Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Assumptions in the literary world that have been considered normative for generations are under attack. Helen Vendler, the nation's foremost poetry critic, even finds the need to defend Shakespeare's sonnets. Good literature from prior centuries is being tossed over in favor of modern writing in some surprising quarters. Many of us find this trend alarming, and for good reason.

At one time it was thought that literature should have an ennobling and refining effect on the soul. We understood that people are full of passionate energy, which can be directed in either destructive or constructive avenues. We recognized that classical art, music, and literature have power. The arts were valued for their ability to uplift the soul, to impart a sense of truth, and to teach us that life has purpose and is worth living.

My own love affair with literature began with a matchmaker named Eleanor Leonard, the children's librarian in my home town. One day I walked into the library with a Nancy Drew mystery. Mrs. Leonard greeted me.

"What's that book you have under your arm?"

"It's a Nancy Drew mystery."

"Why, I'm surprised at you, Sarah. There are so many better books you could read."

"But I like Nancy Drew. All my friends read her."

Mrs. Leonard paused, looking at me intently. "The trouble with Nancy Drew is that it isn't literature; it doesn't have the depth or richness of a classic. Come here, let me show you."

Mrs. Leonard drew me over to the fiction shelves for my age group and began to read passages from her favorites. Some were from masters such as Robert Louis Stevenson, Rudyard Kipling and Johanna Spyri. Other authors, such as C. S. Lewis, Madeline L'Engle and Rumer Godden, were more recent, including several Caldecott or Newbery Award winners.

Despite the variety in subject matter, these books possessed elements in common. The language was rich, characters had depth, symbolism was common, and the themes were uplifting and ennobling. After reading passages from these books, we looked at a passage from Nancy Drew. It seemed empty and even a little silly in comparison.

When she was finished, Mrs. Leonard offered me a challenge. "I tell you what, why don't you read the classics first, then when you've finished, go on to the others?"

I accepted that challenge. Thirty-six years later, I am still reaping the benefits of Mrs. Leonard's wisdom. I haven't "finished" the classics, and won't, of course, before I die. What Eleanor Leonard cultivated in me was a taste for something better, which has stimulated my thought, uplifted my spirit, and satisfied my soul throughout a lifetime of reading. I count her as one of the most important influences in my life.

That such literature should be devalued is painful and disturbing. The California public schools have decided that teachers need only present modern writing to its students. A 1997 Associated Press article noted that many U.S. colleges have dropped the requirement for literature majors to study Shakespeare, Milton, or Dante. Even more alarming are the reports of librarians who are throwing away books by the hundreds because of their "politically incorrect" content. "There's plenty of good modern writing available, that's more relevant and caters to our modern sensibilities," seems to be the reasoning.

This is an insufferable loss. Yes, there's much good modern writing available, but why abandon the old in order to embrace the new? We need both; we especially need the voice and experience of other centuries, lest we become insular and myopic. As long ago as 1854, Matthew Arnold wrote: "Sanity—that is the great virtue of the ancient literature; the want of that is the great defect of the modern, in spite of its variety and power." As to the question of relevance, as Helen Vendler aptly observes, "Art creates its own relevance."

next page... |  1 of 3

share this page

February (Web-only) 2000, Vol. 44