Dangerous Literature
I wrote last week about Stephanie Meyer’s epically disastrous vampire novel Twilight, but I’ve been thinking more and more about the issue of bad literature and how it relates to schooling and homeschooling.
Despite my monastic moniker, we’re not homeschooling for religious reasons as much as intellectual ones. In what’s probably an enormous act of hubris, we sincerely believed (and still believe) that we can do a better job instructing our child than Local Neighborhood School can. Part of the reason we think we can do this better job is pretty simple: we have a better reading list.
The blog Flesh and Spirit recently referenced a compelling article about Harry Potter. The author considers the accusation, often leveled against the Harry Potter books, that they are “dangerous,”
particularly to Christians or those who have a problem with magic.
Ultimately, the author concludes, the Harry Potter books are dangerous — just as any literature is “dangerous”:
To a child who is not well-read, Harry Potter is dangerous—and so is any other book he or she may read. But the best defense against one idea is not fewer ideas, but more of them; and the best defense against one book is a whole host of them. Being widely read, in other words, is the best inoculation against the dangers of literature. Being widely read enables a person to not only see an idea, but, as Chesterton put it, to see through it.
Owing a big debt to Alexander Pope – as he’d probably acknowledge — the author concludes that “literature is dangerous—except when taken in large doses.”
A little learning, Pope advised, is a dangerous thing. Drink from the spring of wisdom, and you risk mental intoxication. The only cure? To drink deeply.
Too often, I think the texts that kids are presented, especially in school, are the equivalent of fast food given to starving people, but it’s given on the basis that any kind of “food” must be good. For instance, on the reading list for the students at one high school I’m familiar with is Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park. Okay, I like myself a good airport novel as much as the next guy, and Jurassic Park is a great mind-distractor when the flight attendant is counseling you about the proper function of the overhead bins, but as literature, it stinks for much of the same reasons as Twilight stinks: the characterization is thin as tissue paper, the plot is pretty darn predictable (once the dinosaurs get loose), and the writing is just above serviceable. At least J.K. Rowling, whose writing is only serviceable as well, enjoys the pun-fun play of language in her humorously Dickensian names — I’m still in love with the name “Dolores Umbridge,” a character who reminds me painfully and accurately of many school administrators and counselors I’ve worked with.
Crichton never even gets that far.
Would someone tell me why this book is included on a high school curriculum? If it’s because of the notion that this book raises ethical questions of tampering with nature, why not Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein? I’m not even a science person, but even I can tell that the “science” in Jurassic Park is merely an overlay of a Cliffs Notes-level version of chaos theory.
This is one of the reasons we homeschool: because the spring of wisdom presented in many of the schools in our area, even the good ones, ain’t nearly deep enough. It’s not that reading garbage literature will hurt you — that is, unless garbage is the main source of your intellectual meal. To that end, I’d like to provide an excellent resource: John Senior’s list of the 1000 good books you should read before you try the 100 great ones. The book The Well-Trained Mind is an other outstanding place to go for an excellent list as well, or any college such as St. John’s which has a largely classical or Great Books curriculum.
Life’s too short to read fluff.
I was over at reason.com reading one of their articles and it made me think of your recent posts. It was about ‘revolutionary’ books for kids. Animal Farm was on the list, and so was this one which sounds interesting:
“Pretties, by Scott Westerfeld: “Well paced, and wildly popular. It’s about the pressures on young people to conform, specifically to physically conform and to switch off their minds while they’re conforming. All Westerfeld’s books are good revolutionary texts.””
We have a better reading list.
That is one of the reasons I enjoy homeschool so much. I get to enjoy the great literature that I missed.
Ooh, hey, Misanthropically, thanks! Our child is a big Animal Farm fan, as a matter of fact, and I’m always trying to find more books like that, books which basically ask difficult philosophical questions or provide insight at an adult level without necessarily being intimidatingly or unachievably adult. Unfortunately, that’s one heck of a short list. I’ve seen “Pretties” before, but on a passing glance, I thought it was like “Gossip Girl,” but I’ll be happy to give it a second look.
Renae, you really put your finger on something important: homeschooling is about the attempt to right a wrong — well, isn’t much of parenting? — but at least for us, it’s a chance to fix the many, many holes in the education we received (or didn’t receive), to make up for the lost time, to fill in the blanks, and to learn sooooo many things that were never learned originally.
Maybe I’m reading too much into this article, but I’ve picked up the implication that contemporary literature can’t be as deep and meaningful as classic literature, and I disagree.
I do agree that most current popular novels are fluff (Jurrasic Park is not worthy of classroom time), but we shouldn’t judge all contemporary literature by those things made into action films.
