The Redemption of School Reading

We all, perhaps, have experiences of trudging reluctantly through an assigned book in school. Even those of us who were avid readers may have disliked some of the required reading of the past.

Do you remember one particular book you disliked that was required reading and which you have reread since as an adult and enjoyed? Do you remember why you didn't like it in the first place?

I was always an avid reader and I usually gobbled up required reading assignments gleefully but I remember disliking My Antonia by Willa Cather when I was required to read it in 7th or 8th grade. Looking back now, I think I didn't like the story of a downtrodden immigrant woman's hardscrabble life, who had no choice but have a zillion kids and I was maybe also tired of books about teenaged boys (i.e. Light in the Forest, Alas, Babylon). In My Antonia, the story, an immigrant woman's life, is told through the eyes of, you guessed it, a teenaged boy.

I reread it a few years ago and enjoyed it very much. The boy's voice and viewpoint meant far less to me than the woman's experience - this time I saw her as an independent and tough survivor, which is perhaps the way it was meant to be.

I'm not the best candidate to answer this, because a) my school required reading was always pretty eclectic, and didn't hit a lot of the classics that are usually foisted onto highschoolers, b) I liked almost everything we read, and c) those I didn't like, I've had no desire to go back and try again.

The only exception I can think of is that I really didn't like The Odyssey when I had to read it in 9th grade, but then I had to read it again in 10th (switched schools), and got a different translation which made all the difference.

To my mind a lot of stuff we assign kids to read in highschool is still over their heads. As much as I loath the fact, most highschool kids in my experience are more interested in sports, movies, music, etc. I went to a private highschool where all the classes were equivalent to honor role classes in public school. Even there, the assigned books were all most kids read. Most kids just aren't that intellectually minded, even in highschool. I'm not saying we should stop teaching these books, but there's gotta be some way to get people more interested.

I agree that kids in high school are often assigned books that are over their heads, but I don't think that means they don't read. As I recall from a few years ago when I was in hs, most of my friends read, we just read things could relate to. When you are 16 and hormonal, it is difficult, if not impossible, to relate to the moral dilemmas of a Hamlet or a Hester Prynne. I'm now five years out of high school and I'm still not sure I grasp the deeper meanings of many classics, I just don't have the life experience. For example, I hated The Grapes of Wrath in 10th grade, but I suspect if and when I go back to it I will have more of a sense of what its about. For me the solution teachers should consider is picking books that are "literary" and "educational" but still relatable to 16-year-olds. The best one I can think of right now is The Lord of the Flies.

I read many that I didn't like just because they were assigned but ended up being favorites like
Brave New World
Hamlet
Beloved
but then I read others that are classics that I hated then, gave a second chance and then still didn't like.
The Scarlett Letter comes to mind in that category.

I must have forgotten all the books I was required to read in school that I didn't like because I don't remember any of them. Either that or I enjoyed everything I read which seems unlikely because I have definite preferences today.

The two books that come to mind that I hated when I had to read them were La Chartreuse de Parme by Stendhal and Die Leiden des jungen Werthers by Goethe. Which is why I have never read anything else by them.
Today I have to say I am so glad we never had to read Jane Austen in English. I wouldn't have liked her and today I love her. I was 29 though when I read the first book by her.
I believe there are books and authors that shouldn't be read in high school. Books that only make sense when you're older, or that you can only appreciate later on.
Maybe at some point in my life I'll give Stendhal and Goethe another chance...

I wish I went to a school that had required reading. Not once was I asked to read anything other than what was in my textbooks. As a teen I was so starved for intelligent book discussions that I would go to the public library to check out Cliffs Notes to go along with whatever novels I could find just to feel like I was getting something more out of the reading.

I had to read A Day no Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck

When I read the book I remember thinking a rural farm story was out of touch with urban youth in the 90's. Apparently, so did my teacher since we were the last class to have to read it.

Ironically, the only thing I remember about the context of the book in the vocab word goiter and the act of the main character pulling one out of a cow's throat.

I agree that most books read in school are appropriate for that point in your life. What do you, as a 15 year old, care about an old fisherman’s great catch or Walter Mitty’s secret life or a serial killer going after a family in Florida? You simply don’t have the world experience to relate to those things. An exception (and it may be the only one) to the rule is Catcher in the Rye. It’s great when you are 15-16 but read it when you a few years older and you realize how immature Holden is, which completely changes the power of the book.

In Italy, at the time I went to school, we had a lot of mandatory reading. The one I particularly disliked was I Promessi Sposi (The Betrothed) by Alessandro Manzoni. It took many years for me to realize what a great book it is and its importance in the cultural history of my country.

There is, I think, a fine line to tread when it comes to teaching books to high school kids. On the one hand, it's true that the majority of them don't have "real life experience" and might find it difficult to relate to characters like Hester Prynne or Billy Budd, but at the same time their reading shouldn't be limited to books to which they can immediately relate.
The best compromise, as I can see it, is to introduce more difficult works with an extended discussion of their authors and their settings/backgrounds. Then, as you read through the book, making sure to discuss the character's motivations so the plot doesn't seem alien or abstract.

Although I was an unabashed bibliophile in high school, and that might prejudice my views, I can recall really disliking only one book I was forced to read, North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell, a novel I found nearly impenetrable.

