Pairing and Breaking The High School Literary Canon

There is a colossal conflict in high schools regarding the lingering literary canon. Adolescents are neither connecting with the material, nor are they understanding the language. “The books I read in high school were lame,” says one secondary education graduate, “I think I actually got through maybe two books.” Admittedly, many of the taught texts remain valuable-be it due to use of language, forgotten lifestyles, or scarcely-mentioned morals-however, when a student cannot follow the plotline, these benefits are scarcely recognized, let alone garnered. There are, however, alternatives. One of the most brilliant of these is the concept of pairing, or the usage of one, more contemporary and appealing young adult novel, in accompaniment with a “classic.” However, similar to the way in which the literary canon is a slow-changing ideal, so are teaching styles and habits.

Old habits die hard. Mark Twain said it best: “Habit is habit, and not to be flung out the window by any man, but coaxed downstairs a step at a time.” If we want to teach students how to comprehend, interpret, and write about what they read in our classrooms, we have to start coaxing some of our old habits “downstairs.” (Johannessen 2)

Changing the long-held and repeated traditions of the high school canon and teaching style will not be an easy task, but upon looking at the consequences-namely the loss of students’ attention and comprehension-the necessity of such a change can be neither ignored nor circumvented any longer. With such tools as pairing easily at hand, there is no excuse for such procrastination at the hands of our educators.

One of the greatest mistakes made by educators today is loss of memory. Many teachers today have forgotten their own high school experiences and struggles, become too familiar with both the material they teach and their methods of teaching it. Too often, teachers assume that their students are familiar with the text, and forget to fully introduce or explain the complicated language and plotlines of the literature as the novels are read.

I think that, at my school, they just went about it the wrong way. See, for example, before my freshman year we had a summer reading list, and on that list were two of the hardest books I had to read during my entire high school career. We had to read A Tale of Two Cities and The Chosen. They gave us an exam when we got back to school, and nobody passed it. That was an Honors class, too. (Alyssa1, 20 years old)

Not only is Charles Dickens, alone, an ambitious choice for fourteen year-olds, but also, the students, in this case, were expected to have a full understanding of the text, without ever having discussed or verified any of the material. As thirteen-year-old Grace points out;

Teachers need to improve on the hand-you-a-book-take-a-test-thing. You need more than that. I think that teachers should discuss the book more in class, rather than just hand out a set of questions every week; rather than just being like, “What happened this week?” “What do you think about that?” You just don’t ever really know what to do with any of it. You’d think teachers would be better at… well-you know-teaching.

Students are not the only individuals recognizing this problem, either. Many educators find fault in the read-question-examine method of literary education. The main issue remains that “most of us [educators] give quizzes without thinking about why or what the effect of giving them will be” (Johannessen 1).

The conflict seems clear, however, change still seems to evade us. Despite the fact that “most students probably should read some great literature, and at times, a quiz can be valuable and necessary for learning and assessment,” (Johannessen 1) the methods used to introduce these classroom components remain primarily unsatisfactory and incomplete. Too frequently, the media forms most accepted by adolescent students (young adolescent literature, contemporary literature in general, television series and films) are frowned upon in the classroom.

The main reason I was able to follow what we were reading in class was because of, well, Spark Notes, [laughs] and because I remembered the storyline from watching Wishbone2. When I realized that Wishbone was helping me get through high school, well, I went out and bought all of [the seasons] for my younger sister. “Christy!” I said, “You”re watching all of these!’ (Tammy, 19 years old)

Personally, my first encounter with the tale of Joan of Arc arrived from an encounter with the same television series. Of course, suggesting that secondary classrooms sit down and watch children’s television shows together is pushing the envelope. However, the beneficial elements of such media are evident from simply this one individual’s experience. So what would be an acceptable method of collaboration?

It’s hard to get a teenage kid to read a book. They have better things to do. We need modernized classic stories. Everybody knows Romeo and Juliet. Why can’t teachers find a modern story of that? I don’t know-we could compare them. If we could relate to what we’re reading, it would definitely put the book to better use. (Grace, 13 years old)

Ironically, it takes a thirteen year old to hit the nail on the head. Take it viewing West Side Story may not solve the issue at hand, but it certainly comes close. New Moon, a novel by Stephanie Meyer captures the same forbidden love sentiments in a more modern and-for some adolescents-tempting novel about a teenage girl and her vampire boyfriend. Of course, it is not to be suggested that vampire stories replace Shakespeare in the literary canon; however, the inclusion of similar young adult works during the study of more complicated texts would certainly aid with the acceptance of course material by students.

A more academically sound example of this same literary technique, better known as pairing, or bridging, would be the use of the book The Shylock’s Daughter, by Mirjam Pressler alongside the study of Shakespeare’s A Merchant in Venice. Or, better yet, Polly Shulman’s Enthusiasm alongside Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Any of these pairs would greatly aid in the comprehension of the more complicated “classics.” Instead of assigning vocabulary and reading on a nightly basis, followed by pop quizzes and essays, why not read two books at the same time?

I propose a classroom in which a “classic” novel is introduced not by themes, or historical context, but by a modern translation, so-to-speak. By simply comparing the first pages of two of these suggested texts, that which would result in a more enthusiastic response from a classroom becomes even more obvious. Honestly speaking, which would the average adolescent be more intrigued by:

There is little more likely to exasperate a person of sense than finding herself tied by affection and habit to an Enthusiast. I speak from bitter experience. My best friend and next-door neighbor, Ashleigh Marie Rossi, is an Enthusiast. (Shulman 1)

Or:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families that he is considered the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters (Austen 1)

And with a mere glance at the first page of these two novels, the answer to the proposed question becomes, for lack of a better term, a no-brainer. Why not encourage reading in pairs: studying the classic novel week-long, then spending the final day of a long week reading the contemporary version in-class? Perhaps, educators fear more work? More preparation? Keep in mind, that this second novel is merely a tool; an instrument to better understand the original, complicated text. This is not a text on which students will be examined or quizzed, for those are exactly the habits which we are trying to escape. Using this second literary work also sets up the perfect opportunity for theme comparisons, as well as compare and contrast papers. Furthermore, and most importantly, this method allows students the opportunity of attempting to apply what they learn and read to their own lives.

The job of an educator is not merely to inform, or to supply informative materials. Students should always earn something from what they are being taught. What a horror to have students respond to what they’ve read as “a lovely little story that is a complete waste of time,” (Raymond 17). It is foolishly optimistic to assume that a shift in teaching style will result in a universal adoration of literature by students. However, a shift towards a higher and more complete comprehension of the text by students would be more than satisfactory; and as educators, that should be the very least we strive for.