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay by Chabon is an excellent novel worthy of study.
Also, despite their popularity and their films, I would argue that the Harry Potter collection can serve a purpose in the classroom. Certainly, Rowling’s prose is not as beautiful or sophisticated as Tolkien’s, but her characters and story are worth analyzing as literature. Her characters grow and change over the course of the novels. She makes intertextual, intratextual, historical, and mythological allusions; and she weaves a plot that creates moral and ethical conflicts within the main characters.
It’s ironic that two criticisms of Rowling’s later books are that she has too much happening and too many characters to follow. Maybe these criticisms are in the light of readers who struggle playing checkers. Or maybe these critics want a simple plot that can be easily encapsulated into one action centered film. I don’t know.
The problem with using Rowling in a classroom comes in getting to the depth. The series as a whole is worthy literature. I think her best novel (The Half Blood Prince) came toward the end of the series, which makes introducing the story in a classroom fairly challenging.
—–
I love the idea you present here, that the cure for dangerous or bad books is more books. I think I’ll use this when I talk about reading and literature next year. Thanks for the links and the Pope reminder. It’s been a while since I read A. Pope.
I was thinking that this idea helps explain how the Bible can be dangerous and used to justify moral atrocities and hate. I’ll remember this the next time someone tells me the Bible is the only book we ever need to read.
-Mr. W.
Great thoughts: I was just talking yesterday about the “at least they’re reading” and “anything to get them reading” arguments, and how they have a certain logic but don’t feel quite right. My friend was talking about her son reading the Star Wars books, and how she’s OK with that knowing he’s reading other stuff as well.
Bad prose is especially a problem, though — we learn to write by reading. And many of us develop our thinking by writing. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. All the more reason to balance with something “nutritious.”
Maybe I’m reading too much into this article, but I’ve picked up the implication that contemporary literature can’t be as deep and meaningful as classic literature, and I disagree.
**Naaah, it’s not that. There’s nothing special about having been written in the 19th century that makes a work superior to the ones written before Taft was president. I think that this perception is mostly due to the fact that we read the cream of the crop from previous centuries — we don’t read the crapola, the “airport novels” (or the Kitty Hawk novels, I guess…) like those written by E.D.E.N. Southworth or Mary Elizabeth Braddon. And hey, if you feel like reading a *really* frivolous piece of fluffola, may I recommend Shakespeare’s _The Comedy of Errors_? Seriously, I’ve found episodes of _Two and a Half Men_ which were more plausible.
***No, what I object to is not the date when a piece of work was written, but how crappy or uninspiring the work happens to be, either in terms of its plot and characterization (and, as with Twilight, its deeply problematic ethics), or in terms of its prose.
I do agree that most current popular novels are fluff (Jurrasic Park is not worthy of classroom time), but we shouldn’t judge all contemporary literature by those things made into action films.
***And I don’t, really. Actually, though I’ve spoken disparagingly of Ian McEwan before, I’m going to have to take it back and eat some crow now that I’m reading _Atonement_, and partly due in large measure to the fact that the prose he writes does what good prose does best. Serviceable prose gets the characters from A to B to do C with enough believability so that you’re not yanked right out of the moment and forced to turn from participant into critic, but it doesn’t leave much there behind it. Good prose, at least by my lights, is different: it opens up spaces in the world you always knew were there, like someone mining the territory of a crevasse that looked only like a break in a smooth surface, but containing a rich inner kingdom within.
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay by Chabon is an excellent novel worthy of study.
***I’m putting that on my library request list now, actually, right along with _Pretties_.
Also, despite their popularity and their films, I would argue that the Harry Potter collection can serve a purpose in the classroom. Certainly, Rowling’s prose is not as beautiful or sophisticated as Tolkien’s, but her characters and story are worth analyzing as literature. Her characters grow and change over the course of the novels. She makes intertextual, intratextual, historical, and mythological allusions; and she weaves a plot that creates moral and ethical conflicts within the main characters.
***There’s much to like — I was mostly dissing her prose, which falls flat so often on my ear, especially for an author who clearly loves so much about language. I also wish that there were more *to* them, ultimately — part of the problem with HP’s plot relying on the gradual unveiling of a central mystery is that it limits the interior life of most characters besides Harry: we’re not allowed inside anyone else (like Snape, for instance) except through devices such as the Pensieve, which Dumbledore warns can be misleading to an extent, or through moments like the boggart-in-the-closet confrontation which show characters’ inner fears. This limitation ultimately prevents the characters from reaching as far into reality as they could (and possibly should) go. I don’t have a distinctive sense of Harry’s “voice,” for example — not like I have a sense of Lemony Snicket’s narrative voice, to choose a contemporary YA example and match apples to apples as much as possible. Read a random statement from the book, and it’s hard at times to tell if it comes from Harry, Hermione, or Ron.
