The liberal arts are, to great measure, founded on written remains, from the earliest times to our own. Literature (broadly construed to take in both fiction and non-fiction) encompasses a bewildering variety of texts, genres, attitudes, belief systems, and just about everything else. Like history (which can reasonably be construed to cover everything we know, with the possible, but incomplete, exception of pure logic and mathematics), literature is a problematic area of instruction: it is both enormously important and virtually impossible to reduce to a clear and manageable number of postulates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In modern educational circles, literary studies are often dominated by critical schools, the grinding of pedagogical axes, and dogmatic or interpretive agendas of all sorts \u2014 social, political, psychological, or completely idiosyncratic. Often these things loom so large as to eclipse the reality that they claim to investigate. It is as if the study of astronomy had become exclusively bound up with the technology of telescope manufacture, but no longer bothered with turning them toward the stars and planets. Other difficulties attend the field as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first is just the sheer size of the field. Yes, astronomy may investigate a vast number of stars, and biology may look at a vast number of organisms and biological systems, but the effort there is to elicit what is common to the diverse phenomena (which did not in and of themselves come into being as objects of human contemplation) and produce a coherent system to account for them. Literature doesn’t work that way. There is an unimaginably huge body of literature out there, and it’s getting bigger every day. Unlike science or milk, the old material doesn’t spoil or go off; it just keeps accumulating. Even if (by your standards or Sturgeon\u2019s Law) 90% of it is garbage, that still leaves an enormous volume of good material to cover. There\u2019s no way to examine more than the tiniest part of that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Every item you will encounter in a study of literature is itself an overt attempt to communicate something to someone. That means that each piece expresses its author\u2019s identity and personality; in the process it inevitably reflects a range of underlying social and cultural suppositions. In their turn, these may be common to that author\u2019s time and place, or they may represent resistance to the norms of the time. Any given work may reach us through few or many intermediaries, some of which will have left their stamp on it, one way or the other. Finally, every reader receives<\/em> every literary product he or she encounters differently, too. That allows virtually infinite room for ongoing negotiation between author and reader in shaping the experience and its meaning \u2014 which is the perennially shifting middle ground between them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I haven’t seen this discussed very much out in the open, though perhaps I just don’t frequent the right websites, email lists, or conferences. But the reality \u2014 the elephant in the room \u2014 is that no two teachers agree on what qualifies as good and bad literature. Everyone has<\/em> ideas about that, but they remain somewhat hidden, and often they are derived viscerally rather than systematically. For example, I teach (among other things) The Odyssey<\/em> and Huckleberry Finn<\/em>; I have seen both attacked, in a national forum of English teachers, as having no place in the curriculum because they are (for one reason or another) either not good literature or because they are seen as conveying pernicious social or cultural messages. I disagree with their conclusion, at least \u2014 obviously, since I do in fact teach them, but the people holding these positions are not stupid. In fact, they make some very strong arguments. They\u2019re proceeding from basic assumptions different from my own…but, then again, so does just about everyone. That\u2019s life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nobody talks about this much, either, but it\u2019s basic: our literature teachers don\u2019t even remotely agree on what they’re doing<\/em>. Again, I don\u2019t mean that they are incompetent or foolish, but merely that there is no universally agreed-upon description of what success in a literature program looks like. Success in a science or math program, or even a foreign language program, is relatively simple to quantify and consequently reasonably simple to assess. Not so here. Every teacher seems to bring a different yardstick to the table. Some see their courses as morally neutral instruction in the history and techniques of an art form; others see it as a mode of indoctrination in values, according to their lights. For some, that\u2019s Marxism. For some, it\u2019s conservative Christianity. For some, it\u2019s a liberal secular humanism. For others…well, there is no accounting for all the stripes of opinion people bring with the to the table \u2014 but the range is very broad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So where are we, then, anyway? The sum is so chaotic that most public high students I have asked in the past two decades appear to have simply checked out: they play the game and endure their English classes, but the shocking fact is that, even while enrolled in them at the time, almost all have been unable to tell me what they were reading for those classes<\/em>. This is not a furtive examination: I\u2019ve simply asked them, \u201cSo, what are you reading for English?\u201d If one or two didn\u2019t know, I\u2019d take that as a deficiency in the student or a sudden momentary diffidence on the subject. When all<\/em> of them seem not to know, however, I suspect some more systemic shortfall. I would suggest that this is not because they are stupid either, but because their own literary instruction has been so chaotic as to stymie real engagement with the material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It’s not particularly surprising, then, that literature is seen as somehow suspect, and that homeschooling parents looking for literature courses for their students feel that they are buying a pig in a poke. They are. They have to be wondering \u2014 will this course or that respect my beliefs or betray them? Will the whole project really add up to anything? Will the time spend on it add in any meaningful sense to my students\u2019 lives, or is this just some gravy we could just as well do without? Some parents believe (rightly or wrongly: it would be a conflict of interest for me even to speculate which) that they probably can do just as well on such a \u201csoft\u201d subject as some program they don\u2019t fully understand or trust. