What level of literary analysis do you expect in h.s.? college?

[Michelle in MO]

A little background: Right now I'm taking my first college-level American Lit. course. Yes, I did have this in h.s. myself, but never took it at the college level (my literature reading has been in other languages).

 

The course is a "hybrid" course at our local cc--we meet once a week, and then the instructor posts numerous questions once a week online, which we need to answer. My certification will be through Washington University, but they do not care where I take my lit. courses and (believe it or not) even encouraged me to take some of the initial lit. courses at our cc.

 

Overall the instructor is good; he has a good understanding of the literature he teaches, and is able to lecture and lead class discussions well.

 

Some of the discussions which take place online are distressing to me, though. There is no arguing; only "mild" disagreements over points of literature.

 

I find myself absolutely stunned at the answers to questions which some students post. And these answers are coming from three classmates in particular who want to be high school English teachers. More than once they have posted responses to questions which are completely illogical, and on numerous occasions they have made assertions which absolutely cannot be backed up by anything that they've read in the text. In fact, some of these assertions are almost contradictory to the literature they've read. There is no quoting from the text, no delving into the author's biography or the philosophical movement of which the writer is part.

 

Moreover, I find myself really annoyed that some of these future English teachers regularly have abysmal grammar and spelling--not that mine is perfect, but I try to keep within the bounds of decent English. :glare:

 

So, I've been thinking all week about this: What level of literary analysis would you expect from kids in high school, or from students in college?

 

I do realize that literary analysis can be suggested, but I have a firm belief that, no matter what one's personal beliefs, it is our duty to try to understand the author's philosophical perspective and write about him/her as faithfully as possible, interpreting his/her literary works according to the author's intent, as we best understand it, keeping in mind the author's life and times.

 

I would think that students at the college level, especially those wanting to be English instructors, would be able to do this, as well as employ standard English grammar and spelling.

 

In light of the classical tradition, though, I am dismayed at the lack of proof in the assertions of a few fellow classmates. Literature analysis is subjective, but in some sense statements about the author's intent should require proof from the text. In that sense, the logic behind statements is similar to the logic we would use to do a geometric proof, or make a conclusion from a science experiment. Yes--completely different fields, but logical thinking should be employed, right? To me, it's not enough to say, "I feel this" or "I feel that", with no proof from the text. And, it's certainly not acceptable to say, "I agree with Amber (fictitious name)"--again with no proof. Amber's opinion doesn't count if Amber can't prove her point, IMO.

 

Any thoughts out there on this topic? This is a serious question, and a bit of a rant--if you can tell! ;)

Edited February 27, 2010 by Michelle in MO

[Harriet Vane]

:iagree:

 

This is a rant of mine as well. I have a degree in English. I was fortunate to have two wonderful, high quality English teachers at the academically challenging private high school I attended. The standards there were high, and I learned to analyze literature as you have described. Then I went to college and it was a whole different ball game. For the most part, discussions were based on feelings and there was not a lot of true literary analysis. It drove me completely insane, and has resulted in years of ranting on my part about how superior my high school education was to my college education.

[Michelle in MO]

:iagree:

 

This is a rant of mine as well. I have a degree in English. I was fortunate to have two wonderful, high quality English teachers at the academically challenging private high school I attended. The standards there were high, and I learned to analyze literature as you have described. Then I went to college and it was a whole different ball game. For the most part, discussions were based on feelings and there was not a lot of true literary analysis. It drove me completely insane, and has resulted in years of ranting on my part about how superior my high school education was to my college education.

You are describing my convictions to a "T"!

 

Yes, I do realize that each person is going to bring a different perspective into the discussions and analysis, but I don't believe literary analysis should be all about "feelings". Literature does evoke certain feelings, but when all is said and done, I don't think it's completely subjective. One must be able to make a statement, an assertion--and then prove that point from the author's own writings!

 

I thought one of the points of literary analysis was to try to understand what the author was saying--not give an exposition on how I feel.

 

How times have changed!

[MIch elle]

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1390911#poststop

[Michelle in MO]

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1390911#poststop

Yes, I remember that discussion. I would have to disagree with some of the points which the writer of this article made.

 

First of all, I'm not trying to imply that literary analysis is completely objective. When we interpret a piece of literature, we are undoubtedly bringing in our own perspective (religious/political/philosophical) into the discussion/analysis. However, it is not enough to make assertions like "I think the author is saying this" or "I feel that the author is saying that" without some textual proof. We can't just pull things out of the air. I cannot legitimately make a case for Emerson being a thinker of the Enlightenment (which he wasn't) without proof from his writings. It's not entirely subjective.

 

Nor is it enough to quote a favorite pal in an online discussion and say, simply, "I agree with Amber"--the implication being that "I like Amber, so I agree with her". No---have an original thought in your head, and prove why you agree with Amber!