As a side note, I've taught A Day No Pigs Would Die to junior high school and high school students, and although 20s-era rural Vermont is rather removed from the New York area, the main character is so very sympathetic that our discussions of the book turned into discussions of the setting and farm life.

Bromius, in high school we usually read books in relation to the history of the author, the time, the style, etc. I still would never have been interested in Hester Prynne. The style was just too boring for me and a red A just seems very unlikely.

I think it would be more helpful to teach at least some contemporary literature, like Haruki Murakami because then you learn something current which kids can relate too more. Or some sci-fi so people start to think about the future.

When I was in school I didn't realize that people still wrote literature! I thought it was a thing of the past and that all we get today is Stephen King and Janet Evanovich.

Fikustree, I can only speak from personal experience, but I feel that I would have felt exactly the same as you did when I read The Scarlet Letter back in 11th grade if we had not read the novel after examining sections from Of Plymouth Plantation, and works by Jonathan Edwards and Cotton Mather. Steeped in that era's history and religious outlook, the novel's style became more familiar and its plot and moral attitudes a bit more understandable.

The problem with teaching only current literature is that older books immediately become perceived as obscure, difficult, and not worth the reader's time. Granted, a fair number of students may dislike some of the classics when forcefed them in a schoolroom setting, but at least a few may find themselves enjoy the experience and go on to become avid readers. As a basic matter of cultural literacy, students should be (at the very least) exposed to Hawthorne, Melville, etc. They may read and then despise them, but better that than never reading them at all.

I think this is a pretty interesting discussion in light of the fact that I am currently in grade 11....
For me, what's turned me off school reading isn't the books you read, but how you analyze them. A good example of this is Lord of the Flies, which someone else already brought up as a one for high schools to teach. I read the book before it was assigned in grade 9 and loved it, but then came the assignments and I hated it. We would read by chapters, and then have tests on the content of the chapters along the lines of "Who kicked over the sand castle" and "What does Jack symbolize" and so this required one to read and try to recall every single event of the chapter, and effectively meant reading ahead was bad because then you wouldnt know clearly when each chapter ended. And then when asked "Describe the three main events of chapter 4" it was useless because the chapters blurred together into, gasp, a story. Also you had to memorize 'correct' answers to questions like what does Jack symbolize, rather than forming an opinion of your own, because only one answer was acceptable. The next year though we read Romeo and Juliet, and although I liked Lord of the Flies better in terms of a story, I far preferred the study of Romeo and Juliet, because the teacher taught it in a better way. Thus, I think for me it is the way you are taught that makes one like a book, because its hard to differentiate your first experience of the book from the book itself.

#14, what you say definitely resonates with me. I've re-read, recently, many of the books that I read for school in high school, and have found that I am enjoying them much more, simply because I am not analyzing them TO DEATH. I can remember just TEARING Heart of Darkness apart, looking for motifs, symbolism, themes, foreshadowing, etc, etc, etc. It just takes the joy out of reading to nitpick the text, and I think, to find things in it that the authors most likely never intended to put there.

I have to disagree that it is better for students to read a classic in hs and hate it than maybe never read it at all. I read "Grapes of Wrath" my junior year and hated it. Even though I suspect I would enjoy it or other Steinbeck works, I have this aversion to them and can't convince myself to pick them up because of that horrible first experience. I wonder how many other students have the same experience with Shakespeare, Faulkner, Hawthorne, etc.

We do everything we can in our school systems to make reading a drag. I'd prefer middle and high school english classes to pick quality contemporary titles and then start a reading group dynamic. Yes, there needs to be tests to ensure accountability and, of course, writing assignments; however, a love of reading for as many students as possible should be priority #1. If a person comes out of high school with a love of reading, most everything else will fall into place.

jthierer, if you want to reacquaint yourself with Steinbeck, try Travels with Charley. It's one of the quintessential road books and it's not overly laden with themes and motifs.

I had As I Lay Dying assigned in high school and absolutely hated it. I remember that one chapter consisting of the sentence "My mother is a fish." (or maybe it was "sister;" whatever) and thinking "what in the world is this all about?" I didn't get it at all. I've never read any more Faulkner, which is probably my loss.

I know for sure that, at least in the Caribbean and (parts of) US & Canada there is already a mix of "quality" contemporary titles and classics. I would never want to get rid of classics in school simply to foster a "love of reading". I'm glad that some high school literary texts are difficult. A love of reading should be a priority but it should not be the no. 1 focus of an educational institution: it should be critical reading, interpretation and expression. There is a way to incorporate both as Kira's post and my experiences show.

When there are so many high school students graduating with sub-par reading comprehension, writing and mathematical skills it seems clear to me that a major part of the problem is that students aren't properly equipped with the skills to handle Steinbeck and Shakespeare. And instead of addressing that problem we simply point to the "difficulty" of classics and seek more "accessible" contemporaries.

Bromius- I do think students should read classical literature, I also think they should read current books.

I really enjoyed a lot of the classical in school, The Odyssey was good, Romeo and Juliet was good because we spent weeks reading it out loud and discussing it.

I do think that teaching kids to enjoy reading is more important than teaching the classical texts though. Especially for people that aren't going to go to college and might never pick up another book if they don't realize books are something that they can relate to.

Possably the only school book that I've subsiquently come to enjoy was Thomas Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge - which I disliked at school precisely because of the huge over analysis as described above.

I haven't ever enjoyed analysing a book I read because I enjoy the story.