So it occurred to me this evening as I was talking with one of my students after class that English teachers are basically murdering their own subject.
Now before you get defensive, hear me out.
If you haven't had any history in literary criticism or taken an adolescent literature class (aimed at preteens) then you may have missed the moment in history when "we" decided that English was too difficult to grade and therefore, to make grading easy, decided we must teach one and only one way of looking at texts. While there is rumor there was resistance to this (and rightfully there should have been) the fact remains that New Criticism, a criticism that took nothing into account except structure and the story itself, was the easiest to grade and therefore dominated.
No one bothered to inform anyone until the deconstructionists came along that there was MORE than one way of looking at things and then they were only able to penetrate largely at the college level. Any teachers who did move on to allowing other criticisms to be taught still stuck to the "one way" rule, at least in high school.
What this boils down to is simply telling the student that their opinions or interpretations do not matter because there is only one proper way to interpret a text and regardless of which criticism that is (usually either New Criticism or the most popular interpretation for that particular piece) that it is the only way, there is no other way, and if they dare say anything else, that test question will be wrong.
I had until recently believed that this way of looking at things had trapped itself within High School. It was after all a small part of why I left High School "so done" with English class even though I didn't realize it at the time. College felt like a whole new blossoming beast. However, I recently just discovered that easy-to-grade-standardized-test way of teaching English in high school actually still exists at the college level when a student informed me that her past English instructor told her there was only one way to interpret "Wild Nights Wild Nights" by Emily Dickinson and that it was that Dickinson was naive about the actual physical aspects of sex.
Now. There is nothing wrong with this claim (though I tend to dislike author criticism in general). It is perfectly defensible considering the language of the poem and Dickinson's life. BUT it is by no means the only way to interpret the poem and should another way be provided with an equally defensible argument, by all means, bring it.
In fact, I see the poem as saying that sex is not necessary for passion. The passion is in being with that person, being a part of them, being anchored in their heart and mind. In which case, it doesn't matter who's mooring in who.
And if you want to read it and tell me it has nothing to do with passion at all, then so be it as long as you can explain and defend it.
But this student was not given that option, was not even told that there was an option and THAT is exactly what is wrong with our field.
Before I go further with why this is bad, there is one more thing that needs covering:
Many people are beginning to question why we stick to teaching the classics so much, why more modernized literature isn't experienced in the schools. It is certainly working it's way in, but it is still largely the minority.
But I think the answer to that question gets to the heart of the death of our field. It isn't that equally thought provoking and wonderful stuff hasn't been written recently; it's simply that before it has been thoroughly criticized, survived the test of time, determined what the most popular and "right" interpretation is, it is just too hard to teach because it will be too hard to grade because the teacher won't be told which is the "right" one until time proves it to be the most popular.
So we stick to the "classics" because we've all "agreed" that this is what that story is "really" about and therefore can righteously mark an answer right or wrong on a test on that basis.
And while we English teachers (I say "we" theoretically because this sure as hell is not me) smugly usher students in and out proud of our easy to grade and manage system, we are also scaring students away. By the time they graduate high school, they are too tired of being "forced" to read things "they don't understand" to bother going on seriously. And really, it isn't that they don' t understand or are incapable of understanding; it's that their mind just isn't wired to the criticism (usually the advanced criticism at that) that we are asking them to see it in. Should they study the classics? yes. Should they study what other people have said about them? yes. But it is JUST as important that they realize those are only ONE way of looking at the matter. It is just as important that they explore reader based criticism because while initially general, we could be naming a criticism after them one day! Quite plainly, exploring other point of views is what advances you to the level of critical thinking high enough to not only explore "time-tested" criticisms but to improve and invent them.
In other words, to add growth and change to the field.
AND THAT is why we are dying. We can't name a new criticism after them or learn more about existing texts because they won't ever go on in English because they were turned away as a teenager. We are basically lying to potential scholars about what the field is truly about.
This of course also results in new work staying out of the school system simply because there won't be enough people left to analyze it. And unanalyzed it won't ever be considered "Scholarly" enough to include in the system. Or basically, easy to grade.
