Writing Homer, reading Riordan: Intertextual study in contemporary adolescent literature

Bright, Amy. (2011). Writing Homer, reading Riordan: Intertextual study in contemporary adolescent literature. Journal of Children’s Literature, 37(1), 38-47.

This article is all about the connections between contemporary novels for adolescents and young adults and works considered part of the literary “canon”. Bright did a content analysis of 20 contemporary novels popular with adolescents and young adults, and found links to canonical literature, including classical literature and mythology, Shakespeare, 19th century British and American literature, and what she calls “contemporary classics” of the 20th century (e.g., Hemingway, Camus, Salinger). Bright provides us with a simple but helpful table (Table 1 on pages 43-44) in which each of the adolescent/young adult novels she content-analyzed is linked to canonical works that are referred to significantly in the analyzed novels. The table is organized in four categories: Classical, Shakespeare, 19th Century, and Contemporary Classics.

Bright’s basic recommendation is that teachers have adolescents read the books written for them, and that engage them, and then let the trusted characters in those engaging novels in effect serve as the recommenders of the canonical texts, rather than imposing those canonical texts on adolescents and risking turning those adolescents off on reading canonical literature or even on reading in general. She clearly favors this approach over using film adaptations as a way to introduce canonical literature to adolescents. It seems that she considers the film links more explicit, and believes that the film does more interpretation for the viewer than the kind of interpretive work a reader would need to do to link a contemporary print text with a canonical print text. While I will grant that a reader probably does need to exercise more mental muscle to link two print texts than he or she does to link a print text like a novel to a more visual text like a movie, I think both kinds of links can be worthwhile, and there can be numerous ways that adolescents are drawn (I prefer that word to the patronizing term “hooked”) into reading great literature. Many, many readers have been engaged through movies, though of course it is great as well when one book leads to another.

This article assumes that adolescents are going to be motivated to read contemporary novels written for them. I’ll grant that for those kids that ARE readers, the contemporary novels are more engaging and relevant than the novels that are assigned in the typical high school curriculum. What about the large, and, I fear, growing group of adolescents who are not readers at all, either because they have not been successful at reading novels, or because they choose not to read, and prefer other activities? We are offered plenty of solutions here about how to draw adolescents who ARE readers into the great works of literature that provide the framework and lens for those who consider themselves literate in the North American mainstream culture, but what about our non-readers? More perplexing, what about our readers whose heritage is not in the English-speaking, European-American culture? I note that the categories of the “canon”, as represented in Bright’s table, heavily represent authors whose work has been canonized by groups who have been traditionally powerful. I see absolutely no authors other than white authors represented in the list of canonical references in the table, though of course there could be more diverse authors in the list of adolescent novels, and the category of Contemporary Classics, if expanded, could include some.

Several personal parting thoughts: I recently embarked upon a rereading of many of the works considered “canonical”, spurred by my purchase of an electronic reading device (through which such works can be acquired at low to no cost these days). Although I always appreciated those works, I’ve developed a deeper appreciation for them. I understand why they have lasted, and I wonder which contemporary works will be similarly read and reread in another 100-200 years, and which will be forgotten (of course, I’ll never know!). I also can see the flaws and problems in these works; they are not works of literary perfection, though the brilliance of some of these authors shines especially when their work is read juxtaposed with the work of other writers of their centuries (e.g., Jane Austen’s clear prose over the often turgid, preachy work of Louisa May Alcott). I definitely think young readers SHOULD be introduced to this literature that has lasted, because it is worth reading for so many reasons. Any way we can do that is good. Another thought that came to me was that I really need to try to read some of the contemporary adolescent novels more. As much as some kids are turned off on works like Shakespeare and Dickens, I myself have avoided modern fantasy novels. Although I give a nod to the beautiful writing of Ann Rice, I am not especially interested in reading vampire novels, like the Twilight series my teenage granddaughter loves, or novels with witches, wizards, unicorns, and hobbits. I’ve always preferred realism, and the commercialism of many modern novels and their movie adaptations also adds to the aversion (though I cannot deny that money has been made off Jane Austen novels, which I adore). I’ve got to plunge into some of this literature, and open my mind, because it is part of our culture and part of what I do professionally. I realized while reading Bright’s article that I have not read even one of the adolescent novels she content-analyzed, though I have read others by at least a couple of the authors. Yet I’ve read almost all of the “canonical” works mentioned. I must remedy this situation, both to stay professionally informed and in the interests of expanding my horizons and preferences, even at my age! Maybe my new electronic reading device can help me with that.