Slight knowledge of great books

[Xahm]

I read a quote from Dr Christopher Perrin, cofounder of Classical Academic Press, speaking to Classical educators/parents. He said "The slightest knowledge of great books is better than the greatest knowledge of slight books.” 

Would you say this position is consistent with Classical education as used in the current "classical schools" movement? Is it consistent with the larger tradition of Classical education in the US? (Is it even worth it to ask whether it has anything to do with the "traditional classical" methods dating back centuries?) On one hand, I view one of the draws of Classical education is the limiting of the field of study so that one can spend more time with fewer things and so know them well, and this doesn't seem consistent with that. On the other hand, some folks doing "classical" things with their kids seem to skim about a lot. I thought this was all about creating pegs, with the expectation that deeper study is to come later, but is part of the reasoning for it that slight knowledge of deep things is better than deep knowledge of "slight things"?

I read this quote in an article about a conference, so I'm lacking context, I know. If you know more, please share, especially if I'm inadvertently misrepresenting Dr Perrin's position.

[8filltheheart]

I don't have any more context of the quote than your post, but my personal experience is that "great books" means different things to different people.  Are the great books only a specific cannon of books as defined by Adler?  If so, most of those works are inaccessible to younger students.  There are "good books" which offer exposure to developing the skills that aid deeper understanding when reading great books.  

I do believe that deep knowledge of a few things is superior to superficial understanding.  Learning how to read deeply is a skill that will last a lifetime.  A long reading list is a turn-off to me.  I would rather my kids read fewer books and explore context, deeper meanings, author's POV, etc than read a long list of books with less understanding.

[Publia]

I have no knowledge of the context here either, but I think it’s notable that he said “better.” He didn’t say that a superficial knowledge of great books was the ideal, or even acceptable. He said it was better than knowing a lot about slight books. I agree with that. I’m guessing that his rationale was that deep knowledge of “slight” (I’m going to assume that he meant this as a synonym for “junk” and picked this word for stylistic reasons) books actually could be damaging, but minimal knowledge of truly great books won’t do harm. I think that’s consistent with classical education. I don’t think that the end goal of classical ed is slight knowledge of great books, and I’d be very surprised if that’s where he ended up in his talk.

[Terabith]

I think I would prefer deep knowledge of lesser books, especially if they’re good books.  Deep knowledge teaches skills and depth.  I do see some benefit in terms of cultural literacy of slight knowledge of great books.  Abridged or children’s version or YouTube video about them.  My youngest kid hasn’t read Dante’s Inferno but was able to answer every comprehension question her older sibling was trying to find due to having watched a YouTube video about the Inferno.  That gives you some cultural literacy.  But I think deep knowledge of something, even if it’s not a great book, is more important.  

[Xahm]

17 hours ago, Publia said:

I have no knowledge of the context here either, but I think it’s notable that he said “better.” He didn’t say that a superficial knowledge of great books was the ideal, or even acceptable. He said it was better than knowing a lot about slight books. I agree with that. I’m guessing that his rationale was that deep knowledge of “slight” (I’m going to assume that he meant this as a synonym for “junk” and picked this word for stylistic reasons) books actually could be damaging, but minimal knowledge of truly great books won’t do harm. I think that’s consistent with classical education. I don’t think that the end goal of classical ed is slight knowledge of great books, and I’d be very surprised if that’s where he ended up in his talk.

I agree with you with what he probably meant, but I think I disagree with you both. I think minimal knowledge of great works can do harm, and I think deep knowledge of slight/junk works can be beneficial. Having just a passing knowledge of Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" could lead to a lot of misunderstanding about cannibalism, for a humorous example that truly pops up from time to time. I don't think anyone would start eating babies because of it, but they might end up with odd ideas about politics of the time that would make it harder to understand politics today. On the other hand, my kids will spend large amounts of time pouring over their Star Wars Lego Minifigures encyclopedia, something so "slight" that I'm almost amazed it exists, then reading any random Start Wars easy reader from the library. They examine, catalogue, and debate. They discuss good and evil and compare story lines, making predictions and asking questions. They are ages 6 and 7. It would be great if they did all this with real literature, but I think there's a ton of value in what they are doing. It will prepare them for studying deep things deeply in a way that watching Macbeth, at their ages, just won't. I do tell them a little about Shakespeare and Cervantes and other great authors as they come up to help them understand references, or at least to gain the understanding that references are being made, but I don't devote much time to it. I see recommendations for classical schooling that have Shakespeare studied every year, though. 