 

For example, I had an entire course devoted to Franz Kafka while I was in college. I was a Christian; the professor was a nihilist (his words, not mine). Nevertheless, I loved his class. I was not looking for Christian symbolism in Kafka's writings; I was trying to understand Kafka's work, from Kafka's perspective. The professor went into great detail on Kafka's life, i.e., the fact that he felt himself to be an outsider for much of his life; his relationship with his father (which could be considered borderline abusive); the fact that he was a German Jew living in Czechoslovakia. The only time Kafka felt a measure of happiness, of peace (so the professor said) was when he was diagnosed with tuberculosis and was close to death. In class we sat there with book in hand discussing Kafka, reading passages and discussing the material. The professor required (gently, of course) some proof from Kafka's works to bolster our arguments. Our perspectives differed to some degree, but the point was to get inside of Kafka's writings and try to understand what he/she is trying to say. Kafka's works, i.e., The Trial and The Metamorphosis did not come from a vacuum.

 

It is not legitimate, in my opinion, to make assertions on the basis of what we think or feel without any proof from the writings and life of the author. One writes out of one's philosophy of life and life experiences; it would be a rare person who could divorce what they write from their own philosophy and perspective.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Michelle in MO

[Rhondabee]

I would say in high school, I expect the assertions to be backed up by the text. "I feel" (ha!) more comfortable discussing a theme that runs through the book, since that is really all the analysis I've had in high school or college. The theme might be supported by specific events in the book, literary techniques (symbolism or structure, for example), or characterizations. I am slowly trying to expand my repertoire to include all of the suggestions given by SWB in her handout on literary analysis.

 

I think in high school we will *touch* on the author's life and worldview, and the historical happenings that shaped the author's life, as a context for the theme. But, it will be more of an introduction to that type of study, rather than a nitty-gritty dig through a work as you've described below.

 

 

 

Yes, I remember that discussion. I would have to disagree with some of the points which the writer of this article made.

 

First of all, I'm not trying to imply that literary analysis is completely objective. When we interpret a piece of literature, we are undoubtedly bringing in our own perspective (religious/political/philosophical) into the discussion/analysis. However, it is not enough to make assertions like "I think the author is saying this" or "I feel that the author is saying that" without some textual proof. We can't just pull things out of the air. I cannot legitimately make a case for Emerson being a thinker of the Enlightenment (which he wasn't) without proof from his writings. It's not entirely subjective.

 

Nor is it enough to quote a favorite pal in an online discussion and say, simply, "I agree with Amber"--the implication being that "I like Amber, so I agree with her". No---have an original thought in your head, and prove why you agree with Amber!

 

For example, I had an entire course devoted to Franz Kafka while I was in college. I was a Christian; the professor was a nihilist (his words, not mine). Nevertheless, I loved his class. I was not looking for a Christ figure in Kafka's writings; I was trying to understand Kafka's work, from Kafka's perspective. The professor went into great detail on Kafka's life, i.e., the fact that he felt himself to be an outsider for much of his life; his relationship with his father (which could be considered borderline abusive); the fact that he was a German Jew living in Czechoslovakia. The only time Kafka felt a measure of happiness, of peace (so the professor said) was when he was diagnosed with tuberculosis and was close to death. In class we sat there with book in hand discussing Kafka, reading passages and discussing the material. The professor required (gently, of course) some proof from Kafka's works to bolster our arguments. Our perspectives differed to some degree, but the point was to get inside of Kafka's writings and try to understand what he/she is trying to say. Kafka's works, i.e., The Trial and The Metamorphosis did not come from a vacuum.

 

It is not legitimate, in my opinion, to make assertions on the basis of what we think or feel without any proof from the writings and life of the author. One writes out of one's philosophy of life and life experiences; it would be a rare person who could divorce what they write from their own philosophy and perspective.

[Chris in VA]

Just want to say, OP, that online discussion is an excellent place for you to shine--when someone posts the drivel you mention (love that--"I agree with Amber" line! lol), ask them Why? ASK them for evidence from the text. Play teacher if you want (in a subtle way). You can add things like, "I don't see that in the text--could you find an example?" Or maybe, "The text (insert example) directly contradicts that." This is not to sabatoge their entries, but to point out what you see, and take the discussion deeper.

I absolutely believe they need to support their answer.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Chris in VA

[Michelle in MO]

I would say in high school, I expect the assertions to be backed up by the text. "I feel" (ha!) more comfortable discussing a theme that runs through the book, since that is really all the analysis I've had in high school or college. The theme might be supported by specific events in the book, literary techniques (symbolism or structure, for example), or characterizations. I am slowly trying to expand my repertoire to include all of the suggestions given by SWB in her handout on literary analysis.

 

I think in high school we will *touch* on the author's life and worldview, and the historical happenings that shaped the author's life, as a context for the theme. But, it will be more of an introduction to that type of study, rather than a nitty-gritty dig through a work as you've described below.

At the high school level, I would expect something similar to what you're describing. My course on Kafka was in college, so I would expect more. But even at the high school level I would expect some basic assertions, followed up by proofs from the text or the life of the author.

 

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate analogy, but I'll try a comparison from music. Let's suppose that I am playing "Für Elise" on the piano for a concert. The piece is very romantic, very smooth and flowing. Let's suppose that I play it extremely fast, all staccato. Any music critic worth their salt would say that my interpretation is not a faithful interpretation of Beethoven and the way he wrote this piece. Yet, there are going to be subtle differences in the way a particular pianist might interpret a piece of music. For example, I have heard at least two different recordings of Mozart's Sonata in A Major, especially the last movement, Alla turca. The final movement is quite an exciting piece, and I've heard it played by Anthony Neuman and Vladimir Horowitz. Each pianist plays the piece slightly differently--Horowitz's interpretation is a bit slower, Neuman's is faster--but both are faithful interpretations of Mozart.

