So, there’s a post going viral about how “the canon” can’t be that great because we have to force kids to read it. I broke my own “no Internet fighting” rule responding, and have deleted it.

In the spirit of twitter sucking less, instead of dunking, here are my thoughts on why you should care about “classics.” Here goes.

First, what I’m arguing against is specific - the claim that if a body of literature doesn’t interest young people then it can’t be that great.

I’m not arguing that every old book is great or that everything a professor ever labeled “classic” must be read or that there’s something morally or spiritually or intellectually wrong with someone who doesn’t give a shit about Shakespeare.

I’m arguing that amusement isn’t the only standard here.

Now that, first point: I disagree that something boring is necessarily not so great. In fact, as we all know, sometimes something boring sticks with you, while something that was a page turner may not.

Anyone who’s ever written a research piece knows that sometimes you force something into your head, because what’s boring to read is often very interesting to think about.

Second point: remember that nobody sits down to say “I’m going to write a dusty old classic.”

Sometimes the reason something SEEMS boring is you don’t have the right background for it. The farther back you go in time, the more you don’t know. At a certain point, knowing more requires you to learn whole languages.

But, you would never say the words “Hwaet! We gardena in gear dagum” are boring because you don’t know what they mean. Sometimes you have to invest to get to the good stuff.

Third point: it’s not the least bit clear to me that we’re forcing a bunch of kids to learn the canon? How much classic English literature did you have to read in high school or college?

How many educated 25 year olds can describe the plot of King Lear or remember a line of Chaucer? I’m not saying they necessarily ought to - personally, I always enjoyed classes where students gave a shit!.

But the idea that students are absolutely crammed full of classical literature they hate doesn’t seem true to me. Just anecdotally, as an English major, I had teachers bending over backward to get your attention, frequently knocking the canon because they too had other interests.

Maybe some of you experienced the classic tweed-coated prof who insists Samuel Johnson’s verbiage has never been excelled, but I doubt that’s a true reflection of the modern university.

Fourth point: would you accept the logic of “if it’s so great, how come young people must be forced” in any other domain? History? Math? Logic? Philosophy? I doubt it.

You make students learn these things because you see salutary value, and you understand that there’s a sort of Great Conversation that goes back 10,000 years, and you’d like them to be able to say something, or at least know how to eavesdrop.

Do you like Tolkien? Do you think those books exist without his vast learning in folklore, philology, mythology, and other “boring” topics?

Speaking of domain-specificity, would you be willing to apply this anti-canon logic to modern classics most of us consider important. Suppose a teen tells you The Handmaid’s Tale sucks but they really like these videos of action figures being unboxed on the Internet.

Do you just say “well, if Atwood’s so great, why do I have to force my kids to turn off youtube?” I think there’s a very good critique that the people who selected the canon, to the extent there is one, were mostly old white dudes. But the canon is just a starting place.

It’s bullshit that Dickens is canonical and Gaskell isn’t. I’m right there with you, but that doesn’t mean Dickens sucks. It means we need a broader canon, but the standard of selection, once again, is not “young people are very amused.”

Of course, there are many things in between classics and stuff generally agreed to be crap, but to say that the only standard is “I want to engage with it” is a form of aesthetic nihilism I doubt anyone accepts.

Last big point: I don't think the canon is what you think it is?

Langston Hughes is in the canon. Joy Luck Club is in the canon. de Beauvoir is in the canon. Modern stuff that's highly readable and written by non-white-dudes is in the damned English canon, at least if your standard is "professors made me read it."

In sum: I don’t think you have to read the classics to be a whole person or to understand the world, or whatever else. I have lots of smart friends who simply do not “get” poetry, who seem very happy, intellectually fulfilled, etc.

But I simply don’t accept the idea that the standard for anything great ought to be “a young person will read it without being asked to.” And, I suspect you don’t either.

So ends "Zach Weinersmith Writes Too Much In Response to Anger-Porn"

PS: If you do like classical literature, enjoy this extended fart joke by Mark Twain, not published during his lifetime: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3190/3190-h/3190-h.htm

Solid frickin gold: