Why do schoolchildren in literature lessons need works that they do not understand

2024 Author: Richard Flannagan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-15 23:55

Rereading the school curriculum on literature as an adult, you understand that it was not the color of the curtains, as the teacher claimed, but the motives of the characters' actions play with new colors. Lyrics of Pushkin, philosophy of Tolstoy and the tragedy of Dostoevsky, even, in the opinion of the teachers themselves, are fully revealed only in adulthood. So why is the classics of Russian literature included in the school curriculum, if adolescents in many ways cannot not only appreciate the breadth of their thoughts, but also grasp the essence?

What works are called classics, and who defines it as a classic or not?

It would seem that such a question should not arise at all, because classics like Pushkin, Lermontov and Tolstoy do not cause anyone to doubt that they are classics. But at the same time, among the classics there are names that are well known. And it happens, and vice versa, the work is read by everyone, the author is known, but it was not included in the list of "favorites".

In everyday life, this definition is used to refer to something so familiar that to some extent it has managed to set the teeth on edge, but supposedly will never go out of style.

In fact, when talking about the classics, people each time put different meanings into this concept. If we talk about music, then both Tchaikovsky and the Beatles can be called classics, it all depends on what meaning the interlocutor puts into the words. When it comes to classic clothing, what's the first thing that comes to mind? A formal jacket in discreet shades? And just a few centuries ago, classic clothing for men meant heels and wigs. So is this classic for all time? And did anyone exclaim after reading Pushkin that here he is - a classic in person?

Yes, like the recognition of geniuses as geniuses, recognition as classics comes after the death of the author in most cases. The main requirement for the classics is the test of time, because the life of one person is too insignificant a period of time for such a task.

Three Greek authors - Euripides, Aeschylus and Sophocles, whose names became examples of classical literature, laid these foundations. Yes, they were popular and in demand during their lifetime, but there was no question that centuries later their names would remain in the ears, and the works would be considered examples of world classical literature.

Athens, having lost its original influence, was completely conquered by Alexander the Great, and then by the Romans. The latter began to study Greek literature in schools, although the Greek empire itself no longer existed. So, literature survived the collapse of the empire, and this laid the basic canon of a literary work created to become a classic - they are able to stay, survive, even if the empire collapsed, centuries have changed. Therefore, to assert that someone has become a lifelong classic is at least reckless - time has not yet set its priorities.

Does a classic author have to be popular during his lifetime? It is difficult to draw any regularity here. The fact that Dontsova today sells book after book does not mean at all that a few centuries later her name will be known to someone. Yevgeny Baratynsky was once an extremely famous poet, whose works sold out with a bang. However, who knows about him today?

If Franz Kafka lived now, then he would undoubtedly be the richest man, but he died in poverty without receiving the recognition and honor he deserved. The same is the situation with Edagor Poe, Emily Deakins. But, for example, Lev Nikolaevich was a famous writer during his lifetime, he lived richly, was respected by his contemporaries. And even now it remains one of the founders of the Russian classics. So is there a connection between lifetime popularity and reference to the classics?

It is generally accepted that "classics" implies loyalty to traditions - this is, as it was before, as usual.

School curriculum in literature or "classics game"

In the era of the Internet and children who do not read, almost every participant did not think that the school curriculum on literature has long needed to be adapted to the needs of modern youth, society and existing values. Perhaps then the children will also become reading?

However, any attempt to change the school curriculum in this subject always causes a lot of discontent in the society. As well as an attempt to include a new work in it. Parents who grew up on these books are sure that their children should get the same literary experience. Therefore, despite the fact that there have been attempts to change, including radically, the list of literature for schoolchildren. But the fact remains that today in Russia the school curriculum in literature is one of the most conservative in the world. Literature lessons pursue the main goal - acquaintance with the works that are included in the national literary canon. The latter changed together with the changes in the country.