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These questions are critical, and I encourage any parent to get some satisfactory answers before enrolling in any<\/em> program of literary instruction, including mine. Here are my answers: if they satisfy you, I hope you’ll consider our program. If not, look elsewhere with my blessing, but keep asking the questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the first instance, my project is fairly simple. I am trying to teach my students to read well<\/em>. Of course, by now they have mastered the mechanical art of deciphering letters, combining them into words, and extracting meaning from sentences on a page. But there’s more to reading than that: one must associate those individual sentences with each other and weigh them together to come to a synthetic understanding of what the author is doing. They need in the long run to consider nuance, irony, tonality, and the myriad inflections an author imparts to the text with his or her own persona. Moreover, they need t consider what a given position or set of ideas means within its own cultural conversation. All those things change the big picture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There\u2019s a lot there to know, and a lot to learn. I don\u2019t pretend to know it all myself either, but I think I know at least some of the basic questions, and I have for about a generation now been encouraging students to ask them, probe them, and keep worrying at the feedback like a dog with a favorite bone. In some areas, my own perspectives are doubtless deficient. I do, on the other hand, know enough about ancient and medieval literature, language, and culture that I usually can open some doors that students hadn\u2019t hitherto suspected. Once one develops a habit of looking at these things, one can often see where to push on other kinds of literature as well. The payoff is cumulative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are some things I generally do not do. I do not try to use literary instruction as a reductive occasion or pretext for moral or religious indoctrination. Most of our students come from families already seriously engaged with questions of faith and morals, and I prefer to respect that fact, leaving it to their parents and clergy. I also don\u2019t believe that any work of literature can be entirely encompassed by such questions, and hence it would be more than a little arrogant of me to try to constrain the discussion to those points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is not to say that I shy away from moral and religious topics either (as teachers in our public schools often have to do perforce). Moral and theological issues come up naturally in our conversations, and I do not suppress them; I try to deal with them honestly from my own perspective as a fairly conservative reader and as a Christian while leaving respectful room for divergence of opinion as well. (I do believe that my own salvation is not contingent upon my having all the right answers, so I\u2019m willing to be proven wrong on the particulars.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is never my purpose to mine literary works for \u201cteachable points\u201d or to find disembodied sententiae<\/em> that I can use as an excuse to exalt this work or dismiss that one. This is for two reasons. First of all, I have too much respect for the literary art to think that it can or should be reduced to a platitudinous substrate. Second, story<\/em> in particular (which is a large part of what literature involves) is a powerful and largely autonomous entity. It cannot well be tamed; any attempt to subvert it with tendentious arguments (from either the author\u2019s point of view or from the reader\u2019s) almost invariably produces bad art and bad reading. An attempt to tell a student \u201cYou should like this work, but must appreciate it only in the following way,\u201d is merely tyrannical \u2014 tyrannical in the worst way, since it sees itself as being entirely in the interest of and for the benefit of the student. Fortunately, for most students, it\u2019s also almost wholly ineffectual, though a sorry side effect is that a number find the whole process so off-putting that they ditch literature altogether. That\u2019s probably the worst possible outcome for a literature program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I also do not insist on canons of my own taste. If students disagree with me (positively or negatively) about the value of a given work, I\u2019m fine with that. I don’t require anyone to like what I like. I deal in classics (in a variety of senses of the term) but the idea of an absolute canon of literature is a foolish attempt to control what cannot be controlled. It does not erode my appreciation for a work of literature that a student doesn\u2019t like it. The fact that twenty generations have liked another won\u2019t itself make me like it either, if I don\u2019t, though it does<\/em> make me reticent to reject it out of hand. It takes a little humility to revisit something on which you have already formed an opinion, but it’s salutary. It\u2019s not just the verdict of the generations that can force me back to a work again, either: if a student can see something in a work that I have hitherto missed and can show me how to appreciate it, I gain by that. At the worst, I\u2019m not harmed; at the best, I\u2019m a beneficiary. Many teachers seem eager to enforce their evaluations of works on their students. I don’t know why. I have learned more from my students than from any other source, I suspect. Why would I not want that to continue?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Being primarily a language scholar, I do<\/em> attempt to dig into texts for things like grammatical function \u2014 both as a way of ascertaining the exact surface meanings and as a way of uncovering the hidden complexities. Those who haven\u2019t read Shakespeare with an eye on his brilliant syntactical ambiguity in mind are missing a lot. He was a master of complex expression, and what may initially seem oddly phrased but obvious statements can unfold into far less obvious questions or bivalent confessions. After thirty years of picking at it, I still have never seen an adequate discussion in the critical literature on Macbeth\u2019s \u201cHere had we now our country\u2019s honour roofed \/ Were the graced person of our Banquo present (Macbeth<\/em> 3.4.39-40).\u201d The odd phrasing is routinely explained as something like \u201cAll the nobility of Scotland would be gathered under one roof if only Banquo were present,\u201d but I think he is saying considerably more than that, thanks to the formation of contrary-to-fact conditions and the English subjunctive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n…while no two compasses agree…<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
…nor can anyone name the destination:<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
is it any wonder people are confused?<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
One teacher\u2019s approach<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n