[Michelle in MO]

Just want to say, OP, that online discussion is an excellent place for you to shine--when someone posts the drivel you mention (love that--"I agree with Amber" line! lol), ask them Why? ASK them for evidence from the text. Play teacher if you want (in a subtle way). You can add things like, "I don't see that in the text--could you find an example?" Or maybe, "The text (insert example) directly contradicts that." This is not to sabatoge their entries, but to point out what you see, and take the discussion deeper.

I absolutely believe they need to support their answer.

I did; in the online discussion which took place, I took the original poster back to the author's other writings, and said that her assertions were contradictory to everything else this particular author wrote. A second gal jumped in and said, in essence, "I agree with Amber" yet was able to give absolutely no proof to back up her statements, either!

 

I didn't continue to argue my points, mostly because I wanted to keep the conversation civil. But, yes, I was highly annoyed. It was pure drivel, IMO.

[Rhondabee]

I think that's a good analogy. As long as your assertion can be proven by the text, it is "right" - but there can be many assertions made about any given text.

 

It brought to mind SWB's assertion that too often our society skips the analysis (what is the author saying?) and jumps to the evaluation (do I agree with what the author?). It's so much easier to spout off our own pre-conceived view of the world than to try to understand someone else's. And, while one of the wonderful things about good literature is that it forces you to define your own thoughts more clearly, your own thoughts are somewhat irrelevant when the assignment is to explore the author's thoughts.

 

I agree with the other poster who encouraged you to ask for evidence. Though I wouldn't want to do the teacher's job for him, maybe he is looking to see who is willing to step forward and ask the tough questions for themselves rather than being led along?

 

At the high school level, I would expect something similar to what you're describing. My course on Kafka was in college, so I would expect more. But even at the high school level I would expect some basic assertions, followed up by proofs from the text or the life of the author.

 

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate analogy, but I'll try a comparison from music. Let's suppose that I am playing "Für Elise" on the piano for a concert. The piece is very romantic, very smooth and flowing. Let's suppose that I play it extremely fast, all staccato. Any music critic worth their salt would say that my interpretation is not a faithful interpretation of Beethoven and the way he wrote this piece. Yet, there are going to be subtle differences in the way a particular pianist might interpret a piece of music. For example, I have heard at least two different recordings of Mozart's Sonata in A Major, especially the last movement, Alla turca. The final movement is quite an exciting piece, and I've heard it played by Anthony Neuman and Vladimir Horowitz. Each pianist plays the piece slightly differently--Horowitz's interpretation is a bit slower, Neuman's is faster--but both are faithful interpretations of Mozart.

[Leanna Tomlinson]

Here's a definition of Postmodernism copied from pbs.org. Postmodernism is the pervading philosophy undergirding the thoughts of these students even though they may not know the term.

 

Lately, I have really been trying to wrap my mind around the way philosophy influences culture. Throughout history it is obvious, to quote Jeff Baldwin, "Ideas have consequences." But my little mind cannot seem to grasp how the ideas of the intellectuals can influence the thoughts and behaviors of the masses, however, in studying history, I know that it is true.

 

Postmodernism :

A general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one's own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.

 

Any of this sound familiar?:confused:

 

Leanna

[Charles Wallace]

A little background: Right now I'm taking my first college-level American Lit. course. Yes, I did have this in h.s. myself, but never took it at the college level (my literature reading has been in other languages).

 

The course is a "hybrid" course at our local cc--we meet once a week, and then the instructor posts numerous questions once a week online, which we need to answer. My certification will be through Washington University, but they do not care where I take my lit. courses and (believe it or not) even encouraged me to take some of the initial lit. courses at our cc.

 

Overall the instructor is good; he has a good understanding of the literature he teaches, and is able to lecture and lead class discussions well.

 

Some of the discussions which take place online are distressing to me, though. There is no arguing; only "mild" disagreements over points of literature.

 

I find myself absolutely stunned at the answers to questions which some students post. And these answers are coming from three classmates in particular who want to be high school English teachers. More than once they have posted responses to questions which are completely illogical, and on numerous occasions they have made assertions which absolutely cannot be backed up by anything that they've read in the text. In fact, some of these assertions are almost contradictory to the literature they've read. There is no quoting from the text, no delving into the author's biography or the philosophical movement of which the writer is part.

 

Apparently, you and I are going to the same CC. I'm taking a course there in English literature for the renewal of my teaching certification because if I took one more Ed. course, I'd basically want a frontal lobotomy. I was shocked in much the same way you are, and I'll add one more to your list: these folks can't read very well. I regret if this sounds snobby or elitist, but it's the literal truth: they have a hard time reading aloud with any expression or accurate pronunciation -- and I'm referring to native speakers of English.

 

Moreover, I find myself really annoyed that some of these future English teachers regularly have abysmal grammar and spelling--not that mine is perfect, but I try to keep within the bounds of decent English. :glare:

 

So, I've been thinking all week about this: What level of literary analysis would you expect from kids in high school, or from students in college?

