High time literature education was less about men. (Finds Reading Foundation)

'If schools want to contribute to a more inclusive society, they should highlight literary texts by female and non-Western authors more systematically.' For once, this recommendation comes not from what are called SJWs on Reddit's less fragrant channels, but from researchers at the Reading Foundation. They presented a study on reading behaviour and reading preferences of schoolchildren earlier this week. The results are remarkable.

Let's start with a few beats though. The conclusions are based on the responses of 1616 schoolchildren. That is indeed above three per cent of the total number of final exam students in school year 2017-2018 (91866), and so it can be made into a valid sample. In this case, of course, it is nice to look at the non-response rate, because that naturally also says something about preferences.

Mealy answers

The researchers report corny answers, incomplete answers and improbable answers, plus, of course, people who did not fill in anything at all: '2489 exam candidates were administered the survey in their schools. 1886 of them completed the questionnaire in full. It cannot be said with certainty why the remaining 603 students did not (fully) complete the survey. It is possible that they did not remember the titles of their reading list, had no motivation to participate in a survey on literature or were distracted by other students or applications on their phones.'

So you could also say, but less scientifically based, that almost a quarter of the final exam candidates have nothing to do with literature, but, that is short-sighted. In any case, the students who did bother to answer the 27 questions paint a picture.

Golden egg

That picture does not favour pre-2000 canonical literature. I quote:

• The golden egg is a remarkably clear leader across the board of books read. Historical data suggests that this has been the case for ages: the book has dominated the rankings of the website scholieren.com for years.
• Among the works published before 2000, the literary canon occupies a prominent position in this ranking. At the same time, there are also many relatively recent works (by Bervoets, Bouzamour, Huff, Koch, De Loo, Lubach, Robben, Vuijsje, Wagendorp, Wieringa and Van der Zijl) that are widely chosen by students.
• Three canonical works (Twee vrouwen, De donkere kamer van Damokles and Erik of het klein insectenboek) were recently highlighted through the Nederland Leest campaign.
• The texts with a 6.5 or lower are all canonical works, which are also usually compulsory reading.
• 13 of the most frequently read texts score below the average grade students assign to books on their reading list (6.7). So 'widely read' does not necessarily mean 'much appreciated'.

Stage

Those are quite a few observations. More could be made. For instance, the researchers observe that drama is one of the least appreciated genres. Not surprising, when you see that reading lists are dominated by topical and scintillating theatre jewels like Warenar (PC Hooft) and especially Herman Heijermans's rather difficult-to-read Op Hoop van Zegen. Where are the works of Frans Strijards or Gerardjan Rijnders there? Peer Wittenbols? Sophie Kassies? Lot Vekemans? Or, just to mention another sidetrack: Judith Herzberg?

So there is something wrong with the baggage Dutch teachers are given, and how they then impart it to their students as literature teaching. The researchers agree: 'The relatively low student rating for historical literature calls for more research into didactics for these kinds of texts, which should be read by vwo students in accordance with the attainment targets. This could include research into ways in which such texts can be enlivened to connect with pupils' perceptions.'

Current

Seems like something for a Department of Literature at an authoritative university like the VU. O. Wait. Well, one of the other universities perhaps? Perhaps at a slightly more modern institution such as the UvA, or the UU, literature could be looked at from a slightly more up-to-date standpoint. And I mean a slightly more up-to-date point of view, for what literature actually is. Because what the research shows: recent books written by women and non-Western authors are rated much higher by students than male literature.

Yet more than two-thirds of the books on offer in the survey are men's books. Which are therefore less appreciated, even by boys.

The other day, a female author was told by her publisher that she should write 'more literary' next time. It was not explained further, but it seemed strongly that what was meant here was 'more according to the unwritten rules that mostly male critics, editors and publishers have established as literary in recent decades'.

Need

Because it is mainly girls who read, and girls are also the most appreciative of the books they choose, and also girls in the survey most often indicated that they want to continue reading literature after school, there is a mismatch. The researchers also say that: 'Little attention is paid in teacher training programmes to how teaching literature, including through students' text choice, perpetuates hierarchical differences between male and female authors and between Western and non-Western authors. The results of this study underline the need to do so.'

Hence. More women writers, more non-Western stories, less 'male' teaching. Before you know it, the VU will have to set up another faculty of literature.