And if this continues on, English (the literary side not the writing side) will become a dead form that is useless and old and unnecessary. . . until it is reborn again.
You see, I have faith in writers to keep writing and readers to keep reading. And to keep thinking critically. And to rebel against what they are told. Let's be clear.
But analyzing literature as a profession, in a sense, analyzing the current and past state of our cultural health and human existence will fail to progress for quite some time simply because we're improperly inducting our members.
College is too late to do it, and apparently, some people do not even get the chance to realize there is another way even then.
My most favorite thing about literature (that it is open to various perspectives) is quite simply the most natural yet best kept secret of the field.
And if it stays that way, we won't have much of a field to discuss.
At least until we rediscover it.
And in some ways I feel like we are on the cusp of rediscovering because I and other newer teachers (and even some of my older teachers) have embraced the concept of simply telling the truth and accepting that fact that English is not an "easy" thing to grade. Essays, sure. But literature, the production or analysis of it, no. There are certainly ways to grade these things, but nothing we can boil down to a standardized multiple choice test.
(The GRE subject test realizes this which is why it tests you on your girth of factual knowledge (who wrote what about who when) over the entire history of literature instead. Which is also dumb because NO ONE has enough brain power to study every genre, culture, and time period, but that is another issue entirely.)
Currently, expanding the field is left to the minority of PhD majors and self motivated savants who despite reason continue expanding and exploring (though I have noticed that a lot of thesis are simply criticisms of past criticisms if you can wrap your head around that) and writing long works that no one will use to teach high school because either A. it's on a classic and "we" already know all we need to about it or B. because it is on something new and the opinion of few is not sturdy enough to base a "right/wrong" test question on.
I could say a few good words about a solution or two and throw a few jabs in at the whole standardized testing industry as well, but I won't. I'm going to leave this issue here to fester and be pondered, and hope that others will see the senselessness of it and instead of waiting around for a rebirth, just revitalize the damn thing, shock it on the table, blow everyone's mind that we can have a subject with very few wrong answers that doesn't fit into empty little bubbles arranged in a row.
And realize that that is what makes it so likeable, so not a hate worthy subject, so human.
That that is what it is all about.
Now before you get defensive, hear me out.
If you haven't had any history in literary criticism or taken an adolescent literature class (aimed at preteens) then you may have missed the moment in history when "we" decided that English was too difficult to grade and therefore, to make grading easy, decided we must teach one and only one way of looking at texts. While there is rumor there was resistance to this (and rightfully there should have been) the fact remains that New Criticism, a criticism that took nothing into account except structure and the story itself, was the easiest to grade and therefore dominated.
No one bothered to inform anyone until the deconstructionists came along that there was MORE than one way of looking at things and then they were only able to penetrate largely at the college level. Any teachers who did move on to allowing other criticisms to be taught still stuck to the "one way" rule, at least in high school.
What this boils down to is simply telling the student that their opinions or interpretations do not matter because there is only one proper way to interpret a text and regardless of which criticism that is (usually either New Criticism or the most popular interpretation for that particular piece) that it is the only way, there is no other way, and if they dare say anything else, that test question will be wrong.
I had until recently believed that this way of looking at things had trapped itself within High School. It was after all a small part of why I left High School "so done" with English class even though I didn't realize it at the time. College felt like a whole new blossoming beast. However, I recently just discovered that easy-to-grade-standardized-test way of teaching English in high school actually still exists at the college level when a student informed me that her past English instructor told her there was only one way to interpret "Wild Nights Wild Nights" by Emily Dickinson and that it was that Dickinson was naive about the actual physical aspects of sex.
Now. There is nothing wrong with this claim (though I tend to dislike author criticism in general). It is perfectly defensible considering the language of the poem and Dickinson's life. BUT it is by no means the only way to interpret the poem and should another way be provided with an equally defensible argument, by all means, bring it.
In fact, I see the poem as saying that sex is not necessary for passion. The passion is in being with that person, being a part of them, being anchored in their heart and mind. In which case, it doesn't matter who's mooring in who.
And if you want to read it and tell me it has nothing to do with passion at all, then so be it as long as you can explain and defend it.
But this student was not given that option, was not even told that there was an option and THAT is exactly what is wrong with our field.