 

 

From my freshmen, I expect them to be able to articulate an author's main point and to distinguish it from the author's motif. That is, please do NOT tell me that a theme of Romeo and Juliet is love. (Technically, that's a motif.) Please do tell me Shakespeare's point ABOUT love. Secondly, they should be able to find at least one crucially important moment from the play that proves their point about Shakespeare's theme. Finally, they should be able to explain in what way or how come the scene they chose demonstrates that Shakespeare's point about love was XYZ.

 

From my seniors, I expect them to do all of the above AND explain the author's use of literary tools, perform close reading of pivotal words or phrases, and demonstrate awareness of the author's time, literary movements to which s/he belonged, and literary tradition to which s/he responds.

 

Do they do it? No, not always.:glare: However, we keep working on it throughout the year.

 

I do realize that literary analysis can be suggested, but I have a firm belief that, no matter what one's personal beliefs, it is our duty to try to understand the author's philosophical perspective and write about him/her as faithfully as possible, interpreting his/her literary works according to the author's intent, as we best understand it, keeping in mind the author's life and times.

 

I would think that students at the college level, especially those wanting to be English instructors, would be able to do this, as well as employ standard English grammar and spelling.

 

In light of the classical tradition, though, I am dismayed at the lack of proof in the assertions of a few fellow classmates. Literature analysis is subjective, but in some sense statements about the author's intent should require proof from the text. In that sense, the logic behind statements is similar to the logic we would use to do a geometric proof, or make a conclusion from a science experiment. Yes--completely different fields, but logical thinking should be employed, right? To me, it's not enough to say, "I feel this" or "I feel that", with no proof from the text. And, it's certainly not acceptable to say, "I agree with Amber (fictitious name)"--again with no proof. Amber's opinion doesn't count if Amber can't prove her point, IMO.

 

 

The reason they can't do that, if I may venture a guess, is that schools have been influenced by two major movements: reader-response theory and the self-esteem movement. Both are -- and this is not too strong a phrase -- pernicious destroyers of logical thought. Reader-response theory essentially argues that the reader herself "makes meaning" in the text. Oversimplified as it tends to become in colleges of education and English classes, this means that students are taught that the work means whatever they think it means because it's all a matter of opinion. (The idea that opinions without facts are utterly worthless never occurs to them, or if it does, it is rejected as heresy.) Obviously, this ties in well to the self-esteem kick, in which objective facts don't matter; it's all about how you feel about yourself.

 

I'm sorry if this sounds both bitter and exaggerated; I assure you that while it is surely the former, it is by no means the latter. Every single year when we deal with poetry and I encounter precisely what you're talking about, I'll ask, "Without naming names or previous schools, please raise your hand if at some point in your academic career, you have been taught that poetry just basically 'means what you think it means' or that it doesn't really have any meaning we can know objectively." Every year, I get a slew of raised hands -- usually from the students who are struggling to understand that words mean things.

 

What they mean might be layered; that is, in Gerard Manley Hopkins' "God's Grandeur," the word charged carries with it a host of different (and logical) possible meanings, but within a range or zone. The word does not mean "just whatever you think it means."

 

Sorry to rant in response to your rant. Is this a re-rant?:D

Edited February 27, 2010 by Charles Wallace

[Charles Wallace]

Here's a definition of Postmodernism copied from pbs.org. Postmodernism is the pervading philosophy undergirding the thoughts of these students even though they may not know the term.

 

Lately, I have really been trying to wrap my mind around the way philosophy influences culture. Throughout history it is obvious, to quote Jeff Baldwin, "Ideas have consequences." But my little mind cannot seem to grasp how the ideas of the intellectuals can influence the thoughts and behaviors of the masses, however, in studying history, I know that it is true.

 

Postmodernism :

A general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one's own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.

 

Any of this sound familiar?:confused:

 

Leanna

 

Next time someone tries to assert that there's no actual reality, throw a rock at them.

 

If they duck, they've proved your point.:D

[MIch elle]

For example, I had an entire course devoted to Franz Kafka while I was in college.

 

 

 

Funny you should mention Kafka. Ds's class is studying it now in his world literature class. They use Prentice Hall World Literature along with other longer works/books. PH World Lit. includes The Metamorphosis.

 

I vividly remember The Metamorphosis from my high school literature class. :cool:

[Michelle in MO]

Any of this sound familiar?:confused:

 

Leanna

 

Very much so indeed, as well as what Charles Wallace states here:

 

Apparently, you and I are going to the same CC. I'm taking a course there in English literature for the renewal of my teaching certification because if I took one more Ed. course, I'd basically want a frontal lobotomy. I was shocked in much the same way you are, and I'll add one more to your list: these folks can't read very well. I regret if this sounds snobby or elitist, but it's the literal truth: they have a hard time reading aloud with any expression or accurate pronunciation -- and I'm referring to native speakers of English.

 

We must be at the same cc. I still have some coursework to go before completing my certification, but I have to say that so far I don't like the ed. courses at all, even though the teachers have been great. I can't say I've learned very much so far that's of practical use in the classroom. Ditto to some of the thoughts on native speakers of English. Imagine my shock at the spelling/grammar of these future English teachers of America.