Despite the fact that after the revolution, the government was ready to remake the entire system of tsarist education, there was simply no money for this. In addition, the provision on a unified labor school was issued back in 1918, but the program for it only three years later. The program was designed for 9 years, but the training period was reduced to 7 years due to the situation in the country. The only source of knowledge at that time was the teacher, and the textbook was often only with him. And only the teacher decided which literature to acquaint students with, and which not.

However, the Ministry of Education understood that such broad opportunities for teachers, especially in literature, are fraught with free-thinking and false ideology. The program became tougher, teachers could not replace one work with another. High school students mostly read young Soviet authors. Together with Gorky, Mayakovsky Bloc, Fedin, Lidin, Leonov, Malyshkin were neighbors - whose names are now familiar only to people of the older generation. At the same time, the program also provided for the interpretation of works with a reference to Marxism.

In 1931, the program was modified, made it even more ideologically verified. But in the 30s, with their upheavals and purges, the accepted educational dogmas were not allowed to take hold. During this period, textbooks were replaced three times! Relative stability came only at the end of the 30s, the school curriculum adopted at that time lasted until Khrushchev. The program was quite tough, the number of hours that should be allotted to a particular topic was regulated.

It was this program that involved memorizing pieces of text, and the teacher or student could not choose them at their discretion. Many scholars in the field of literature did not like this state of affairs at all, because the cliché in such a field is unacceptable. The subject, which is designed to teach thinking, to see the hidden, in the end left only a narrow corridor for thoughts. And any other interpretation of the work was recognized as incorrect and had no right to exist. This led to the fact that schoolchildren were convinced that all writers and poets were people of crystal purity and good intentions, the only thing they dared to dream of was a socialist revolution.

After the 50s, when Stalin was no longer there, the school curriculum for literature did not change significantly. But the pillars of the Russian classics are determined - the pre-revolutionary poet - Pushkin, the Soviet - Mayakovsky. Among the prose writers are Tolstoy and Gorky.

The program, adopted in the 60s, increased the number of studied authors and works, but only to some, they tried not to let children in at all. It was assumed that schoolchildren would study them through literature textbooks, outline the words of the teacher, and that was the end of the study of the work. This contributed to a one-sided interpretation of the work, making it impossible to think and analyze independently. The 80s, years in short supply in all respects, were characterized by the flourishing of the book market, then it became fashionable to keep an entire library at home. True, books were often selected not on the basis of the “favorite author” principle, but on the basis of the color of the spines. But more than serious changes are outlined in the school curriculum. Political and socialist ambitions of both authors and heroes are relegated to second place. Feelings and experiences of the heroes become the main ones. And in this, Russian literature is definitely unmatched.

Finally, the sound of the language, the artistic beauty of the text, its lyricism and talent of the author become important, and not the correctness of his political thoughts. The works that once formed the basis of the program are studied in passing.

Which of the school curriculum is worth rereading in order to understand the work from the other side

Of course, any work, whether from the school curriculum or not included in it, re-read in adulthood can surprise with new facets. In addition, as mentioned above, the Soviet education system now and then tried to get into the minds of the younger generation and decide which thoughts to swarm there, and which - not. Therefore, even if we discard the nuances about the only emerging personality, there were more than enough circumstances that did not allow to fully enjoy the work of art.

The works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, although they are studied in high school (grade 10), are still too difficult for adolescent perception. Psychology, philosophy, religion and personal conflict - all this is mixed in the novel "Crime and Punishment" in such a way that in order to correctly understand Raskolnikov's theory, you need to have an idea of Christianity. In particular, you need to understand what Christianity means by the divine plan and the role of man in it, in nihilism, atheism, and the history of religion. Without all this, the theory and thoughts of Raskolnikov seem more like the delirium of a madman.

