There’s an intimacy you share with your favourite reads — a treasured, private exchange between you and the book. Now imagine a middleman standing between you and that book, trying to interpret it for you, doing away with that cherished intimacy.
Basically, this is what I’m referring to: A few days back, ICSE decided to include Harry Potter and other popular books in its junior and middle-school syllabus.
Explaining the move, the school board said it is important to include books that students find readable and can relate to.
I, for one, couldn’t be happier to have passed out of school years back. I don’t mean to undermine the board’s decision, nor dismiss it as counterproductive.
I believe that widening the gamut of books taught in school is extremely important to let students make informed decisions as readers or critics later in life.
However, I prefer a solitary reading experience, untarnished by others. The Potterhead in me relives taking sneak peeks in class at the Harry Potter books tucked on my lap, hidden under the desk.
There’s a possible explanation for my opposition to the Potter series in the curriculum. It can perhaps be traced back to a rejection of all texts ‘prescribed' by the school.
Now this raises the question of how the prescribed texts were taught. Yes, the word ‘taught’ is a complete giveaway here, because the books were ‘discussed’ and ‘analysed’ on rare occasions.
Of course, I have had teachers who did their best to not kill the joy of reading a book by yourself, arming yourself with special secrets. Of course, I have had professors who managed to bring alive the languorous 18th century world or a convoluted Shakespearean fool.
However, we were bogged down by examinations at the end of the academic year, no matter how enjoyable the classes.
I would love to know how students will be assessed on the Harry Potter books.
Will the questions be the regular mix of objective-subjective questions? Will students read select chapters and memorise the names of the spells , the Houses, the characters and the magical objects?
Or will teachers discuss the politics of Harry Potter, draw contemporary references and impart students with the self-awareness that will help them understand better which Houses they are best suited for?
Either way, I don’t see any marked difference in perceptions or understanding of the books if students have to write exams at the end of all of it, bound by word-limit and time frame. All this will be made worse by an internal debate on exactly how much to write down for a two-mark question as opposed to a five-mark question.
Literature can’t be taught. But perceptions and views can be shared in classrooms.
Dear ICSE, why can’t we get rid of written examinations all together and introduce group discussions and presentations instead of evaluation? I will never forgive you if the joy of reading Tintin and Harry Potter dies a tragic death in your hands.
That being said, I understand that you often cannot have the ideal situation because of systematic constraints. We don’t know if ICSE schools will manage to sustain the popularity of Harry Potter and the others. However, just in case they don’t, here’s some unsolicited advice from a hapless fanatic.
When afforded a chance, flee a roomful of people discussing a favourite book of yours, reading into lines that you would rather not read into. That’s your worst nightmare.
Lastly, please read everything you want to read, with or without ever feeling the need to ‘learn’ an opinion about it. If you want to intellectualise it, it is your call. If you don’t, that’s perfectly okay too. What matters is that little world of yours that you share with the book without feeling the need to rationalise it.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)