[Publia]

I think that the important idea here is that quality is paramount and should be the focus when deciding how to allocate one’s limited time. Doing a little serious work with quality books is better than spending a great deal of time on lesser books. (To be clear, this is not a criticism of your Lego books example. Easy readers serve a purpose and I think they fit easily into the paradigm of working toward great books, particularly when combined with exposure to higher quality books.)

The reason quality matters is that an excellent quality book makes intellectual demands of its readers—it requires them to think carefully—and practicing careful thinking is an essential component of classical ed. Lesser books don’t make those same demands. If the lesser books model sloppy thinking, then that is problematic. Spending a little bit of time with careful thinking is better than spending a lot of time with mediocre thinking. I think this is particularly important for children, because they tend to absorb the patterns that they spend time with.

[Xahm]

I agree that we should all, children and adults, spend time with things that make demands of us. Some works absolutely lend themselves to that more than others. A formulaic novel, whether intended for youth or adults, may be fun, but deeper attention makes the work less enjoyable rather than more. Other works become richer the more attention we give them. At different points in our lives, they may show us different things.

I'm not convinced, though, that gaining slight knowledge of a great work gives any benefit over slight knowledge of a lesser work. It's fully possible to skim along reading a great work without engaging your mind. The first time I picked up To Kill a Mockingbird I quit after one or two pages. Scout was talking about her brother playing football, and I had no interest in a book about football. I'll admit, that was just the slightest of knowledge about that great work, but I'm glad I put it down because at age ten, I wasn't ready for it anyway. Humorously, that same classroom shelf was dominated by Baby Sitters Club books. I don't really remember if there was anything between those two extremes there, though the school library was well stocked with classics. My friends and I were the right age and maturity level to get a fair amount from those silly books, however. They weren't deep, but they portrayed relationship issues and and other problems along with how the girls solved them in a positive way. I read lots and lots at that time, more than those around me. Much of what I read was more demanding on me as a reader and thinker, but reading a book that my peers were also reading, then discussing it with them, helped me to engage with the ideas in the text more deeply. 

My ideas are still developing about this, but I'm coming to the idea that "Read great works to your kids" is just not good advice. It's not terrible advice either, but "talk with your kids about ideas, and help them develop skills to talk with others about these ideas" would be better advice. Reading great works together is an excellent way to come across those ideas, but we shouldn't be afraid to take lesser works, even slight ones, and talk about the things we find there. 

[8filltheheart]

What age kids are we talking about? Under 8? 8-10? 11+?

I love reading stories to my little kids. We read a wide range of stories....everything from picture books to Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tales to George MacDonald's Princess and the Goblin to The Mysterious Bendict Society books and Redwall series.

No, I would never read my kids the Babysitters Club. I wouldn't want to read them and I want to enjoy the book.  My kids can read junk on their own. For school the books can't be stuff that I'd be just as happy to throw out.

There are so many wonderful children's books out there that I almost see this as non-starter conversation. 

[Publia]

I don’t think that “read great works” is ever poor advice, especially not in the context of classical education, which is where I thought this conversation started. Classical education requires that you’re engaging with and discussing ideas. But the the ideas the students and teacher are discussing must be great ideas. Mediocre ones don't cut it.

The whole point of the statement we’re discussing is that it’s better to spend even a little time with great ideas than a lot of time with mediocre or bad ones. The reason why they’re called “great books” is because they are a deposit of the greatest ideas in humanity, ideas that many generations of thinkers have determined are worthwhile to think about.

To 8FillTheHeart’s question, my oldest is still relatively young and in the middle range of the three you mentioned. We’re spending a lot of time with excellent children’s books and myths/fairy tales.