It’s ironic that two criticisms of Rowling’s later books are that she has too much happening and too many characters to follow. Maybe these criticisms are in the light of readers who struggle playing checkers. Or maybe these critics want a simple plot that can be easily encapsulated into one action centered film. I don’t know.
***I think it’s more that to many people, even those who truly like the books, the latter ones seem rushed and the characters more sketchily drawn than in the first ones — not a surprise, of course; I think this happens with many artists, singers, writers, and performers who become hugely popular practically overnight. I think one can have a Really Big Novel with tons of events and characters where it *doesn’t* feel rushed, but I’ve noticed that those tend to be the author’s first novel (where s/he’s had a lot of time to perfect it, given that agents aren’t beating down the door demanding rough drafts) or the author’s later novels in a long career, where they can sit back on their laurels and publish whenever, essentially.
I love the idea you present here, that the cure for dangerous or bad books is more books. I think I’ll use this when I talk about reading and literature next year. Thanks for the links and the Pope reminder. It’s been a while since I read A. Pope.
***Ah, do I hear a bit of DaVinci Code there?
Pope was such a smartass. The problem was, he was one of those smartasses who was even more irritating because he’s *right* most of the time. Arrgh.
I was thinking that this idea helps explain how the Bible can be dangerous and used to justify moral atrocities and hate. I’ll remember this the next time someone tells me the Bible is the only book we ever need to read.
***Yikes. Reminds me of the statement attributed to Caliph Umar on the burning of the library of Alexandria: that the books in there would either agree with the Qu’ran, in which case they were redundant, or they would disagree with it, in which case they were heresy. Either way, they were to be burned.
I wouldn’t call either Harry Potter or Jurrassic Park excellent literature or anything, but both are quite decent books. I’m of the opinion that everything doesn’t have to serve a Higher Educational Purpose. Reading for fun is good.
Harry Potter, in my opinion, is actually way more sophisticated than much people give it credit for. The early books are nice simple mysteries, and the later books handle some very important stuff. The characters grow and change. The evil is *real* — not that I think everyone needs a good dose of evil, but sometimes the idea of real evil is an important one to think about. The methods of the bad guys (and good guys) are historically quite common. Umbridge is frankly, one of my favorite characters, because as crazy as it sounds, she is one of the most real to me. Her type exists. She is the embodiment of fascism, to me. SHe is the thought police and the sweet smile of governemnt out to retrain you, indoctrinate our children, and make everyone dependant on the nanny state.
The whole thing also appeals to the same WWII buff in me that the Lord of the Rings does, but Harry Potter is more about the home front (on both sides), while LoTR was about the soldiers in the field.
Well, like I said, I’ve unfortunately had the experience of working for Dolores Umbridge, all except for the pictures of kittens in the office, but close enough.
Great post. I love this statement: “In what’s probably an enormous act of hubris, we sincerely believed (and still believe) that we can do a better job instructing our child than Local Neighborhood School can. Part of the reason we think we can do this better job is pretty simple: we have a better reading list.” I love to see what I’ve always felt verbalized publicly!
In many ways I can sympathise with your argument. Yes, it would be greatly preferable that students read Frankenstein rather than Harry Potter. However, one of the greatest issues in the modern education system is that children don’t, as a general basis, read. Furthermore, there parents don’t read, have never read to them and therefore don’t make them read. Reading is one of the greatest teachers of English and grammar. Thus, we have a generation of children who write like they talk and wouldn’t know a complex sentence structure if it hit them in the face. Sure, you can teach children by rote and grammar rules of complex sentence construction – but it will always fall short of gradually internalizing grammar and written language skills.
This exact situation is precisely why novels like Harry Potter and Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series are encouraged. I worked as the night librarian in a private school for a number of years and I can tell you that these novels were constantly on hold for children. In fact, more often than not, children who were not mildly interested in reading would read Rowling or Meyer and then begin to read. Perhaps most importantly, these novels provide an introduction to reading as a pastime for children who struggle with gaining literacy skills; they are not intimidating in their presentation in the way the Shelley or any of the other bastions of the classics are.
Books-A-Million is hosting THE party of the Summer for all Twilight fans. Celebrate the midnight release of Breaking Dawn with Twilight trivia contests, costume contests, prizes, and much more! Party starts at 10pm on Friday, August 1st. Visit you local Books-A-Million to pre-purchase the book today and be the first in line to get Breaking Dawn at midnight, you won’t get it anywhere else faster!