He included Lolita and Lady Chatterly's Lover on this list and I'm not sure that either of them are really considered appropriate required reading for high school, but I digress.
My 14-year-old daughter read the column and scoffed. "What? He doesn't think it's just as good to read books that are more recent? Books have been written in the past 20 years." (or something to that effect)
Keep in mind my daughter reads Shakespeare for fun and is currently reading Oliver Twist, so it's not like she has objections to the classics.
But she has a point. Is it really necessary for teenagers to read the classics in high school? And how many? The list in the paper probably included 25 books, which seemed like it would be more than a full load for four years of high school. If those were all required there would be no chance to explore new literature.
And while it's important to have a grasp on classic literature, it's also important to live in the time and age we inhabit.
Perhaps before someone complains that teens aren't reading Lolita (!?) we should ask that person if they've read any current books for teens. Maybe they're the one more out of step!