BookTalk.org

Now, the title is a bit misleading. I am currently a university student at college.

But I am reading books we aren't covering in class.

How do you analyze literature?

What I usually do is read it once, summarize it and look for the themes

And when I've gotten everything I can, I compare my findings to sparknotes or other websites dedicated to analysis, to see what I've missed.

I'm an English instructor and so, of course, I have an opinion on this.

This is a great question by the way. A close reading of any work is so important and it sounds like you're already doing that. A close reading means simply to pay attention to details and ask yourself questions. What is the POV of this story? What is the structure? Who are the main characters? What are some of the themes?

The thrill of reading literature comes from your own discovery of a work's meaning — your interpretation. Hopefully your college professor won't try to spoon feed his or her interpretation to you.

Most college texts will include some context for both the author and the time period it was written. These are so important to understanding and appreciating each work. Also, your college textbook probably includes a few discussion questions after each selection which can definitely help you.

I like to read criticism and summaries of a work too, but only after I've done my own close reading. Look in your library for anything by Harold Bloom because the man has probably written something on just about every work of literature, and he's surprisingly approachable.

Geo, I like your answer - and I have put Harold Bloom on my "authors-not-to-forget-to-have-a-closer-look-at" list.

I am out of college quite a while and when you are reading only for yourself, you are sometimes left with more questions than answers - especially if the book was written in a different period. I hope Mr. Bloom will help me to solve some of the questions.

geo wrote:I'm an English instructor and so, of course, I have an opinion on this.

This is a great question by the way. A close reading of any work is so important and it sounds like you're already doing that. A close reading means simply to pay attention to details and ask yourself questions. What is the POV of this story? What is the structure? Who are the main characters? What are some of the themes?

The thrill of reading literature comes from your own discovery of a work's meaning — your interpretation. Hopefully your college professor won't try to spoon feed his or her interpretation to you.

Most college texts will include some context for both the author and the time period it was written. These are so important to understanding and appreciating each work. Also, your college textbook probably includes a few discussion questions after each selection which can definitely help you.

I like to read criticism and summaries of a work too, but only after I've done my own close reading. Look in your library for anything by Harold Bloom because the man has probably written something on just about every work of literature, and he's surprisingly approachable.

Thank you so much for your reply. I will definitely look up a Mr. Bloom. I kind of have a pre-existing prejudice because he criticized Harry Potter so harshly, but I'll forget about that while I'm learning from him

I always think of Emerson's dictum when it comes to reading criticism: Never read a book about a book. I certainly don't mean that I follow that (and I don't know that even Emerson himself really read only the primary sources), but I just like to fool around with perspectives on the matter. I suppose I'm also a bit Romantic in that I like to imagine a reading culture that was almost entirely non-academic at one time, when reading was the biggest form of entertainment going, instead of just one item on a huge menu; when people would have had lively discussions just for fun about what they were reading, and when they'd crowd public events at which writers were speaking. That brings me to my conviction about how to study literature--just talk a lot about it, as well as listen to it being talked about. Teachers of literature might recommend more formal methods of analysis, but they instinctively know that it's engagement through talking that means that we're really involved in literature. That's why the most rewarding part, by far, of a literature teacher's job is when he or she succeeds in getting students to talk to each other about books, poems, plays.

Is that true for you, geo?

DWill wrote:I always think of Emerson's dictum when it comes to reading criticism: Never read a book about a book. I certainly don't mean that I follow that (and I don't know that even Emerson himself really read only the primary sources), but I just like to fool around with perspectives on the matter. I suppose I'm also a bit Romantic in that I like to imagine a reading culture that was almost entirely non-academic at one time, when reading was the biggest form of entertainment going, instead of just one item on a huge menu; when people would have had lively discussions just for fun about what they were reading, and when they'd crowd public events at which writers were speaking. That brings me to my conviction about how to study literature--just talk a lot about it, as well as listen to it being talked about. Teachers of literature might recommend more formal methods of analysis, but they instinctively know that it's engagement through talking that means that we're really involved in literature. That's why the most rewarding part, by far, of a literature teacher's job is when he or she succeeds in getting students to talk to each other about books, poems, plays.

Is that true for you, geo?

Yes, talking about stories, poems, or plays is the most rewarding aspect of a literature class, both for students and for the teacher. I see it as brainstorming, sharing ideas and learning from one another. The student has to eventually write about the story, poem, or play sooner or later, and if they can learn to think about a work and come up with their own interpretation and communicate those ideas in writing, they're doing pretty well, and probably will enjoy the class too.

