Personally, I think "classic" literature is overated. I know that is almost heretical to some people, but I think if we step back and look at how high classic literature is placed we might see that it does not necessarily need to be placed so high. What about modern literature that inspires. Also, what about non-fiction? My son likes non-fiction better than fiction. I actually think this is more valuable. I know that fiction can teach moral lessons and all and I personally love both--maybe even fiction more than non-fiction. But, what important LIFE skills do kids learn from reading about the Scarlett Letter or Shakespeare. While these are enjoyable to some people, they really don't help us learn life skills outside the academic arena. Reading anything can help reading skills, I just don't believe that I have to have my son read all the "suggested" books to help him be prepared for life.
Yeah! I agree with you 100%. Last week at the local homeschool convention I sat in on a class about writing. One interesting point the speaker made about writing nowadays verses 100 years ago is that 100 years ago there was no TV and few people traveled so the writer had to explain things in greater depth. Now days if a writer speaks about something, let's say Africa, he will not need to go in great depth because we have all seen pictures of Africa. We have those pictures in our mind already. My point being, writing has changed. It is not necessarily bad or good, just nowadays it is different for a reason.
My oldest who loves to read enjoys both. She LOVES new releases just as much as she loves classics. I think they both have their place but I know my younger 2 enjoy more modern books at their current ages than classics.
Classics aren't necessary, but beneficial. I find that they are a natural way to build up language arts skills such as vocabulary and grammar. Classics are written by talented writers who know their way around a sentence and know how to use words to convey intended meaning. Reading classic books can help convey those skills to a child without having to plod through workbooks. To me classic literature is not just about the stories, the morals taught, or the inspiration presented, but the beauty of language.
mmmm-speaking to a serious bookie here (and I don't mean money)....I find that classic literatutre is extremely inspiring (mary shelley's frankenstein-she wrote it in 3 days, and there were NO WOMEN writers writing under their actual names at the time)...also so many of the female characters are so strong and well based (Jane eyre!!!! Amazing). But I read EVERYTHING-from mind candy fluff to non-fiction, to fairy tales, to baby name books and all in between... I don't think you should discount the classics. They are called classics the same way classical music is-and they are held to a higher esteem because it was so much harder to write and get published then. I mean, Beatrix Potter had a hell of a time and it wasn't until her 3rd book that people took her seriously. There are newspaper articles (and mind you-this was NOT all that long ago!!!) making fun of her because she wrote a book deliberately for children. Today-we're appalled when children don't have access to books. As for your 2 choices-well, the scarlet letter is about morales and I believe that the message in that book is as poignant as The Diary of Anne Frank, Night by Elie Wiesel, or even say, The Othe Bolyen Girl (uh sp...sorry)...they all deal with morales and the dates in all those books range. As for Shakespeare-well, I think being able to read things other than novels is important-but most don't agree that prose is necessary nowadays. I just think you end up with a better talent forother languages...but I don't have any "scientific" proof for that. Then again, I think people nowadays don't really like classics because everything is so fast, and those books do not really read fast (except maybe Jane Austin or Isaac Asimov books). And seriously-with the literacy rate being what it is...if they're happy with a more modern genre-have at it!! As long as they're reading and enjoying it.
I think classic literature IS classic because it has stood the test of time, and it speaks to huge ranges of people over a long time period. Most of it was not written specifically for children but adults, although if their vocabulary and comprehension are adequate, kids can enjoy them too, and now more younger people than older adults read them, and they bear reading again. There are tons of adventure books that are now considered classic - White Fang, The Call of the Wild, Moby Dick, Gulliver's Travels, Captains Courageous, tons of Kipling, Dickens, London, ... Lots and lots of stuff that doesn't have to be the Scarlet Letter or Shakespeare. In fact, most of this material qualifies as "family friendly" when the Scarlet Letter or Shakespeare - or the Canterbury Tales - often doesn't. So, like anything else, there's enough variety to pick and choose, and you don't have to choose the same things as everybody else. I tried, toward the end of last year, reading aloud to the group (preK, first, fifth, sixth, and eighth graders), and we started with L. Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz. The vocabulary was over all their heads, and they could not have read it themselves, but they enjoyed being read to. I don't think any of them had been read to with expression and voices and such, at least not in a very long time. My dh enjoyed this as much as the kids did, and is looking forward to next school year and more read-alouds.
