Analysis Of I Know Why The Caged Bird Cannot Read, By Harper Lee

In her essay “I Know Why the Caged Bird Cannot Read,” Francine Prose asserts that teachers should not be using literary works to teach values. Prose believes that assigned reading should be more about the quality of the writing rather than the values. But, if a book is too complex, students often lose interest in reading. While Prose’s argument is extreme, she is correct in that teachers should not use literary works as an excuse to teach their values.

In Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, it could be argued that the topics of race and prejudice are considered and that these values have importance. When I read To Kill a Mockingbird, my class spent many a discussion referring to the difficulties Scout faced and what we would do in those situations. Would we trust Boo Radley, the recluse who lived down

Salinger as a freshman in high school. It was at this point in my education that I caught on to Salinger’s different and pessimistic style of writing. Well-written literature usually leaves readers with a sense of enjoyment, and, as a reader, I concur that Catcher in the Rye is good writing. In opposition to discussions of To Kill a Mockingbird, those of Catcher in the Rye were about analyzing what Holden said, and how Salinger created the negative tone in Holden’s voice. Occasionally, these analyses would become a bore, but they still taught us more than the usual “What Would You Do?” discussions. Catcher in the Rye is a book that contains values that could be taught, but don’t need to be. If a student relates to the characters or situations in a book, they do not need to be asked a question in order to realize it. Holden holds negative views toward school, but over time he decides to be optimistic about school. Because I was struggling to remain optimistic toward school at the time I read Catcher in the Rye, Holden helped me see past all the tasks ahead of me. This value was taught to me through the book, but not forced upon