This is a question I pose (borrowed from the lecture) to my class of second year Theory students. It is their first tutorial on the course, and with me. 'Look for meanings in texts' said one student; 'see what the author was trying to say' says another.
'Is there any point to what we do?' my next question. In effect, I am asking my students whether there is any value to my career choice. I know this is dangerous territory. I also know, I say confidently, that they must think there is some value to what we do, or they wouldn't be taking a module in English Studies. I say this to them too. They all look like rabbits caught in headlights. And we haven't even started on the heavy Theory part yet.
I say to them, 'One morning having breakfast at the B&B, I started chatting to a lady who, when she found out that I lecture / tutor on literature at university, said she doesn't like literary criticism, it spoils the book. Does she have a point?' Again, dangerous territory. But I find, with relief, most of my students disagree with her. We 'get more out of texts by studying them' says one. 'How?' I ask, and they come up with a variety of options, including one which allows me to expound the virtues of such a course as this which offers a variety of 'ways in' to thinking about texts. Good. It saves me trying to make this seem like a natural, spontaneous announcement. They've given me a 'way in' rather than me just telling them that this is good for them (which I do actually believe, despite my own avoidance of Theory with a capital T in my own writing and research).
Those who agree with the Breakfast Lady say 'you spend too much time thinking about a book, and you can't follow or enjoy the story'. This seems strange to me. I'm not sure I distinguish any longer between reading and 'Reading'. Possibly for undergraduate students, though, the two actions are very different. Yes, sometimes I work harder at it -in my own research / writing, and when I'm reading texts for teaching, but can we actually switch off our critical approaches when we read 'for fun'? Do we not notice repeated images, patriarchal discourse or colonial language, for example, unless we're actively looking? I'm not sure it's possible to turn these awarenesses off, anymore.
So, are my students and the Breakfast Lady right? Is this a disadvantage? I don't think the pleasure of reading, of being told a story, has left me because I accidentally do lit. crit. as I read. Do you?
4 comments:
Glad your students agreed with you - resistance is futile! I agree with you though - personally I do not lose the enjoyment of reading a story simply because I'm applying some level of interpretation/critical analysis at the same time. I also agree that once these skills have been learned and used as we've been using them over a number of years, it's impossible to switch off the critical part!
At the moment I'm reading a book that I would have been teaching, had I taken classes this year. So it's purely for pleasure, not for work of any kind. Yet, I find myself noticing post colonial aspects, use of language, notions of othering etc., and much more. To me, realising this, seeing how it is working together with the story, actually enhances my reading pleasure, my experience of the story.
Hmm interesting. After my undergrad degree i stopped reading almost enturely because it was increasingly like hard work. I would get sidetracked by the Lit Crit side and to me it did at time spoil enjoyment. I could no longer my favourite old trashy novels because i now regognised why structrually they were trash. I did enjoy seeing more in a text but at the same time it took longer to read them and usually took more effort too.
Several years out of Lit studies i've started reading for pleasure again. the odd Lit theory thing comes to mind when i read but it no longer feels like i MUST find something in there to deepen the text. The pressure is off!
For those who are naturally gifted at such things (like youself) it probably does come so naturally that it never interferes and only increases the pleasure. I don't think i was gifted or interested enough and ahve a tendancy to take things at afce value ;-) So its encouraging that most of your students see it as a positive. I'd advise those who see it as negative to hunt for a new career.
This reminds me of Descartes', "I think, therefore I am." If I'm thinking, then I'm thinking, reading or not, so observing both sides of a text--the apparent and anything that might smack of lying beneath the surface--doesn't present the seeming dichotomy that it apparently does for many.
For me, the answer would be no, it hasn't left you, and indeed, that is part of the pleasure, if not THE pleasure.
Of course, depending upon what I am reading, the amount of probing varies, as well: for instance, I would be looking as hard for something in Milne's Pooh as I am in Orwell's 1984. But even varying the degree is rather an unconscious thing at this point. Great blog.
It just seems silly almost, to put make of it a dichotomy (not an accusatory statement toward you at all, but of a lazy world of readers, perhaps). For me not to be critical of a piece would be like saying, do not use all of your brain or the like.
Post a Comment