BrandyBJ, I really just pulled those two examples out of a hat so to speak. I enjoyed Scarlett Letter. In fact, I think there is merit to classic literature and most of it probably does help with grammar and learning vocabulary and such. Honestly, some of the literature I have read that is so-called high school level or beyond is WAY to easy to read to believe that some people rate it at that level. For example: Little Women-- a nice story, but not necessarily a higher skill level book. I personally LOVE books that challenge our sense of what is really right and wrong. One of the most memorable stories I have ever read was "The Lottery", and it was just a short story. It spoke volumes to me about how people just go along with the crowd. The funny thing is I read somewhere that the author didn't mean to teach any moral lesson through her story. I just want to remember that if my son reads it qualifies as literature. Now, I am being realistic--I personally don't count comic strips as literature (some people do). I also don't want him just reading short magazine articles, because I think you have to learn to stick with things. But, if he wants to read the book "Do Hard Things", then that is literature to me. I also have certain books I want him to read, such as "Living Water"-which is a very good book about living an authentic Christian life and serving God.
I don't know what my children are going to do when they grow up, so my philosophy in educating them is to keep their options open and prepare them for anything they may wish to do. Having said that, I wouldn't force them to read great numbers of clasics if they were resistent to them. I do think that one way or another they need to be familiar with the more well-know classics, because allusions are made to them everyday in conversation, modern literature, TV, movies, etc. You can't even get 25% of the jokes made by Bugs Bunny if you don't have some knowledge of the classics. (LOL)
My feeling is that no matter how great of a book other people feel The Three Musketeer's is - I think it stinks. You couldn't pay me money to read that book again...we were forced in 9th grade because it was "literature". Sorry, a boring book is a boring book regardless of how old, valuable, or whatever. There is no point to force yourself to read anything. If it doesn't strike your fancy - skip it. There are plenty of others to choose from. We do read classics, but only classics that we like. For example - we loved Tom Sawyer, Call of the Wild, Where the Red Fern Grows, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Good Earth, and many others. But you will not catch anyone in this house reading Little House in the Big Woods. I hated it when I was 10 and my kids hated it when they were 10 too. Doesn't appeal to us. The point about having so many other ways to get information is a good one. Sometimes I see people ranting on about kids getting their information via TV's and computers and I think to myself - who cares? Why does it matter if one person prefers books and another prefers computer? It doesn't. To each his own. Learning style is a personal thing - if you need pictures and audio to take it all in then by all means make sure you get what you need. Who cares how you get there. So on that note, yes I think classical literature is over rated. Just because it is old doesn't make it good. OTOH - I think if you are looking to learn about people in a certain era, then reading the same things they read is a good way to develop a deeper understanding of a historical period.
I struggle with this. I LOVE the classics. And the one's I've shared with my children have been equally loved. I so see the need for non-fiction, totally, and if your son likes that....let him read it! I think there is a lot to learn from the classics. They talk about the period in which the people wrote it lived, etc. The language, etc. Of course, I'm language person. I love words.
