is writing that seeks to do something more than entertain you. If literature works, it makes you reassess life; it makes you consider how you think. A good piece of literature should haunt you. I’ve taught Life of Pi a couple of times and find it one of the better new novels to teach because of the discussion it brings. Without ruining the ending, I find that the question “Which story do you prefer?” can tell me more about a student than a three-hour interview.
As literacy levels continue their gentle sag, as Avatar and Black Ops. continue to be credited as having “great stories” by the masses, need our expectations for our readers be lowered as well? If no, then it’s one of the only disciplines that we’re calling for a regression in. Imagine if we expected Apple to go back to its 1980s computers, or for doctors to start bloodletting again.
Does it matter that we teach literature or that we teach what kids are interested in, no matter the quality?
at my school one of the latin teachers translated the latin version of harry potter (first book) with her class. i sadly wasn't in that class but i think that would be really interesting to do. some of the ones that were in that class said it was really funny to read. and its easier to translate something that you have already read in your own language. i think it was a really cool idea from the teacher too... and its better than all those old greek myths or caesar stories because those get boring after a few years. =)
ReplyDeletewell, i gotta go.
byebye
Lina
Wow, that's an impressive feat!
ReplyDeleteI think Lina nails it exactly.
ReplyDeleteUSE pop culture, TEACH culture. For example, a couple of years ago I used Chuck Norris jokes to teach grammar. Do I think Chuck Norris jokes are literature? ...No. Do I think using them made my students more likely to pay attention to my lesson on comma splices? Yes, yes I do. Using Harry to teach Latin? Awesome.
Definitely do not teach badly written junk in a lit class, but by all means use it to draw the interest of your students into your daily lessons. I mean, if you're giving a lesson about how to write a paragraph, you're going to have a sample one to use as an exemplar. You can either write up an exemplar about some boring novel or essay no one cares about, or you can write one about South Park, or zombies, or vampires and werewolves, or whatever is currently in vogue. You're teaching paragraph writing, not the subject matter of the examplar, so choosing something from pop culture will help to make the topic as a whole seem more relevant and interesting to your class. The trick there is keeping your finger firmly on the pulse of what's current, because using outdated pop references just makes you look sad. But the good part is, you have daily access to people in the know -- just pay attention.
I think students will moan and groan about anything they "have" to do, whether that's reading a book or going to a rollercoaster park. That doesn't mean they don't secretly love what they're doing; it just means teenagers must moan and groan about being forced to do anything... that's kind of their job as teenagers. Just like it's your job as a teacher to put those culture credits in their banks.
I also think that for many Canadians, the only classics they will ever read are the ones they are forced to read in high school. Not every kid who passes through your class is going to become a reader no matter how good you are as a teacher, but the fact is, whatever you make them read is going to benefit them for their entire lives, even if it's only in such small things as being able to catch obscure references on Robot Chicken or in Gaga lyrics. Make them eat their vegetables, Paul, and don't lament the faces they make at the taste. They're teenagers. Their taste will develop with time, and all the faster with someone to be their guide.
Apparently my response is too long for one comment, so, to be continued!
Part 2.
ReplyDeleteTo me the two biggest problems with teaching lit right now are these: teachers are restricted by provincial curricula which seem to have been designed by people who don't actually like to read books and don't really understand what the point of reading is; and, that so many teachers don't love the books they are being forced to teach, either because of said curiculum, or because of budgetary constraints, or because they are just not very strong in lit themselves (case in point -- a girl I took a Shakespeare course with in the late 90's is now the head of the English department at a high school in a certain small Alberta city. She got a C in the course. She also teaches Camus, which she pronounces "Cay-moose". Not even kidding.), or because it is hard to find great books in the mire of crap out there (though it is possible: off the top of my head, I recommend Mark Haddon's The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, and it banks those bullets you mentioned, with interest).
I think the key is to find a book YOU are really passionate about. Any time that I, as a student, have been really interested in a topic, no matter what kind of class it's been, it's come from seeing how fascinated the teacher was. If you love what you're teaching, so will your kids. If you're bored with what you're teaching, well... they pick up on that, too.
So in answer to your last question: yes, it matters. It matters a lot. Kids don't need to be taught books they're capable of understanding on their own. What they most emphatically do need to be taught the things that will make them better readers as adults, because these are not skills most people will just pick up on their own.
Also: I think Avatar -does- have a great story. It just isn't a -new- story. I enjoyed it just as much this time as I did when it was called The Last of the Mohicans, The Last Samurai, or Dances with Wolves, or Dune (or Pocahontas -- look at this: http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2010/01/03/james-camerons-pocahontas-avatar/). But really, is anyone hailing Avatar as "great" for its story? I kind of think Cameron picked this tried-and-true tale because where he wanted viewers to concentrate their full attention on the beauty of the film itself. The innovation is in how the film was made, not in what it is about. If your position is really that Avatar was not the most beautiful thing on the screen in 2009, with those gorgeous shots of floating islands and strange plants and breathing trees and all the rest, I have to ask if you saw it in 3D on the big screen. Because from the first shot, I was mesmerized. There are a few films out there that are narrative in form, but this isn't one of them. It could have been a silent film, or set only to music, and it wouldn't lose a thing -- and would still be the most beautiful thing on the screen in 2009.
Sorry for the late response, but I knew I would have a lot to say about this, so I wanted to wait until I had time to think it out :)
-The use of pop culture is certainly a great motivational set, the worry I have is when it becomes about the pop.
ReplyDelete-Correct about exemplars needing to really grab them. However, it’s a different story when faced with a month and a half slog through a novel. Teaching to write a paragraph is certainly less arduous and opens itself up to be a lot more fun. Why? No expectations but to have them create paragraphs. Different story with literature, right?
-Ah yes, but forcing those veggies down is the issue. If they’re stuffing them into their napkin or slipping them under the table to the dog, I have to ask myself if I should have just given up and ordered pizza.
-I think most of us teaching literature understand the suggested readings on the curricula—why they were chosen—and in Alberta at least we have quite a bit of freedom to bring in other texts (I’m doing a graphic novel next semester with a non-ac. class). I’m not sure I agree with your estimation with those who plan curriculum (though I do agree for those who write it). I think we must be careful when approaching literature with that sense of elitism. I’m sure you had professors who were brilliant critics and analysts, but couldn’t teach their way out of a wet paper bag. They couldn’t last an hour in a high school classroom. I’m not defending your acquaintance because I know a lot of the type, but certainly there is a balance struck between being able to analyze and being able to synthesize.
-I’ve read Haddon’s book, and that’s a fantastic choice I hadn’t considered.
-I’m passionate about Shakespeare and Vikings. These are hard things to light kids up about. But, you said it best when you acknowledged that they’ll view anything as work and then groan.
-Avatar. Yes, it was a story lifted from a thousand different sources. I did in fact see it in 3D. I think what sets it apart from the other films you list is that it received a great deal more hype for a great deal less substance. It’s indicative of our pop culture values that a film that’s all pretty but contains dialogue so wooden Keanu Reeves would gag it out becomes so momentous. Dances With Wolves still stands up as a work of cinematic artistry twenty years after its release. Avatar is no better than a high quality video game, glasses or no. But I’ve been argued with on this topic by other intellectuals such as yourself, and have decided I might not be a snob so much as a curmudgeon.
Thanks, and sorry it took me so long to reply.