Author: . TAN JEN VIN TEDDY
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:34:33 PM SGT
Subject: RE: A form of oppression? (a response to Dollimore's reading)
Hi Joel, thanks for helping clarify my position :) By oppression, I don't mean to say that they are forced to critique a text. It appears that they have to eventually, whether they like it or not. Rather, I meant to say that students should not be taught to critique-read "armed with an agenda" prior to finishing it. Please look at Samantha's response:
"Hi Teddy,
I agree with you on your point that we shouldn't read literary texts armed with an agenda. This taints our reading of a text even before we finish it! This seems immediately to detract from the very idea of literary enjoyment, and pokes holes in the subject.
You raise an excellent point about the canonization of texts. Where do
'lesser' writers stand in this whole scheme of things? Well fortunately,
such a strict adherence to this form of studying literature isn't practiced. At least, we know not to do it in our own classrooms."
My response:
Good points, insofar as i agree that literary criticism and appreciation entails personal enjoyment. But i want to complicate this nonetheless: What about students who don't find reading and analyzing literature "enjoyable"? More precisely, how would you define "enjoyment"? I can drink wine and simply "enjoy" it for its overall taste and intoxicating effects. Another person enjoys it more by describing the sensuous complexity of its taste, smell, touch, etc. A connoisseur appreciates and enjoys a piece of art differently from the "layperson." The latter, arguably, would find the art of analytic appreciation tedious and joyless.
And yet, we as teachers would insist that analyzing a poem can be enjoyable. How? Why?
Aren't there students who find the whole enterprise of literary enjoyment too "touchy feely"? After all, if history students get to talk about politics and history and "oppression" and other such weighty matters with "enjoyment," why can't literature students do the same joyfully?
Do some students find "poking holes" fun too ;-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, "enjoyment" is what one makes of it, isn't it? Literature, being the all-encompassing creature that it is would certainly have different effects on different people. Some enjoy analysing a text, some enjoy just reading it, some enjoy mocking others who talk about or read it (i.e. "poking holes"). At the end of the day it is what an individual takes away from the whole experience and if we as literature teachers can help guide them to their own personal way of enjoying it, that is their engagement with the text.
ReplyDeleteSo in response to the idea that one shouldn't approach a text "armed with an agenda," would it be possible that some actually enjoy being "armed"?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which, what do literature teachers hope to "arm" students with besides the "technical" ability to tear apart a literary text?
I definitely agree that some readers enjoy being "armed." It is just that for a more objective analysis, I feel that these readers should suspend making judgement of any kind prior to finishing the text.
ReplyDeleteAlso, while intuitively I feel there is a distinction between reading a text purely for aesthetic reasons and critically examining a text as preparation-for-exams, I wonder if such is indeed the case; that we can read "simply" for aesthetic enjoyment. Reading, I presume, whether passive or active, is viewed as a meaningful activity where we consciously or subconsciously look "for" things such as theme, character, plot and even possibly what constitutes an effective use of language?? The point then is that when we read for such things, we may well be following an institutionalized "practice" of reading.
If so, maybe our job as lit. teachers is to make students aware of how their "simple" enjoyment isn't necessarily "natural" after all? And we could perhaps then help them further "see" how technical ability enhances their aesthetic enjoyment of the literary text?