Well, this is it - using 'fluff' as a 'gateway' book. That can work in some cases, but not for others.
Some kids are ready emotionally and developmentally to read classics. Others are not and may never be. Some of us love classical literature; some of us can take it only in small doses; others hate it like the plague.
Printed text has dominated learned discourse. Education has been dominated by print and book learning for hundreds of years. The division between the learned and popular culture has existed since the printing presses. It's not going to go away by forcing kids to read classical literature. In the 17th century, the pulp press regaled readers with witchcraft, cuckolds, miracles, violent crime, and so forth during the English Revolution/Civil War (read Jerome Friedman or Chris Hill's books). Today, well, this has expanded tremendously and beyond print media to television, video, the Internet, etc.
I agree that "if a work of literature or art 'speak' to a person, then it is meaningful and worthwhile for them personally."
Ozzy Osbourne is a very successful musician, whatever any one thinks about him. He also happens to be a severe dyslexic who has written (probably with voice-recognition software) an autobiography that perhaps would appeal much more to reluctant readers than Hawthorne or Hemingway. Now others here can sniff all they like, but Ozzy's a 2e and has an inspiring, captivating story that can motivate a child to read or listen to a story (ie. audio version for dyslexics) more than a classic might. Ozzy might 'speak' to them more and in their language.
Many tend to associate the use of words with intelligence and this can have an adverse effect on an individual and society as a whole. Many associate reading the classics, not reading Ozzy's autobiography, with being erudite and more worthy to prep for the SATs and life (since many are consumed with standardized testing it seems today). That's fine for some gifted students, but not for all or for general population as a whole.