 

The reason they can't do that, if I may venture a guess, is that schools have been influenced by two major movements: reader-response theory and the self-esteem movement. Both are -- and this is not too strong a phrase -- pernicious destroyers of logical thought. Reader-response theory essentially argues that the reader herself "makes meaning" in the text. Oversimplified as it tends to become in colleges of education and English classes, this means that students are taught that the work means whatever they think it means because it's all a matter of opinion. (The idea that opinions without facts are utterly worthless never occurs to them, or if it does, it is rejected as heresy.) Obviously, this ties in well to the self-esteem kick, in which objective facts don't matter; it's all about how you feel about yourself.

 

It's interesting that you state this, because the teacher--whom I like--calls our papers "response papers". I had not heard of reader-response theory, but it wouldn't surprise me if that is influencing this class.

 

Funny you should mention Kafka. Ds's class is studying it now in his world literature class. They use Prentice Hall World Literature along with other longer works/books. PH World Lit. includes The Metamorphosis.

 

I vividly remember The Metamorphosis from my high school literature class. :cool:

 

Kafka is quite depressing, isn't he?

[EKS]

I always tell my son (who hates literary analysis) that I don't care what his assertions are, he needs to be able to back them up with material from the piece.

 

That said, I wanted to agree about the atrocious writing ability of classmates online. Only the ones I'm dealing with are master's degree candidates.

[Leanna Tomlinson]

Next time someone tries to assert that there's no actual reality, throw a rock at them.

 

If they duck, they've proved your point.:D

 

:lol:

 

The reality of Postmodernism makes my chest tight. Some rock throwing may be just what I need. :D

 

Leanna

Edited February 27, 2010 by Leanna

[Michelle in MO]

I always tell my son (who hates literary analysis) that I don't care what his assertions are, he needs to be able to back them up with material from the piece.

 

That said, I wanted to agree about the atrocious writing ability of classmates online. Only the ones I'm dealing with are master's degree candidates.

 

That's sad indeed! I'm still somewhat in shock by what I'm seeing in this undergrad. course.

[Ester Maria]

There is no quoting from the text, no delving into the author's biography or the philosophical movement of which the writer is part.

To require from the participants of the discussion to back up their opinions of the text they discuss with the quotes from the text they discuss is one thing; and here I agree with you. It demonstrates familiarity with the text, and if the text itself is the center of discussion (rather than a specific idea brought up by the text), that familiarity is, well, a necessary condition.

 

However, to require of the participants to read the historical and biographical context of the author into the work of fiction (and it's a very, very complex question to what extent you can "read" those without "reading into") is a completely different thing.

I do realize that literary analysis can be suggested, but I have a firm belief that, no matter what one's personal beliefs, it is our duty to try to understand the author's philosophical perspective and write about him/her as faithfully as possible, interpreting his/her literary works according to the author's intent, as we best understand it, keeping in mind the author's life and times.

1) Where do you draw that "firm belief" from? On the basis of what you claim that position, or, better, on the basis of what you think your positivist-"biographical" approach to literature is essentially more correct than a more formalist approach?

2) Where does your deontological vocabulary in this context (our "duty") come from? And is that not an ideological position as well?

3) Why do you think the author's life, times or unspoken "intentions" matter for the universe of a work of fiction and for the operating within and with that universe?

(I agree that sometimes the context is inseparable from the work and adds an extra layer of the meaning - Dante for example - but I wouldn't consider it crucial for the work, otherwise we're talking about history, not literature.)

4) Even if that's really the case, to be deontological again, what gives you the "right" to speak for an author and read into the text the context of its genesis?

5) Regardless of what's the case, is that the purpose of literary analysis or literary criticism? "What did the author want to say?" approach? And we're talking about high school and university level?

You might wish to rethink that. If that's still your position, I respect it, but one thing I noticed with the "biographists" is that there is a really, really tiny line that separates that kind of reading from the reading into. It can be a very tricky position.

In that sense, the logic behind statements is similar to the logic we would use to do a geometric proof, or make a conclusion from a science experiment. Yes--completely different fields, but logical thinking should be employed, right?

Absolutely, if we are talking about the text and the text only. But if we are trying to draw the conclusions for somebody's "intentions" or for the historical context, we are often operating with the statements which are NOT present in the text in an explicit form, so we must be very careful about what we think the text might imply, and what are our criteria for the "hidden implications".

To me, it's not enough to say, "I feel this" or "I feel that", with no proof from the text.

I have no idea what context you come from, but my high school or university experience had zero to do with "I feel"s or "the author wants to say"s (I consider both of those approaches essentially missing the point, actually, but I won't get into that now) - those were reserved for elementary school and for people who never got higher education in the field or had minimal interest in it.

I studied comparative and Italian literature, and taught it later.

Then I went to college and it was a whole different ball game. For the most part, discussions were based on feelings and there was not a lot of true literary analysis. It drove me completely insane, and has resulted in years of ranting on my part about how superior my high school education was to my college education.

