Those who find time later in their adult life will re-read the classics and appreciate it, but many will not, and that's probably a result of forcing the kids to deal with something most of them are not ready for.
He had successfully avoided meeting his landlady on the staircase.
His garret was under the roof of a high, five-storied house and
was more like a cupboard than a room. The landlady who provided
him with garret, dinners, and attendance, lived on the floor below,
and every time he went out he was obliged to pass her kitchen,
the door of which invariably stood open. And each time he passed,
the young man had a sick, frightened feeling, which made him scowl
and feel ashamed. He was hopelessly in debt to his landlady, and
was afraid of meeting her.
This was not because he was cowardly and abject, quite the contrary;
but for some time past he had been in an overstrained irritable
condition, verging on hypochondria. He had become so completely
absorbed in himself, and isolated from his fellows that he dreaded
meeting, not only his landlady, but anyone at all. He was crushed
by poverty, but the anxieties of his position had of late ceased
to weigh upon him. He had given up attending to matters of practical
importance; he had lost all desire to do so. Nothing that any landlady
could do had a real terror for him. But to be stopped on the stairs,
to be forced to listen to her trivial, irrelevant gossip, to pestering
demands for payment, threats and complaints, and to rack his brains
for excuses, to prevaricate, to lie—no, rather than that, he would
creep down the stairs like a cat and slip out unseen.
Novels like these need some life experience to really shine. A 13 year old isn't going to go "how does this writer see so clearly through so many of life's finer details", because they have never experienced 90% of what's being talked about.
A good part of the value of some of these works basically comes from recalling similar feelings you felt in situations similar to the characters, maybe comparing your actions at such times to theirs, or the reactions of other people you knew, etc. It's simply not possible to experience this part of the work as a teen. Perhaps one of the clearest examples of this limitation is in Lolita - the nature of the relationship described, the power and life experience differential, the contrast with the reader's normal interactions with children - are impossible to be conveyed to or truly empathized with by teens.
Yes, absolutely. A kid can learn both of those things and understand them, assuming they have the proper foundational knowledge, taught to them in prior classes/years.
Most kids do not have the lived experience or emotional development to understand the complex adult themes written about in novels such as the ones being discussed. There's really no way to fix that aside from waiting until they're older.
There is also the role of simply communicating to the next generation that society values these books, and they are important for some reason. Even if you only get one shallow layer of meaning at the time. Same with history and everything else. It's a time to get a first taste of what these things feel like.
That's how you get to understand something you "barely understand". You dive into it, and gradually you understand it better.
I understood classic novels in high school just fine. Further experience reveals more layers, but you still get lots of life lessons, and poetic moments, and better grasp of people and life, and introduction into a culture that's not just consuming slop, from reading them as a teenager.
I guess it is because it prepares you quite well to suffer endless corporate memos.
I think classic russian literature can be everything, but not an exercise in formal double-speak incantations.
It does unfortunately fit most of the examples I can think of. Even in comedy like Gogol people suffer.
Not to mention works that are just not about suffering but life.
The only widely known fun book outside of Russia is Master and Margarita.
I do love literature, but that is in spite of school not because of it. School did a lot to put me off some books. I was lucky to have read Golding's "Lord of the Flies" before our class did, because it gave me a better appreciation of it. I did read some big books as a teenager. I waited until my twenties to tackle Dostoyevsky though. "The Brothers Karamazov" was especially difficult.
You can't learn two difficult things at once well. When you have to put significant amounts of mental energy into parsing the semantics of each sentence, it utterly ruins any enjoyment you might have from the work itself - and makes it much harder to clean any meaning or subtext from it.
When 90% of your mental effort is dedicated to understanding exactly what the hell he is saying, you aren't going to get a lot out of his work.
(It's not supposed to be read at all, in fact - it's supposed to be seen and heard. In a language that you intuitively understand.)
Technically they can handle the text and it may improve their reading and writing, I assume this is the justification for setting these texts.
Emotionally and socially they are nowhere near ready to deal with Dostoyevsky’s nihilism and angst and Austen’s witty social comedy of manners about a situation young girls no longer find themselves in.
Compared to Dickens or Shakespeare for example though they are unlikely to engage teenagers and very likely to actively put them off reading.
Today kids hide comics inside books to avoid Dickens; someday kids will hide something new inside books to avoid the mandatory comic reading.
I watched "Hamnet" last night, which was okay, but I dread to think what that film would have been like if I was made to watch it at school.
The only problem is the language.
Bookish teens have been reading these books since they came out.
And the average teenager has way worse things to do than reading a classic novel.
As for "barely understanding characters' motivations" that's how you understand characters motivations, and literature in general, by getting into even without understand it at first. That's true in almost every field in life.
