I've been idly working on reading more classics as a part of my overall goals. It's had mixed success. Some of them, like Jane Eyre or Anna Karenina, hold up well. Their place as classics makes sense and the struggle of reading is clearly worth the reward. Some, however, like Kim, don't fare as well and I'm left wondering why they are held up as classics. Come to that, how does it get decided what is a classic anyway. It can't just be longevity. While publishing rates have picked up tremendously, there are still plenty of old books that have faded into obscurity or even disappeared. So, who makes this decision exactly?
According to the dictionary a classic is "judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind." Or an alternate definition: "remarkably and instructively typical." Who makes that determination? Certainly educators over the decades have had a hand in it. However, I suspect that it's also partially a byproduct of the publishing industry and advertising. Most problematic to me is the thought that some books persist purely out of name recognition. It's a lingering popularity that confers an artificial value.
I'm not saying that "classic" isn't a meaningful designation, I'm just a little leery of the lack critical judgement involved in the label.
Perhaps it seems like a silly thing to worry about, but as an English teacher I find it troubling. In the world of literature, classics get a pass. No one really scrutinizes what their value actually is. Some people discount them entirely as being old and fussy, others venerate them blindly. I've seen this play out in the attitudes of my students, other teaching staff, and with my student's parents which has led to some very odd conversations over the years.
I've spent most of my career as a teacher defending literature as a whole. All of it from the classics written hundreds of years ago to the silliest bit of teen fluff that dropped last week. I have my reading preferences just like anyone else and there are certainly books that I don't enjoy, but usually I can see or at least accept the value in them even so. I try to reserve any judgement until I read it, and if I'm not going to read it, I try to keep my mouth shut and listen to the people who have.
The thing I've observed is that there is a tendency to accept the value of a classic without feeling the need to read it at all. I suppose that would be fine if there was some sort of vetting body assuring that a classic really was "remarkably and instructively typical." Certainly there have been groups who have tried to do just that. Penguin has done this, so has the New York Library, and PBS. However, it still tends to come down to an odd popularity contest where the voters haven't even read all the candidates (which is an impossible undertaking anyway.) So its a vague mob designation fueled by name recognition and people voting for the only book on a very long list that they've actually read or possibly even heard of. Seems more indicative of a good ad campaign than actual literary worth to me.
One thing that I know is happening is that educators, through text choices, in their classes are keeping certain titles in the classic category. Through the 70's into the early 2000's many educators fell into trap of teaching from a list specific titles which is part of why most adults I know have all read "Romeo & Juliet," To Kill a Mockingbird, "The Odyssey," The Diary of Anne Frank, as well as a handful others. There's value in creating a shared body of experience, to be sure, but most adults I know also stopped reading literature for its own sake sometime right after high school. Their development as readers stalls out and these handful of texts, for better or worse, form almost their entire basis of comparison. (I have a lot to say about how pushing classics solely destroys a reading habit, but that's a different post.)
Okay, so what's the problem with that? I can come up with a handful of issues, not least of which that if the public is deciding what a classic is, they should actually be reading them and have a basis of comparison. However, I'd like to focus on the blind faith we put into something labeled a classic. I've had many conversations with parents lately who object to a novel study one of my teachers are doing in their classes. I don't have a problem with that. Parents look out for their kids and, while I hope they take the time to actually read the novel study book with an open mind, I know that it's a scary world out there and literature is by its nature challenging. So when a parent comes to me with a concern, I listen. I do my best to convince them of the merit of the book and sometimes they read it themselves and see the merit too. Sometimes, we end up with an alternate text for that student and therein lies the issue with "classics". Oftentimes, the parents suggest something off that old list of canon favorites they learned in high school. Oftentimes, that classic is just as problematic as the one they want to replace. What it has going for it usually is a label (classic) and possibly some historical relevance.
For example, To Kill a Mockingbird is a good book and tremendously relevant when talking through the civil rights movement of the 60's. However, it also makes use of the n- word excessively, portrays a certain level of institutional racism as acceptable, and is an awful portrayal of the mentally ill.
How about "The Crucible"? Excellent play that does a great job of illustrating how public hysteria can turn otherwise decent people into a mob who obsess over a literal witch hunt that ends up corrupting the honesty of probably the most honest character in literature. Great values there and worthwhile. The only problem is that lit teachers tend to teach it as an example of Puritan Lit. It's not....it was written in 1953 as a metaphor for and attack on McCarthyism. (There's a similar issue with A Scarlet Letter - it's Victorian lit and not Puritan lit.) Context matters.
I'm not even willing to give Shakespeare a pass here. "Romeo and Juliet" has more dirty (like blush-worthy) jokes in the first two acts than I'm particularly comfortable talking through with 14 year-olds. If I tried to teach a contemporary book with that many sex jokes in it, I'd be hauled up in front of my school board. Additionally, there is a tendency to teach this play as a romance but doing so promotes the idea of suicide as a reasonable outcome for lost love. In reality, its about two very impulsive teens with distant parents who make a series of bad choices because they don't feel like they can reach out to the adults around them. (If it was taught that way, I'd have fewer objections.)
I could keep going.
Let's be clear. I like classics most of the time and I do think they have value both in and outside the classroom. I just don't think they should receive blanket approval. All literature should be carefully considered, regardless of its status.
