3 ms·

I feel privileged to never having read Dickens before my thirtieth or so (I'm not a native English speaker, so avoiding Dickens as a teenager was trivial); it w

I feel privileged to never having read Dickens before my thirtieth or so (I'm not a native English speaker, so avoiding Dickens as a teenager was trivial); it would have given me the wrong impression. His works are great, but require increasingly more cultural baggage to fully enjoy (excepting the Christmas Carol, which is kept in the public consciousness by various factors, including muppets). I can't imagine assigning his novels to minors unless accompanied by lessons providing a lot of context — from historical notes on Victorian society, class struggle, and the meaning of words used daily back then, but obsolete now ('phaeton' is a fun one).

AlbertCory 3y ago
> I can't imagine assigning his novels to minors Then you shouldn't be teaching them. Learning about a world that's strange to you is one of the great delights of old literature. It's called "education."
- ghaff 3y ago
  Some literature is almost certainly more accessible than others. I'm not sure where Dickens is on that list but it's almost certainly not on the very accessible side, especially at the high school level. Mind you, I'm not sure that some of the more modern novels we did in high school age especially well. But I loved A Picture of Dorian Gray, for example.
- Freak_NL 3y ago
  Kids read less and less. Assigning them works not likely to be absorbed properly and certainly not enjoyed is tantamount to souring them on reading permanently — something which has been done in many countries for way too long with teachers sticking to 'perennial' classics they (might have) loved, but which no longer enthuse. I stopped reading fiction for years after high school figuring literature just wasn't worth bothering with after get fed ponderous dribble and books not of interest to a young person. I only got back into reading after discovering Douglas Adams, and decades later read anything which grabs my interest, including Dickens and many other classic works. A good teacher assigns works which lie just outside of the pupil's comfort zone, but not so far out there as to make reading a chore. Want to assign Dickens? Go ahead and read the Christmas Carol at this time of year; it's short and not too hard to grasp, and with enough hooks to go into Victorian society and other related topics. But assign David Copperfield? Great book, but for teenagers way too long for a work that old and removed. A teenager could read four novels that do connect with them in the same time. Sure, some teens might be ready for it, but it's not for everyone. First, get them to read. Any book. Teach them that not all books will work for them. Skip that step, and you lose most of them as adult readers (the status quo by now).
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    > get them to read. Any book. We now have a 20-year long large-sample test : lots of kids (then) read only Harry Potter books. Did they turn into readers of other, better books? I honestly don't know, but I think you need to be open to empirical tests of the hypothesis, whatever the results show. Your argument works just the same as "my kid hates his vegetables, so he just eats burgers, fries, and ice cream." A good parent strategizes this problem rather than just giving in.

AlbertCory 3y ago

> I can't imagine assigning his novels to minors Then you shouldn't be teaching them. Learning about a world that's strange to you is one of the great delights of old literature. It's called "education."

ghaff 3y ago
Some literature is almost certainly more accessible than others. I'm not sure where Dickens is on that list but it's almost certainly not on the very accessible side, especially at the high school level. Mind you, I'm not sure that some of the more modern novels we did in high school age especially well. But I loved A Picture of Dorian Gray, for example.
Freak_NL 3y ago
Kids read less and less. Assigning them works not likely to be absorbed properly and certainly not enjoyed is tantamount to souring them on reading permanently — something which has been done in many countries for way too long with teachers sticking to 'perennial' classics they (might have) loved, but which no longer enthuse. I stopped reading fiction for years after high school figuring literature just wasn't worth bothering with after get fed ponderous dribble and books not of interest to a young person. I only got back into reading after discovering Douglas Adams, and decades later read anything which grabs my interest, including Dickens and many other classic works. A good teacher assigns works which lie just outside of the pupil's comfort zone, but not so far out there as to make reading a chore. Want to assign Dickens? Go ahead and read the Christmas Carol at this time of year; it's short and not too hard to grasp, and with enough hooks to go into Victorian society and other related topics. But assign David Copperfield? Great book, but for teenagers way too long for a work that old and removed. A teenager could read four novels that do connect with them in the same time. Sure, some teens might be ready for it, but it's not for everyone. First, get them to read. Any book. Teach them that not all books will work for them. Skip that step, and you lose most of them as adult readers (the status quo by now).
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  > get them to read. Any book. We now have a 20-year long large-sample test : lots of kids (then) read only Harry Potter books. Did they turn into readers of other, better books? I honestly don't know, but I think you need to be open to empirical tests of the hypothesis, whatever the results show. Your argument works just the same as "my kid hates his vegetables, so he just eats burgers, fries, and ice cream." A good parent strategizes this problem rather than just giving in.