I have no idea where you studied (not that the names matter though, I know of institutions which cherish such "methods" and heavily disagree with them, just like I disagree with "biographists"), but I can assure you that my own, and a lot of other people's university education was nothing like that, especially grad and post-grad.

Yes, I do realize that each person is going to bring a different perspective into the discussions and analysis, but I don't believe literary analysis should be all about "feelings".

Who ever said literary analysis is about "feelings"?!

I know I'm coming from a whole other educational system, culture and mentality, and maybe you all are ranting because such streams of thought are much more prevalent by you, but still, I cannot fathom the idea of talking on the level of "feelings" or "author's life" in UNIVERSITY. Actually, "feelings" are too much of a dumbing down even for a high school level, right? :confused:

When we interpret a piece of literature, we are undoubtedly bringing in our own perspective (religious/political/philosophical) into the discussion/analysis. However, it is not enough to make assertions like "I think the author is saying this" or "I feel that the author is saying that" without some textual proof. We can't just pull things out of the air.

It's indeed possible, if you're a good "verbal manipulator", to make a text say pretty much whatever you want it to say. Both as a student and a professor, I've seen all kinds of theses, some of which were downright absurd in my opinion. However, if they were logically coherent and making a point, not in contrast with what the text is explicitly saying (since, as we said, possible implications are a different kind of story), you can't really push them aside as illegitimate approaches to the topic, no matter how much you disagree with them.

 

I agree with you, but you have to be aware of a trick: it's perfectly possible to make crazy claims relying on the text, and normal "legitimate" claims relying on our general impression rather than the text itself (just like it's possible to be correct about something, for example by a wild guess, and not have the knowledge of it, despite it being correct - but this is probably not the place to get into epistemology now :D).

 

I'll give you an example from my teaching days. I'll always treasure a certain "Peter Pan as a hidden propaganda for drugs" essay, no matter how crazy it was :D, and I'll always consider a certain "Guelfi and Ghibellini in The Divine Comedy" another mediocre attempt of reading history into the work of fiction, no matter how legitimate and supported it is, and an essay which is, essentially, missing the point of literature, despite how "more correct" it might be factually. Simply put, the Peter Pan girl based her thesis on the text only (or, better, she was able to make the whole text follow her point), and wrote a killer essay, albeit totally crazy; the Guelfi and Ghibellini guy wrote a nice historical essay backed up by some Divine Comedy, but... but he kinda missed that he was studying at the Literature department rather than History. And that, maybe, the purpose of his undergraduate study was a different kind of thought. But I digress, the point is: none of them wrote what you or I would consider a good literary analysis, yet one of them was "less bad" than the other one because they "made" the text reflect their point more skillfully. :lol:

 

Back to the point though, I think textual proof is of utmost importance if we're talking about the text itself and not an idea provoked by the text. By definition, literature deals with the text itself and with how it makes its point rather than the point itself (philosophically). Which is also why a lot of topics from your average literature classes are, strictly speaking, not the topics of literary interest.

One writes out of one's philosophy of life and life experiences; it would be a rare person who could divorce what they write from their own philosophy and perspective.

I agree.

[...] this means that students are taught that the work means whatever they think it means because it's all a matter of opinion. (The idea that opinions without facts are utterly worthless never occurs to them, or if it does, it is rejected as heresy.) Obviously, this ties in well to the self-esteem kick, in which objective facts don't matter; it's all about how you feel about yourself.

:lol: That, and an amateurish deconstruction. My "favorite" two "intellectual fashions" and, thank God, discouraged in the system I came from and worked in.

 

I know this post is a mishmash of lots of thoughts, but I really have a pet peeve when it comes to deliberate positivist reading into the text, just like you seem to have with psychologization and "I feel"s.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Ester Maria

[Michelle in MO]

1) Where do you draw that "firm belief" from? On the basis of what you claim that position, or, better, on the basis of what you think your positivist-"biographical" approach to literature is essentially more correct than a more formalist approach?

2) Where does your deontological vocabulary in this context (our "duty") come from? And is that not an ideological position as well?

3) Why do you think the author's life, times or unspoken "intentions" matter for the universe of a work of fiction and for the operating within and with that universe?

(I agree that sometimes the context is inseparable from the work and adds an extra layer of the meaning - Dante for example - but I wouldn't consider it crucial for the work, otherwise we're talking about history, not literature.)

4) Even if that's really the case, to be deontological again, what gives you the "right" to speak for an author and read into the text the context of its genesis?

5) Regardless of what's the case, is that the purpose of literary analysis or literary criticism? "What did the author want to say?" approach? And we're talking about high school and university level?

You might wish to rethink that. If that's still your position, I respect it, but one thing I noticed with the "biographists" is that there is a really, really tiny line that separates that kind of reading from the reading into. It can be a very tricky position.

 

quite a bit into my statements. I'm a "biographical positivist" simply because I think that a basic knowledge and understanding of the author's life and time period is helpful in understanding their statements? Sorry--but I think you're really stretching my words. FWIW, I try to base my statements for every paper which I've written for this class and for others on the author's words from the text, not on biographical data. I merely think it helps to understand the author's life and that time period; how does doing so make me a "biographical positivist"?

 

Did I say that I had a "right" to speak for the author? No, I certainly did not. Nor do I make the connection that understanding this context gives me this "right".

