Regarding Prescriptive Reading

 
Hello Gentle Reader,
 
In a world raging over the myopia of personal pedantic problems and perspectives, with a credulous public willing to engage in this indulgence, if only to have an excusable reason to orchestrate yet another lynching of some public figure, be they an academic or writer; I find it continually disheartening to see the cornerstone and pillars of literature being undermined and attacked, not just from external militants, but internal insurrections and mutinous peers. The flames of tyranny are always fanned by the winds of revolution. As the adage goes: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Recently, Naomi Kanakia wrote an essay in the Los Angles Review of Books, inquiring about the perceived detrimental effects of reading the classics. Specifically, the ire and chagrin young readers leverage with rage against the prescriptive literary medicine of old stuffy white books, which have zero relevance to contemporary issues or times. I recall reading Charles Dickens, Charlotte Brontë, and Jack London in my younger years and remember finding their works to be pleasant company. Then again, I am now one of those old stuffy white things, an absolute antiquarian who could be sold at a discounted price (based on natural ware of course) at your local antique shop, if it weren’t tantamount to geriatric prostitution. Thankfully, my initial judgements and concerns of Naomi Kanakia’s essays were unfounded. Where others of a more idealistic mentality and a talent for evangelical demagoguery and populistic polemic propagation, would use the form to induce a berserker like fury; Kanakia, wrote a measured, rational, and reasonable approach to the issue of prescriptive reading and provides holistic and salient points.
 
First and foremost, the prescribed readings provided by educational institutions as mandated by curriculum are not renowned for being the most enjoyable. They are selected through a rigorous process overseen and designed by experts and bureaucrats, who are so far removed from implementation and teaching the curriculum that they are shielded from all repercussions or consequences of its shortsighted failures. A recent example of this can be seen in one Canadian province’s political rebranding of its educational curriculum, which not only patronizes students and children, but completely discredits their ability to comprehend, understand, and contextualize information accordingly. Despite the best intentions, the desire for schools to inspire a lifelong love of reading is ultimately thwarted by its authoritarian delivery, making reading more an assignment or a chore, rather than an act of leisure or enjoyment. From grade school into secondary school, all the way into post-secondary studies, students are provided required reading. None of which—that I can recall—at any rate, being remotely interesting. A recent survey and review brought up the usual suspects as required reading in school classes:
 

“The Lord of the Flies,” – William Golding

“The Grapes of Wrath,” – John Steinbeck

“All Quiet on the Western Front,” – Ernest Hemingway

“Of Mice and Men,” – John Steinbeck

“The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” – Mark Twain

“To Kill a Mockingbird,” – Harper Lee

“Great Expectations,” – Charles Dickens

“The Great Gatsby,” – F. Scott Fitzgerald

 
The novels listed above, are but a mere sample of the books I found listed as approved required novel studies for English courses. A quick review shows polarizing thought. “The Lord of the Flies,” is a dreadful book, as are “The Grapes of Wrath,” and “Of Mice and Men.” Hemmingway has never been my cup of tea of a writer personally, I find his work lacking lyrical luster and is unimaginatively lacquered. I do nod at the inclusion of “The Great Gatsby,” though, a telling novel of the materialistic excess of the Jazz Age of the 1920’s, which runs parallel to the current times. Other novels of equal mention I saw included was Elie Wiesel’s memoir “Night,” and because these are Canadian schools, “Windflower,” by Gabrielle Roy.
 
If students take issue with the lack of perceivable relevance some of these works have on providing commentary on matters concerning the contemporary world, then their judgement is impaired by their shortsighted misgivings. For example, Elie Wiesel’s testimonial memoir “Night,” remains paramount in its relevance, chronicling the experiences of his father and himself in the Nazi concentration camps of Auschwitz and Buchenwald. The horrors of the holocaust should not be casually dismissed or forgotten. “Night,” provided an intimate voice and first-person memories to the horrors of the Holocaust. Its relevance is its stalwart reminder of what evil looks like, how it starts, and where it ends. Its humanistic vision is timeless and eternal. In the case of Gabrielle Roy, its difficult to imagine a writer whose work excavated the quiet dignities of the otherwise common and downtrodden. “Windflower,” is one such novel, tracing the alienation and conflicting feelings an Inuit woman feels when she returns to her community with her blonde hair and blue-eyed son, whose father chooses not to acknowledge. The novel traces the conflicting cultures of white expectations and traditional Inuit life. With reconciliatory measures being implemented in the Canadian perspective, and further working being made to enlighten public attitudes regarding indigenous relations and history. Any attempt at arguing that “Windflower,” is irrelevant is inadequate. Contrarily, not all of these required readings are as relevant or as interesting in the contemporary frame of mind. “The Lord of the Flies,” is a boring dissertation on the inherent evil and basic barbarianism of human nature. While I can argue that “Jane Eyre,” “Wuthering Heights,” “Oliver Twist,” and “Great Expectations,” may be considerably more difficult in the contemporary context. Yet, what makes these works so enduring at the same time, regardless of the time in which they were written, is they still provide illuminating commentary on the nature and experience of the human condition.
 