Giving them the option to do so in school, I would imagine would be met thankfully by them if done well, and a "no thanks" from the less-bookish - who very possibly will go on to read them later on in life.
Isn't that exactly the idea? Ask everyone to spend time reading a book is a way to give them time to do it. So that some may discover they are bookish. As for the others, it doesn't exactly hurt to try.
I only learned to appreciate Tolstoy as an adult though - it was extremely boring for me as a teenager barring some smaller pieces
The best part about Tolstoy is how he depicts the intricacies of human relationships, and that's a thing most people cannot appreciate until they hit like 30
Would I rather have waited until 35? No, but I’ll probably go back and reread a lot of those books I read when I was younger.
I was generally an avid reader as a child, regularly blowing through the (age appropriate) summer reading lists every year as far back as I can remember, and then finding new things to read. During the school year when I had a 9pm bedtime, I would regularly bring a flashlight to bed, pull my blankets over my head, and read until much later. But The Idiot was tough, and I don't think teens should read books like that.
I've considered re-reading it as an adult, but I still have some scars from my first read-through, even if those scars aren't fair to the material at all.
On the other hand, some of the kids actually like the books they are given. I know I did. Not every single book, but a lot, and maybe that's the whole point- you find out what you like by trying a bunch of stuff that you don't
The classics are the cause of reading hate, not the victim.
Some people here argue that "math is also what kids don't like" but math and chemistry can be understood by a teenager even if he doesn't like it. But these "classic" books can't because much more life, adult problems and having children, deaths of parents and illnesses have to happen in order for one to comprehend this books.
It's like trying to force a 8 year old to read romance novels: since his sexual hormones are not yet activated, he won't understand why a boy all of a sudden likes a girl.
I hated it with passion, even got F's in my report cards, and could re-read it only in my late 20's. Still hate these "language and literature" teachers, all of them.
So, as a baseline, I think most people have or can understand internal monologues. That's not what I mean, though that is a prerequisite.
But many real-life people, especially those that have gone through phases in their life where they were Raskilnikov (not criminals, not necessarily egomaniacs, but the whole melodramatic shut in deal) would tell you that they both understand Raskilnikov type people and would tell them to shut up.
For me, it was honestly a bit depressing. Raskilnikov reminded me of me in my worst moments. Honestly, a lot of the characters did. Having these strong, abstract, high and lofty ideals is contrasted against the real, practical characters like Rahmuzkhin. Every single one of the lofty idealists (besides maybe the full commune living guy - what he says is weird, but not his actions) is contrasted with the people on the ground, doing good work. Even Sonya - she's devout, but not so devout as to become a pastor, abstractly preaching about goodness and kindness, but blind to the suffering around her.
And isn't that what the lesson is at the end of the book, anyways? (trying to be vague to avoid spoilers).
Though it's not like just "doing good work" will bring you the sort of the "ultimate" that many of these characters seemed to have wanted. Once you try to formalize it and intellectualize it, you can point to how Crime and Punishment is such an illogical novel. And yet it feels so real.
Ah whatever. Enough armchairing from me :)
I am sure I'd find them different if I re-read them, but I could relate to characters and their struggles quite easily.
I do not necessarily think that those who wouldn't appreciate them as teenagers would ever appreciate them as adults either — maybe a small percentage would.
By my third reading, I'd decided Crime and Punishment was a Comedy-Horror; think American Psycho.
With one exception (Musset's Lorenzaccio), every single book my teachers gave me to read felt like a boring chore.
But when I try Crime and Punishment at 17 by myself, I loved it so much that I immediately purchased The Brothers Karamazov (and loved it even more).
I can guarantee that if it had been a school assignment, I wouldn't have made it past page 50.
A student should be given the best examples of human art, not some watered down versions, otherwise there is a chance that people will never try to reach that level. A lot of them won't (and reading some books never was a guaranteed path to a good life anyway), but by deciding what is “good enough for the common person” you artificially limit their world on that path (thankfully, there are other paths).
Whether they realise it or not, people are shaped by their environment. A book that you don't like can still point that certain questions and ways of thinking exist. Its place can easily be taken by seemingly “more appropriate” pop cultural or pop psychological works that, unfortunately, don't reach that level in order to be as “accessible” as possible.
The problem here is the existence of “required reading” lists, and mass education in general. That institute is completely flawed, bureaucratised production process of “studying”, and only the heroic actions of individuals who have to fight it from the inside make it less dumb. A good teacher can teach why the good book is good, but where to find so many of them?
See, for example,
https://www.olgasedakova.com/Moralia/280
https://www.olgasedakova.com/ecclesia/2174
(in Russian)
https://www.olgasedakova.com/eng/Moralia/269
https://www.olgasedakova.com/eng/Moralia/264
(in English, excerpt)