(rant alert!) Wow, as a college English professor, I find I am at a loss for words. This is a big issue in college, that students think the "classics" are outdated, and that modern literature is "just as good." The problem is that if you don't understand the difference, then you ARE missing a HUGE CHUNK of what classic lit (and also art and film) is supposed to be. I concede that modern, contemporary lit is often "more fun" or more engaging to read, and while they lack literary elements, we can still read them for fun. However, we SHOULD read the classics, because once a student (regardless of age) understands what makes classic literature so good, then they can appreciate ALL literature, not just classic lit. I remember when I first read Faulkner, I had to read "Absolom! Absolom!" for a sophomore English course. The first 150 pages were HORRIBLE, long convoluted sentences, paragraphs, ideas that seemed to run into each other and some of the most dense vovabulary I had ever read. It was WORK to get through those pages, but then I hit page 150 (or whatever it was) and the WHOLE BOOK was worth the work. I can honestly say there is no piece of contemporary lit that has that type of impact. It also taught me about language, stream of consciousness writing, and themes that most writers don't want to work with, or don't use with such effectiveness. That is not to say don't read modern lit - DO! Those are great stories! But that is all they are - stories. There is some modern lit destined to fit into the shelves of "classic lit" eventually, but for now, it is just "pulp fiction" - read it for the fun of it. Classic lit is more than stories - they involve a bit of work but the rewards are worth it. Lindina is right - those works stood the test of time! And be aware that lumping all "old" works as "classic lit" is not fair. Classic lit is as varied as any story you will find today - the fun of classic lit is wading through it to find those that do appeal to you. I learned my son is a Stevenson fan when he plowed through Kidnapped in one night - he picked the book at the library on his own. And while I ADORE Faulkner and Steinbeck and Shakespeare, I read Moby Dick ONCE, and I will never read that book again - I am not one for sea literature! Moby Dick is as unlike Absolom! Absolom! as Twilight is different from Charlie and the Chocolate factory (and don't even get me started on what lit such as the twilight series has done to students' minds analysis/appreciation of literature. I cry for the future. It may be a fun story for some, but it is ATROCIOUS literature.). Learning the ins and outs of classics opens the mind and makes one more aware of intellectual elements in more than just lit - it helps students develop a rhetorical mind, a thinking mind, which is none-to-slowly becoming endangered in today's world. If you want to try some classic lit, but that label is frightening, then try a movie with it - Read Frankenstein, Dracula, Pride and Prejudice, then watch the movie - use that as a reward and make comparisons between the book and the film - that is a great start to analyzing a classic text. We have done comparisons with Lewis, Dahl, Tolkien with my kids, and in my college classes, we do Sling Blade with Of Mice and Men, War of the Worlds with Independence Day, Sleepy Hallow, Wuthering Heights . . . and it helps students learn to think more deeply about lit, cause those elements EXIST in classic lit, not in "stories." Don't label it as classic lit, as that makes it seem distant and frightening. Classic lit is just a book, like any other book, only better on a deeper level. (stepping off my soapbox! Thanks!)
It is nice to hear your perspective. I agree with you. I think we have an advantage as homeschoolers because we can pick and choose classics of interest. I hated MacBeth in high school. It is much different choosing literature of interest than having to read something you really dislike. I am not interested in Moby Dick at all, but my son is. I couldn't even make it through the movie. But is a planned read aloud for the upcoming school year so hopefully I can have that 150 page revelation you did We are going through Tom Sawyer right now and the book has been a pleasant surprise. I hadn't read it before and there is so much wit and complexity built in to the writing. Just today I was reading it to my son and he learned the meaning of expectorating. Now I hope he just doesn't expectorate like Tom Sawyer.
We will be using some classic lit. And a big reason why is so much of what is written today is dumbed down. And you have to be careful of the source you use I hear, some of the newer prints of some of the classics will change the words to dumb it down for today's youth. (I just read an article about this recently-totally shocked me. One of the examples given was antelope was changed to deer cause they were afraid the kids wouldn't know what an antelope was!!! REALLY?!?!?! What ever happened to LOOK IT UP!?!?!?) I also want to do living books for history. I hated history in school. It was just facts and dates shoved down my throat. Then I grew up and graduated and now I LOVE history. I love biographies, documentaries and fiction that are history based. You can learn so much through them. Through books (instead of textbooks) you might not remember that pearl harbor was bombed in 1941, but you will understand so much more about why Pearl Harbor was bombed and what it was like to be there. I'm currently watching a documentary series on the civil war and I'm loving it. Had you told me in high school I would be watching this for enjoyment I would have laughed in your face LOL I'm also using a lot of old (1800's-1900's) phonics books and my son really likes them and seems to 'get it' better through these old primers than with some newer books I have here at the house. I also like that many classics are more kid friendly, family friendly and have Christian morals and traditional gender roles in them. I will have to admit though, if my kids want to read Dickens they will have to do that on their own. I suffered through enough of his writing in middle school and high school and refuse to do it again *hangs head* LOL As gwen said-I'm a fan of read the book then watch the movie. My oldest loves TV and computer/video games. So we do a lot with him on the computer and do a lot of documentaries. We have some plans for book/movie combos and I hope to continue this through high school. Many times I've seen a movie that made me read the book. As a child I developed such a crush on Laurence Olivier in Wuthering Heights I read the book on my own! LOL It was way above my level at the time but I've seen the movie and read the book several times since, it's one of my all time favs.
