Marsh objects to the notion that so-called artful or classical literature is of more value on the classroom than popular literature.  I agree.  This is not a new view on my part, but a belief grounded in the careful consideration of a number of factors.

To begin, exactly how do we define the difference between classical and popular literature?  Although a number of writers through the ages have practised their craft strictly for artistic purposes, a large portion of the works studied as classical in our schools can be traced to more popular literary roots.  Thomas Hardy’s novels originally appeared as soap-opera style serials in magazines before they were compiled in book form.  William Shakespeare used his wit and understanding of human nature to sell his works to a paying audience, and some of his plays were nothing more, at the time, than the sixteenth century equivalent to modern soft-core pornography.  And you cannot tell me that more recent authors, such as Margaret Atwood, have no desire for their works to appeal to and
entertain a large, paying audience.

On that note, what is wrong with being entertained by the literature we study?  Throughout the ages, societies have used various forms of story-telling, whether they be oral, written, or visual, to simultaneously entertain and to teach.  Often times the lessons are passed on in spite of the fact that audience members are only looking for the entertainment aspect.  Marsh is absolutely right when he says we can learn just as much, if not more, about reading and writing from the popular literature we choose to read than from the classical literature thrust upon
us.  If we enjoy what we are doing, our minds are more open to learning something from it.  It is for this reason that we begin to teach our children to read from an early age with Clifford, the Big Red Dog, Winnie-the-Pooh, and books published by the Disney Corporation.  This strategy has proven rather effective, yet all-too-often educators adopt a different philosophy for students who have reached adolescence.  Why is it that we feel the need to take the fun out of learning?

Some teachers argue that we should study the classical works because of the valuable lessons they contain about life, and what it means to be human.  Again, I must disagree with this notion.  The best writers throughout time have understood the concept of writing what you know – including the popular writers of our time.  This means their work will either reflect important values of the society in which they live, or provide insightful messages for people who share, or who are trying to understand those values.  If this is the case, perhaps teachers can find more relevant lessons to explore in recent, popular works, than in those we have had thrust upon us in classrooms for generations.  Perhaps teachers should consider whether the lessons they have been studying for so long are event relevant today at all – or if they may actually be detrimental to students.  After all, just look at the outdated gender roles we pass on to younger children when, instead of Charlotte’s Web, we reach for such classical children’s canon as fairy tales by the Grimm Brothers.

The debate between sticking to classical literature, or exploring what popular literature has to offer, cannot possibly by settled by the thoughts of two pre-service teachers.  But consider the valuable points that Marsh and I have made.  Popular literature can make learning more fun.  It can provide excellent examples of well crafted writing for students to adopt and adapt.  And it can teach lessons just as valuable for citizens in a rapidly evolving society, if not more so, than those in any so-called classical text.