 

Who ever said literary analysis is about "feelings"?! I know I'm coming from a whole other educational system, culture and mentality, and maybe you all are ranting because such streams of thought are much more prevalent by you, but still, I cannot fathom the idea of talking on the level of "feelings" or "author's life" in UNIVERSITY. Actually, "feelings" are too much of a dumbing down even for a high school level, right? :confused:

 

Well, if you read my original post, you'd understand that I'm speaking about a community college course. FWIW, my degree is from the University of Minnesota, where I majored in German language and literature, with a concentration in French. I've also done some elementary literary analysis in Latin. My certification is through Washington University in St. Louis. I would agree with you that this level of analysis is incredibly dumbed-down, which is the point of this whole thread. I did not say that literary analysis is about "feelings"---but apparently several of my fellow students seem to believe that, based upon their discussions.

 

It's indeed possible, if you're a good "verbal manipulator", to make a text say pretty much whatever you want it to say. Both as a student and a professor, I've seen all kinds of theses, some of which were downright absurd in my opinion. However, if they were logically coherent and making a point, not in contrast with what the text is explicitly saying (since, as we said, possible implications are a different kind of story), you can't really push them aside as illegitimate approaches to the topic, no matter how much you disagree with them.

 

Which is a key point in this thread. I've read some pretty absurd statements in this class, but they are not logically coherent nor do the students make a modicum of effort to quote anything from the text. I can handle intelligent disagreement, as long as the writer can make intelligent assertions from the text. What I cannot abide are assertions based upon feelings, without any textual proof.

 

I know this post is a mishmash of lots of thoughts, but I really have a pet peeve when it comes to deliberate positivist reading into the text, just like you seem to have with psychologization and "I feel"s.

 

I suggest you go back and read my statements again, and when you see key words like "author's biography" or "life and times", remember that my primary concern is a faithful rendering of the text. I used an analogy from music; that might be helpful for you to better understand my words and intent.

[klmama]

Michelle, when I was in college studying American Literature (in courses for English majors at a large university), my professors insisted that we needed to understand the authors' lives and times in order to have a better understanding of their works. We were not allowed to say "I think" or "I feel" about any work; we had to make statements about the work itself and prove them from the text. We were certainly allowed to propose all kinds of outlandish things regarding an author's intent, but we had to back them up from the text. Failure to do so meant failure in the class. I think you are on the right track, even if others in the class aren't. Keep up the good work! :001_smile:

Edited February 27, 2010 by klmama

[Ester Maria]

I'm a "biographical positivist" simply because I think that a basic knowledge and understanding of the author's life and time period is helpful in understanding their statements?

You seemed to place certain weight and importance on the context of the genesis of the text.

There are shades and nuances to "biographists", not all of them are the extreme kind, nor I claimed you to be one, I simply labeled the approach to literary text which steps out of text and considers the context of its genesis as such because it does indeed come pretty close.

I merely think it helps to understand the author's life and that time period; how does doing so make me a "biographical positivist"?

The key question is, helps to understand what.

 

While I recognize the importance of "positioning" things in your mind (the diachronic element) with regards to history, people, events, simply because it's a part of general education... to think them essentially important for a literary work is a different thing. Your continuous going back to that ("delving into author's biography", "keeping in mind author's life and times" and alike) made me think so. In fact I still think so, we may disagree about the label or the level of the "intensivity" of the label, but I'm still under the impression that you consider certain things from context to be of essential (as opposed to accidental) importance for the text. Which is a legitimate perspective, but the one I disagree with. I was not attacking you therefore, simply replying. Relax :D, no need to jump at me in defence; maybe it was a misunderstanding, and maybe we're on different positions, which is again alright.

Did I say that I had a "right" to speak for the author? No, I certainly did not.

You implied something similar, by saying that a) you have a "duty" with regards to your analysis and b) that "duty" consists in the need to interpret a work according to the author's intent as we best understand it.

Well, if you read my original post, you'd understand that I'm speaking about a community college course. FWIW, my degree is from the University of Minnesota, where I majored in German language and literature, with a concentration in French. I've also done some elementary literary analysis in Latin. My certification is through Washington University in St. Louis.

I know you were talking about a CC. That's completely irrelevant as I was talking about the stages of education (primary, secondary / high school, tertiary / university) rather than specific types and subtypes of academic institutions.

I did not say that literary analysis is about "feelings"---but apparently several of my fellow students seem to believe that, based upon their discussions.

Seriously, you need to relax. I don't know if you're tense today or something, but I didn't say you said it and, in fact, in the quoted part I agreed with you in your agonizing over that approach, the question was a rhetoric one. :D

What I cannot abide are assertions based upon feelings, without any textual proof.

And still we agree.

It's just that I have this additional pet peeve of not being able to stand assertions based on "author's life and times", so I used to chance to vent about that in the earlier post. Most of it is not in direct relationship to your point, but to the digression *I* made with regards to the context issue you brought up.

I suggest you go back and read my statements again, and when you see key words like "author's biography" or "life and times", remember that my primary concern is a faithful rendering of the text. I used an analogy from music; that might be helpful for you to better understand my words and intent.