Before I go further with why this is bad, there is one more thing that needs covering:
Many people are beginning to question why we stick to teaching the classics so much, why more modernized literature isn't experienced in the schools. It is certainly working it's way in, but it is still largely the minority.
But I think the answer to that question gets to the heart of the death of our field. It isn't that equally thought provoking and wonderful stuff hasn't been written recently; it's simply that before it has been thoroughly criticized, survived the test of time, determined what the most popular and "right" interpretation is, it is just too hard to teach because it will be too hard to grade because the teacher won't be told which is the "right" one until time proves it to be the most popular.
So we stick to the "classics" because we've all "agreed" that this is what that story is "really" about and therefore can righteously mark an answer right or wrong on a test on that basis.
And while we English teachers (I say "we" theoretically because this sure as hell is not me) smugly usher students in and out proud of our easy to grade and manage system, we are also scaring students away. By the time they graduate high school, they are too tired of being "forced" to read things "they don't understand" to bother going on seriously. And really, it isn't that they don' t understand or are incapable of understanding; it's that their mind just isn't wired to the criticism (usually the advanced criticism at that) that we are asking them to see it in. Should they study the classics? yes. Should they study what other people have said about them? yes. But it is JUST as important that they realize those are only ONE way of looking at the matter. It is just as important that they explore reader based criticism because while initially general, we could be naming a criticism after them one day! Quite plainly, exploring other point of views is what advances you to the level of critical thinking high enough to not only explore "time-tested" criticisms but to improve and invent them.
In other words, to add growth and change to the field.
AND THAT is why we are dying. We can't name a new criticism after them or learn more about existing texts because they won't ever go on in English because they were turned away as a teenager. We are basically lying to potential scholars about what the field is truly about.
This of course also results in new work staying out of the school system simply because there won't be enough people left to analyze it. And unanalyzed it won't ever be considered "Scholarly" enough to include in the system. Or basically, easy to grade.
And if this continues on, English (the literary side not the writing side) will become a dead form that is useless and old and unnecessary. . . until it is reborn again.
You see, I have faith in writers to keep writing and readers to keep reading. And to keep thinking critically. And to rebel against what they are told. Let's be clear.
But analyzing literature as a profession, in a sense, analyzing the current and past state of our cultural health and human existence will fail to progress for quite some time simply because we're improperly inducting our members.
College is too late to do it, and apparently, some people do not even get the chance to realize there is another way even then.
My most favorite thing about literature (that it is open to various perspectives) is quite simply the most natural yet best kept secret of the field.
And if it stays that way, we won't have much of a field to discuss.
At least until we rediscover it.
And in some ways I feel like we are on the cusp of rediscovering because I and other newer teachers (and even some of my older teachers) have embraced the concept of simply telling the truth and accepting that fact that English is not an "easy" thing to grade. Essays, sure. But literature, the production or analysis of it, no. There are certainly ways to grade these things, but nothing we can boil down to a standardized multiple choice test.
(The GRE subject test realizes this which is why it tests you on your girth of factual knowledge (who wrote what about who when) over the entire history of literature instead. Which is also dumb because NO ONE has enough brain power to study every genre, culture, and time period, but that is another issue entirely.)
Currently, expanding the field is left to the minority of PhD majors and self motivated savants who despite reason continue expanding and exploring (though I have noticed that a lot of thesis are simply criticisms of past criticisms if you can wrap your head around that) and writing long works that no one will use to teach high school because either A. it's on a classic and "we" already know all we need to about it or B. because it is on something new and the opinion of few is not sturdy enough to base a "right/wrong" test question on.
I could say a few good words about a solution or two and throw a few jabs in at the whole standardized testing industry as well, but I won't. I'm going to leave this issue here to fester and be pondered, and hope that others will see the senselessness of it and instead of waiting around for a rebirth, just revitalize the damn thing, shock it on the table, blow everyone's mind that we can have a subject with very few wrong answers that doesn't fit into empty little bubbles arranged in a row.
And realize that that is what makes it so likeable, so not a hate worthy subject, so human.
That that is what it is all about.
Comments
Post a Comment