I agree with gwenny99. Reading classics are worth it, not that you will like every classic story, but just being familiar with the writing style itself is worth it. Today's publishers call for clean, short, and easy to read or else my articles don't get published. I have to remind myself to write so that anyone at an eighth grade reading level could understand it, which is sad. To do that I have to keep in mind that I need to write to a sixth grade level in my day, which is far sadder, and my writing skills stagnate because of it. I love being enraptured in a sentence that takes an entire paragraph to complete, with proper grammar use and at least one word I have to look up to understand its use. When you look at older literature, compared to modern, you cannot help but see the difference, even semicolons in today's literary market are discouraged. I noticed many people here adore the Charlotte Mason approach and I wonder how many have read her books. Here is one of many such sentences as I described above that she wrote: The consideration of out-of-door life, in developing a method of education, comes second in order; because my object is to show that the chief function of the child—his business in the world during the first six or seven years of his life—is to find all he can, about whatever comes under his notice, by means of his five senses; that he has an insatiable appetite for knowledge got in this way; and that, therefore, the endeavour of his parents should be to put him in the way of making acquaintance freely with Nature and natural objects; that, in fact, the intellectual education of the young child should lie in the free exercise of perceptive power, because the first stages of mental effort are marked by the extreme activity of this power; and the wisdom of the educator is to follow the lead of Nature in the evolution of the complete human being. Wow! I wish I could write like that and still get published in today's market.
Oh, I LOVED reading the Three Musketeers!!! Count of Monte Cristo, however.... There's a lot of stuff we don't get "life skills" from, but we do it for its aesthetic value. Has anyone ever studied the "Bread and Roses" march in 1912 Massachussetts? The women who worked in the textile mill went on strike. They reportedly said they wanted more than just "bread"; they wanted the "roses" of life, too. There's a poem/song written about it that's worth reading in connection with American history, btw. ANYWAY, I firmly believe that teaching just the basics gives our children plenty of "bread", but it's the classics that expose them to the "roses". While we don't live off the roses, that's what makes our life more than dreary existing.
Jackie - I was the opposite! I ADORED Count! and Embassy - I am not sure if it is pg 150 exactly but it is near the end, and it is ONE line, that one character says, and it is like a slap in the face. Good luck!
Oh, and I agree about Tom Sawyer! It read MUCH better than I expected. And that one place in the beginning, where the boys were trying to (not) pick a fight! I laughed so hard!!! Another pleasant surprise was Around the World in 80 Days. I'll be reading that to the kids this year. Oh, and I had tried to read Treasure Island two or three times as a kid and couldn't. So I finally read it aloud to the kids a few years back, and even Phillip as a preschooler loved it! (We saw a play of it last night, btw. It was a free outdoor theatre I've attended for 20 years, and I've NEVER seen it so packed!!! And SO MANY KIDS!!! It was wonderful to see!) Difficult ones for me were the Moonstone and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Oh, and I've tried Last of the Mohicans twice and couldn't get into it, though I LOVED the movie!!!
Ugh! Don't say that!! I'm reading the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea this next year too. My dh told my ds about it and he was very interested. It doesn't interest me at all! I'm not looking forward to the Hobbit either. At least I have one Steinbeck and two Twains on the list. I love Steinbeck and Twain.
Oh, I loved the Hobbit! We finally gave up on 20,000 Leagues, and went to one of those "Early Classic" editions. Yeah, it told the story fine, but the language was too simple. From one extreme to the other! Rachael especially didn't like it at all!
Last of the mohicans is a LOT Of walking through the woods, but there is the unexpected WHOA at the end that is worth it - and the movie DOES NOT end like the book (spoiler alert!