Unfortunately, many if not most students don't bother to read a work at all. Or if they do read it, they do a half-assed job of it. Dealing with those students—who are immature or have an attitude that the class is bullshit—is the most difficult part of this job. In fact, I'm taking the semester off, and I'm not sure at this point if I'll go back.

There's a lot of wisdom in what Emerson says. We shouldn't approach a work of literature as primarily a laboratory specimen, something to be studied. However, in college, we do have to analyze a work as academics and be able to communicate our ideas effectively in an academic tone. The old school critic looked at a work's intrinsic elements—POV, style, structure, tone, imagery, etc.—those that are found within the text. We are now expected to look at a work's extrinsic elements such as gender bias, historical, psychological, biographical, Marxist, and deconstructionist (which I've never really grasped very well) etc. Some works do lend themselves very well to a feminist analysis. I also think the historical context is essential for many texts such as those by Shakespeare and Milton, but I do warn students about taking some of this stuff too far or too seriously. First and foremost, read and enjoy the work.

I find Bloom to be very helpful, especially with Shakespeare. For example, I was surprised to read Bloom's take of Bottom's character in A Midsummer Night's Dream. Bloom sees Bottom as central to the themes of the play and possibly one of Shakespeare's most important characters ever. So re-reading the play, I tend to pay more attention to Bottom and understand the relevance of the character which I might have otherwise missed. But then, I am a total geek when it comes to this stuff. I do occasionally buy books about books.

Here's a scene from The Sopranos where AJ is having a difficult time with Robert Frost's Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening. He approaches the poem only as something to be analyzed. His sister comes in and offers the solution to a problem which is how she looks at it too. "It's about death," she says. This is an unfortunate consequence of studying literature in the classroom. We forget that first and foremost, a poem should be read and enjoyed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk_ddfiF ... Q&index=21

geo wrote:

DWill wrote:I always think of Emerson's dictum when it comes to reading criticism: Never read a book about a book. I certainly don't mean that I follow that (and I don't know that even Emerson himself really read only the primary sources), but I just like to fool around with perspectives on the matter. I suppose I'm also a bit Romantic in that I like to imagine a reading culture that was almost entirely non-academic at one time, when reading was the biggest form of entertainment going, instead of just one item on a huge menu; when people would have had lively discussions just for fun about what they were reading, and when they'd crowd public events at which writers were speaking. That brings me to my conviction about how to study literature--just talk a lot about it, as well as listen to it being talked about. Teachers of literature might recommend more formal methods of analysis, but they instinctively know that it's engagement through talking that means that we're really involved in literature. That's why the most rewarding part, by far, of a literature teacher's job is when he or she succeeds in getting students to talk to each other about books, poems, plays.

Is that true for you, geo?

Yes, talking about stories, poems, or plays is the most rewarding aspect of a literature class, both for students and for the teacher. I see it as brainstorming, sharing ideas and learning from one another. The student has to eventually write about the story, poem, or play sooner or later, and if they can learn to think about a work and come up with their own interpretation and communicate those ideas in writing, they're doing pretty well, and probably will enjoy the class too.

Unfortunately, many if not most students don't bother to read a work at all. Or if they do read it, they do a half-assed job of it. Dealing with those students—who are immature or have an attitude that the class is bullshit—is the most difficult part of this job. In fact, I'm taking the semester off, and I'm not sure at this point if I'll go back.

There's a lot of wisdom in what Emerson says. We shouldn't approach a work of literature as primarily a laboratory specimen, something to be studied. However, in college, we do have to analyze a work as academics and be able to communicate our ideas effectively in an academic tone. The old school critic looked at a work's intrinsic elements—POV, style, structure, tone, imagery, etc.—those that are found within the text. We are now expected to look at a work's extrinsic elements such as gender bias, historical, psychological, biographical, Marxist, and deconstructionist (which I've never really grasped very well) etc. Some works do lend themselves very well to a feminist analysis. I also think the historical context is essential for many texts such as those by Shakespeare and Milton, but I do warn students about taking some of this stuff too far or too seriously. First and foremost, read and enjoy the work.