By the way, Dostoevsky has a work called A Teenager, which would be much better suited for studying by schoolchildren, while Crime and Punishment is a novel for an adult with a broad outlook. And, of course, Dostoevsky, as a genius of the word, deserves a slow and thoughtful reading. After all, his every sentence is a real work of art, he uses epithets, thanks to which each of his characters is revealed, sounds and becomes incredibly harmonious.

During the study of "Eugene Onegin" by Alexander Sergeevich, and this happens in the 9th grade, the teacher, as a rule, casually explains about the customs of the 19th century, while you can understand all the beauty and value of the work only if you have at least a nodding idea of what is represented the noble culture of the 19th century. Understand the intricacies of gender relations of those times, the dueling code.

At the age of 14-15, which is exactly how many years, it is impossible for the main readers of "Eugene Onegin" to know this. In the school curriculum, this work is rather used precisely for acquaintance with the life and foundations of the noble community of the 19th century, therefore, schoolchildren can hardly interpret the "novel" of Onegin and Tatiana correctly.

Having enough knowledge in the field of culture and history, and in personal life, it is extremely pleasant to re-read "Eugene Onegin" and rediscover the thoughts of the author, who was a very, very subtle connoisseur of the female soul. Pushkin's digressions about his colleagues in the workshop acquire a completely different coloring.

"War and Peace" is one of the most complex works of Russian classics. And here it is not only a huge volume, but rather a complex plot, where several lines are intertwined. It is extremely difficult to constantly keep in mind all the names, circumstances and facts. In addition, it is extremely difficult for tenth graders to plunge into the life of the capital on the eve of Napoleon's attack, if only because of insufficient knowledge of history.

Yes, the work may seem interesting to children, but for adults who will not try to understand what is happening along the storyline (after all, they will not write an essay later and not answer tricky questions from the teacher) it will be especially exciting and even descriptions of an oak tree will not will be annoying as before. Sholokhov's “Quiet Don” is difficult for 11-graders for exactly the same reason why 10-graders sigh from “War and Peace”. The work is much simpler and, of course, more interesting for adults. Especially with regard to the emotional experiences of the heroes, the tragedy of their fate, which is closely intertwined with the history of the country.

It would be fair to look at the work of Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" from the other side - from the "paternal" side. After reading it in the 10th grade, willy-nilly, you find yourself in the camp of "children", as an adult, you can focus on the very fact of the conflict and better understand the essence of the problem and the depth of the novel. It's definitely worth it.

Platonov's work "The Foundation Pit" is now and then tried to be deleted from the school curriculum, since it is too ambiguous and complex, especially for adolescent perception. This too philosophical and social parable with a satirical bias requires not only historical, but also political knowledge. And even some fearlessness. A little girl is sleeping in a coffin. What do schoolchildren see in this detail? Something scary, they get hung up on such details and can't concentrate on the metaphorical nature of the story.

In addition, the author used a very extraordinary way of presentation, the lexical incompatibility of words catches the eye even of an inexperienced reader, forcing him to be in tension all the time. Lermontov did not write in a complicated language and did not tie his works to historical events, therefore "A Hero of Our Time" is quite suitable for studying in the 9th grade. But if adolescents are more keen on the hero's love experiences, then an adult will see all the drama, the complexity of interpersonal relationships and the whole gamut of experiences.

Bunin's stories at school are presented as exclusively romantic, they even come with an explanation "about love." However, if in puberty the stories are actually perceived as exclusively romantic and lyrical, then the whole gamut of the heroes' experiences, their interpersonal relationships and emotions will be revealed to an adult.

If adolescents are very skeptical about Oblomov Goncharov, then an adult, who is tired of life's troubles and problems, will be completely imbued with the life philosophy of the protagonist of the work. And therefore it may be true, not to rush anywhere and spend at least a legal day off like Oblomov, with a book of "Oblomov" in his hand, combining the pleasant with the pleasant.

If we talk about children's literature, then even among fairy tales (especially among the most popular ones) there are many plots that were not originally at all for children … They still have storylines and details that are references to the mythological foundations of these works.