The most frightening aspect of the opposition students or advocates have towards these classics of literature, is an argument reduced to censorship excused because it’s founded on the basis of progressive ideals. At this point, the arguments lose their merit. Especially when the arguers continue to push against the writer because they are white. The insistent fixation on a writer’s skin pigmentation or heritage is in itself a racist perspective. To decry a writer because they are white, is not a rationale argument. Now, once again, for the sake of argument, schools are now places full of diversity, and it is fair for students of colour or other racial minorities, to feel alienated with the prescribed reading available when they do not see their own experiences represented. Students should be able to read both the ‘classics,’ in the conventional sense, as well as the contemporary classics, which contain more diversity in themes and perceptions in relation to the contemporary world. Other advocates state the writers of the classics may hold and promote the prejudices of the time. Charles Dicken’s antisemitic attitudes riddling the depiction of Fagan in “Oliver Twist,” remains the most paramount example. Advocates believe such depictions being considered the gold standard of literature and therefore required reading in school, allows for antisemitism to continue and thrive within the current world. The same can be said regarding the racial and imperialist attitudes found in Joseph Conrad’s: “Heart of Darkness.” This once again overly simplifies students’ ability to contextualize and rationalize, but also question and critically assess the historically approved attitudes of the time from the now inappropriate. These works should be read within the context of their time, and discussions can be held from there regarding these attitudes and why they are wrong. Censoring literature and information from students is and always will be inappropriate, regardless of the good and wholesome intentions provided. Students should be provided some credibility of knowing their own minds and the ability to comprehend outdated and slanderous social perspectives.
 
Throughout her essay, Naomi Kanakia defends the classics and promotes their consumption. Denying and ignoring the classics as irrelevant, outdated, obsolete, or antiquated is a disservice any reader can do to themselves. The classics are provided this distinction for their eternal cultural importance and relevance long after the writers themselves have deceased. These works have inspired creative movements and literary imitations. Changed perspectives, challenged social conventions, and questioned ideals. They have expanded the novel further. Provided necessary commentary and contemplation of the human condition. The classics should not be dismissed or casually disregarded, as Naomi Kanakia argues, they remain important and required for a reason and the lessons they impart are valuable not just for inspiring writers but have benefits for readers. Yet unfortunately due to their prescriptive nature in which they are administered to readers in school, they are begrudgingly consumed with neither enjoyment nor pleasure. By enforcing students to subscribe to required reading the enjoyment of the classics is lost. The heavy-handed autocratic authority of the didactic academic narratives frames a tarnished experience of the reader when provided the mandated text. Reading is a lengthy investment of personal time, concentration, and devotion. Assigning the dimension of academic chore to the context of the experience of reading, will inevitably only sour any readers engagement with the work.
 
In the ongoing debate regarding the classics and their relevance and impact on students and readers, it is important to reflect on the words of John Donne:
 
“No man is and island, entire of itself, every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.”
 
The quote from a work of literature from 400 years ago, remains relevant today as it was then. No one in this world is an island, but individuals may choose to be shipwrecked, depriving themselves of the vastness of the human experience and condition as it has been recorded. This includes the classics. They have weathered the corrosive battery of time and achieved an eternal status. This is feat that cannot be so easily passed over. Students have my sympathies with the resentment at being forced to read, but I encourage and implore them to continue. But if I may impart any wisdom, read all the books you are interested in, and try not to be so dismissive of the classics. The only books that harm are the ones we are told not to read or denied access too. All works of literature should be consumed with earnest enjoyment, freed from the shackles and shadows of censorship.
 
Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
 
M. Mary

P.S.

Naomi Kanakia’s article with the Los Angles Review of Books:

Naomi Kanakia: Are “The Classics” Bad for You?