I find Bloom to be very helpful, especially with Shakespeare. For example, I was surprised to read Bloom's take of Bottom's character in A Midsummer Night's Dream. Bloom sees Bottom as central to the themes of the play and possibly one of Shakespeare's most important characters ever. So re-reading the play, I tend to pay more attention to Bottom and understand the relevance of the character which I might have otherwise missed. But then, I am a total geek when it comes to this stuff. I do occasionally buy books about books.

Here's a scene from The Sopranos where AJ is having a difficult time with Robert Frost's Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening. He approaches the poem only as something to be analyzed. His sister comes in and offers the solution to a problem which is how she looks at it too. "It's about death," she says. This is an unfortunate consequence of studying literature in the classroom. We forget that first and foremost, a poem should be read and enjoyed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk_ddfiF ... Q&index=21

Course, I can always talk about literature on these forums.
I get people who actually care about the subject.
And I don't have to wait until class to discuss.

geo wrote:Unfortunately, many if not most students don't bother to read a work at all. Or if they do read it, they do a half-assed job of it. Dealing with those students—who are immature or have an attitude that the class is bullshit—is the most difficult part of this job. In fact, I'm taking the semester off, and I'm not sure at this point if I'll go back.

my heartfelt empathy to you Geo. I taught (music) for many decades and in the end just couldn't continue, so i took a job in a completely unrelated field to "reclaim" music for myself. hey i'm an old duffer and i paid my dues so why not

it was a shame in some ways because out of the thousands of students there were always one or possibly two (oh alright five) that really benefitted from a ready rescource but i couldn't justify making my life hell just for those very few that were well worth the effort.

at any rate and whatever happens, i wish you well.

Personally, I am a bit leery of too much examination into literature because it seems that a lot of people project their thoughts and motives onto the writings of another individual. I forget his name, but there was some well known author whose books were heavily analyzed and determined to mean such and such thing... and he said himself that was not his intention. However, he was informed that WAS his intention, he just wasn't doing it on purpose. Things like that make me give literary analysis the side-eye.

Another example is the idea that Lewis Carroll was some sort of pedophile or something. Someone made that theory up to show how silly this sort of analysis can be, but instead people were like... hey, you're right! And totally smeared his name.

However, I don't think analysis is without merit, just something to be approached judiciously. Studying The Great Gatsby was totally eye-opening... once you began to recognize the themes, that novel turns into an onion with so many layers. I thought that book was fine until I had an excellent professor who I studied it with and now I'm totally blown away by it!

I like to read a book, and then consider it on my own. Then I will look online to see other theories about it. And then, ideally, I will reread it with a very skeptical mindset - I need to be convinced that these theories have merit, rather than looking for anything to confirm the theory, if you see the distinction. It's very easy to find things to confirm a theory if that's what you want to find. Confirmation bias is such a powerful tool, it amazes me.

I did not know that Harold Bloom didn't like the Harry Potter books. That makes me all the more inclined to read up on other things he's written. My experiences with him have been brief and confined to English class, I'm sorry to say.

Theomanic wrote:Personally, I am a bit leery of too much examination into literature because it seems that a lot of people project their thoughts and motives onto the writings of another individual. I forget his name, but there was some well known author whose books were heavily analyzed and determined to mean such and such thing... and he said himself that was not his intention. However, he was informed that WAS his intention, he just wasn't doing it on purpose. Things like that make me give literary analysis the side-eye.

Another example is the idea that Lewis Carroll was some sort of pedophile or something. Someone made that theory up to show how silly this sort of analysis can be, but instead people were like... hey, you're right! And totally smeared his name.

However, I don't think analysis is without merit, just something to be approached judiciously. Studying The Great Gatsby was totally eye-opening... once you began to recognize the themes, that novel turns into an onion with so many layers. I thought that book was fine until I had an excellent professor who I studied it with and now I'm totally blown away by it!

I like to read a book, and then consider it on my own. Then I will look online to see other theories about it. And then, ideally, I will reread it with a very skeptical mindset - I need to be convinced that these theories have merit, rather than looking for anything to confirm the theory, if you see the distinction. It's very easy to find things to confirm a theory if that's what you want to find. Confirmation bias is such a powerful tool, it amazes me.

I did not know that Harold Bloom didn't like the Harry Potter books. That makes me all the more inclined to read up on other things he's written. My experiences with him have been brief and confined to English class, I'm sorry to say.

Are you talking about Ray Bradbury?

He went to a conference with college students and a group basically told him what his book was about and he got upset.