silentraven6
Regular
276 messages
joined Nov 2018
It’s honestly not a good idea to get lazy in the long run if we want our standardized testing and high school graduation exams to actually mean something. I don't want us reaching a point where they base everything on trivial nonsense—like asking which song was playing in the background during that scene in *Olga* and *Lina* when they find the piano, or what color flower Julia had tucked in her hair when Romeo first saw her, or even what shade of blue the sky was in *Romeo and Juliet*. We need substance, not trivia.
The worst part about all this is that people start asking these kinds of questions before they’ve even sat kids down to explain what the symbols mean. They don't bother pointing out those specific moments that actually deserve extra attention—whether it's within the pacing, the overall work, or just the flow of the action itself.
The fundamental question really comes down to this: what is the actual purpose of required reading, and who exactly gets to decide which books earn the title of "classic," "canonical," or a "masterpiece"?
Like I’ve said before, what actually makes up "the canon" isn't some fixed, holy truth. It’s really just whatever the zeitgeist decides it is at any given moment. You’ve got groups of hyper-focused literary historians—including those self-proclaimed "experts" who act like they discovered everything yesterday—as well as the academic establishment (usually those folks over at the Academy of Sciences who, let's be honest, often lacked any real teaching intuition even back when they were lecturing at universities). Then you have the social order shaped by ideology, and even small circles of dedicated humanists who are genuinely trying to make a difference. The canon is always being re-evaluated. It isn't some untouchable, sacred category that stays frozen for centuries; it never has been in history. Throughout time, the selection of canonical authors and works has been swayed by all sorts of phenomena—most often that pedagogical and didactic element used to serve specific ideologies, certain ways of teaching, or particular methods of study.
I honestly can't get behind this whole idea that kids today are lazier than previous generations just because of how they handle required reading. Let's be real here—kids have always been lazy. Every single one of us knows that. I'm 34 years old now, and even back then, only a tiny fraction of us actually sat down to read entire books from cover to cover, let alone any extra stuff. If anything, I think it was even worse in the past. Remember those ridiculous reading logs? Those massive 25-page booklets where you had to list everything you "read"? Half the time, it was just moms sitting there filling them out for their kids. It was a total sham. Nowadays, with the way written tests are structured, it’s much harder to cheat like that. It feels like the focus has shifted toward actual discussion and dialogue about the books, which is a much better way to see if someone actually engaged with the story.
That’s a whole different conversation: what even qualifies as "required reading," and what is its actual purpose? Does it really need to be confined strictly to American literature classes?
It feels like we’re constantly trying to justify ourselves by clinging to the canon. We act like because we forced these books down everyone's throats, and they turn out to be terrible or just too much work to actually read, then it’s somehow not our fault. It's like we're shifting the blame. A massive group of people decided that ten specific works were "masterpieces" just because of some high-brow artistic label, but most people don't want them. To them, it's all just a chore—too heavy, too tedious, just plain exhausting. It’s honestly a bit pathetic.
We basically washed our hands of their whole reading culture. I mean, the entire idea behind required school reading was to cultivate a genuine love for books, to sharpen aesthetic judgment, and to build up critical thinking skills—not just to serve as a dry history lesson on literature.
My favorite type of people are those who constantly lecture everyone else about "the classics," even though they only ever cracked them open because it was required for a high school English credit and haven't touched them since. Seriously, how is that even considered reading? How is that supposed to be a love for literature? About 90% of these critics—the ones calling everyone else lazy for skipping the old stuff—have never actually picked up one of those books again, let alone explored another work by the same author. They remind me of those religious types who swear by the Bible but haven't read a single actual letter from it unless they're hearing it read aloud during a sermon at church.
The whole idea that Americans don't read? Honestly, I think that’s complete nonsense. It's just not true. You can't look at a claim like that and call it a valid data point when you aren't even accounting for all the variables. People are reading; they're just doing it differently than how some folks might expect.
When you look at the data, most people focus on book acquisitions or, more recently, how libraries are adding physical media to their collections. But honestly, even that doesn't give you the full picture. It’s impossible to get an accurate sense of the actual state of things because not every library is integrated into the central database—like the Library of Congress system. You also end up missing out on private exchanges between institutions, small local home libraries, and we’ve only just started accounting for alternative sources like e-readers. There are just too many gaps in the data to say we have the whole story.
Also, what can we actually say about library access across the US? Does anyone here actually know what the situation looks like on the ground? I’m curious how well-equipped school libraries in smaller towns really are—specifically regarding collections that aren't just strictly required reading lists. What are they doing to actually encourage kids to read for pleasure? Are librarians in those smaller communities taking the initiative to build up their own little collections to spark some interest in the smallest readers?
I could be really mean here and say that if my kid wanted to find something beyond the required reading list, he’d first have to hunt down a librarian somewhere in the school hallways and try to actually strike up a conversation that isn't just, "Hey, I need this for class." But honestly, I know that's not how it works, and I truly respect the work librarians do all over the US. They run such incredible programs and workshops. How many of them are doing that kind of heavy lifting? I don't know, but it feels like there aren't nearly enough. On one hand, you have my life in a place like Chicago—I'm basically a professional bibliophile who spends way more time tucked away in libraries than the average person. I feel at home in them. Instead of grabbing coffee on a busy street corner, I’d much rather be sitting in a library, reading, working, or just chatting with the staff. But then there's the rest of the country. There's the issue of accessibility, the actual availability of books, and the reality that for a lot of people, purchasing power is just too low to make reading an easy choice.
And why on earth should reading assignments be confined strictly to English class? If we’re actually serious about encouraging people to read—if we really care about preserving literary history, the canon, and all that other stuff—then we can do it during math, history, or physics too. Think about the massive potential hidden in the papers of legendary physicists. Honestly, let's stop this constant brainwashing in English class that strips the subject of its actual purpose. Let them read in the original languages they're learning in school; let them dive into scientific papers, essays, or even feuilletons. It’s absurd to act like English class is the only way to spark an interest in reading, or like reading is nothing more than just picking up a piece of fiction.