I read them the first time I replied, and I read the analogy as well.

I just have a different idea of what a faithful rendering of the text is, and I think the "life and times" are more of an obstacle than an aid in that. But hey, that's only me. :D

 

P.S. I'm really going to stop discussing these issues on these boards, I think that's for the best.

You frustrate me - not you personally, but this entire culture in which I need a dozen "disclaimers" ("Now, don't get me wrong"s, "I don't want you to think that I attack you"s, etc... Boring, and tiring, and unnecessary) before I can even APPROACH the point, or else somebody jumps like this and then instead of focusing on the argument we get into credentials and defensive mode and accusations based on impressions, etc., and then I need an extra post to fill with the "disclaimers" I didn't feel like writing in the earlier post... Totally not for me.

 

Itaaaaaaalia mia lontaaaaaaana, you had so many flaws but at least I could talk to people normally without "disclaimers" all. the. freaking. time. :sad: :( This today is just one of the recent frustrations about that.

[Michelle in MO]

Seriously, you need to relax. I don't know if you're tense today or something, but I didn't say you said it and, in fact, in the quoted part I agreed with you in your agonizing over that approach, the question was a rhetoric one. :D

 

P.S. I'm really going to stop discussing these issues on these boards, I think that's for the best.

You frustrate me - not you personally, but this entire culture in which I need a dozen "disclaimers" ("Now, don't get me wrong"s, "I don't want you to think that I attack you"s, etc... Boring, and tiring, and unnecessary) before I can even APPROACH the point, or else somebody jumps like this and then instead of focusing on the argument we get into credentials and defensive mode and accusations based on impressions, etc., and then I need an extra post to fill with the "disclaimers" I didn't feel like writing in the earlier post... Totally not for me.

 

I couldn't agree more.

[HollyinNNV]

Yes, Michelle. It is simply crazy to read pieces like Faerie Queene, Inferno and Diary of Anne Frank with no knowledge of the historical background. It is just common sense.

 

I think that the significance of history can increase or decrease depending upon the piece of literature.

[Charles Wallace]

Michelle, when I was in college studying American Literature (in courses for English majors at a large university), my professors insisted that we needed to understand the authors' lives and times in order to have a better understanding of their works. We were not allowed to say "I think" or "I feel" about any work; we had to make statements about the work itself and prove them from the text. We were certainly allowed to propose all kinds of outlandish things regarding an author's intent, but we had to back them up from the text. Failure to do so meant failure in the class. I think you are on the right track, even if others in the class aren't. Keep up the good work! :001_smile:

 

I'd like to chime in, using a small and localized example.

 

Many times, students who have some familiarity with Hamlet will assert that when Hamlet calls Polonius a "fishmonger," he is calling him a panderer or pimp, someone metaphorically (if not literally) using his daughter as (jail)bait to trap Hamlet into a confession that his madness is an act. However, a quick study of the Oxford English Dictionary will reveal that this definition of "fishmonger" did not exist during Shakespeare's lifetime; thus, it would be as inconsistent and inaccurate to argue this reading as it would to argue that if a seventeenth-century author used the word "byte," s/he meant "a quantity of digitally stored information." History, if for no other reason, is crucial to understand the meaning of the words an author is using.

[Michelle in MO]

I'd like to chime in, using a small and localized example.

 

Many times, students who have some familiarity with Hamlet will assert that when Hamlet calls Polonius a "fishmonger," he is calling him a panderer or pimp, someone metaphorically (if not literally) using his daughter as (jail)bait to trap Hamlet into a confession that his madness is an act. However, a quick study of the Oxford English Dictionary will reveal that this definition of "fishmonger" did not exist during Shakespeare's lifetime; thus, it would be as inconsistent and inaccurate to argue this reading as it would to argue that if a seventeenth-century author used the word "byte," s/he meant "a quantity of digitally stored information." History, if for no other reason, is crucial to understand the meaning of the words an author is using.

Good point.

 

And, I would not go so far as to use history to infer meaning where none is inferred, nor read too much into texts.

 

However, I think in my approach to reading I've subconsciously followed SWB's advice--and I'm paraphrasing here--that there is an artificial separation which has been erected between history and literature which shouldn't exist. Literature is written within a historical context.

 

When I write a paper, however, I almost always comment exclusively on what I read in the text. I use notes and my general understanding of history to gather information, and, unless the preface or introduction is terrible, I usually find the editor's notes very helpful.

 

The main reason for this thread was that I find myself absolutely stunned sometimes by what passes for "analysis" in this course. I don't think that "I feel" passes for analysis even at the high school level--and that is what I was trying to glean from reading responses to this thread. When we did our literature readings and discussions at home, even my 10th grader and 8th grader (this was two years ago) were able to give examples from the text to back up the points that they made. This was a process, however. The first year we did heavy literature reading and analysis was like pulling teeth. They made significant improvement the next year.

 

Also, the spelling and grammar I've seen has me floored--just floored. If I were the teacher, I'd be tempted to do this:

 

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

To be fair, the instructor definitely tries to get the students to back up their observations from the text. For the online component of the course, however, some students just post "feelings" and "thoughts". Reading those posts is just plain discouraging.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Michelle in MO