high-bow or middle-brow

as an honors (and AP) english student in high school, i was forced--ahem, encouraged, gently prompted...assigned for a major grade--to read "classic novels of literary merit" so that i could effectually write intelligent [sounding] literary analyses of these aforementioned works of art. all the while not liking hardly any of the literature.

throughout high school, i caught myself saying "i will read again after i graduate!"

i guess i was right.

as an english major, my bookshelves were packed with "classic novels of literary merit" and 15-pound anthologies dripping with writings deemed as academic and intellectual enough for further literary analysis according to them. (i refer to them as "the powers that be" or "the english gods" to my english students--i'm still not entirely sure who they are myself.)

so i did read. i read a lot. british literature, young adult literature, 19th century female authors, 19th century popular literature, african american literature, professional literature, etc, etc.

high-brow literature. that's what it all was. meaning its literary merit comes only from its exclusivity. if it can be read and fully analyzed and understood by the average person, it is not high-brow. high-brow literature is only to be touched and experienced by above average intellectuals. elitists.

novels are not meant to be devoured by intellectuals only.

i loathed my reading assignments in high school because i didn't "get" them. i was denied access. now, don't get me wrong. i was an intelligent and insightful student, but the readings tended to be too much at times. what i needed was something less intense.

english teachers are being told (and i know because i am one) to teach the literary classics ONLY.

students have to know what came before, they argue.

i understand. but what we they seem to be missing is that most students don't care what came before. these days it seems that students just want to be entertained.

so as a teacher i pose this question: why can't some of that entertainment be provided through the novels that i teach?

instead of teaching great expectations that is indeed the epitome of literary merit, instead of teaching the high-brow literature, why can't i meet my students where they are and teach the dirty, ragged low-life--the middle-brow novel.

think what will happen if students are assigned such novels as twilight, the uglies, the perks of being a wallflower, etc.

my goal is not for my students to have read a certain amount of high-brow novels. my goal is for them to learn to enjoy english, literature, more than they ever have before. and if that means teaching--GASP!--middle-brow literature...well, i'm in.

because in the end, what's the worse that can happen?

that they learn to love reading?

i can only hope so.

when i finally had time to read on my own, i didn't run for the classics--elite high-brow novels--at the bookstore. i went or the new york times bestsellers. the popular literature. the red-headed step child of literature.

and you what? i FINALLY returned to my long lost love--reading.

"we shouldn't teach great books; we should teach a love of reading." b.f. skinner