(Literature Question 1) The Art of Literature
What is the most interesting thing you learned from Rexroth’s essay?
http://www.bopsecrets.org/rexroth/essays/literature.htm
What I perceive as the underlying theme of the essay is that literature, in the most abstract sense of the word, is an almost infinitely subjective and variable form of art and/or communication. No precise definition is possible, and that's the most interesting and intriguing thing I've learned, or at least been reminded of very skillfully, by Kenneth Rexroth. It is only in the broadest scope referred to in paragraph one, “mankind's entire body of writing” that the concept of literature can be pinned down.
Rexroth in my opinion has done an exemplary job of dissecting literature into all its myriad components. An important distinction that he notes early is that it doesn't have to be written; oral literature is something we wouldn't normally think of, but it's equally valid. Rexroth then gives what I consider a sublime re-definition of literature, as the “organization of words to give pleasure...” That encompasses a lot, but one man's literature might be another's poison, so to speak. It's all in the eyes and mind of the reader. I had the pleasure in the 1990's of a fairly long stint as a bookseller, first in a specialty used book store and then for Barnes & Noble. Sometimes I'd cringe at people's choices, but this essay is a good reminder that literary merit is not such an easy thing to judge.
I was surprised, for example, that although Western tradition considers drama to be literature (at least the better works), that in contrast the Chinese consider their dramas to have very little literary worth. It makes me suspect that maybe some Buddhist influence is at work- that the play is to be enjoyed “in the moment” and not to be analyzed beyond that. Haiku is another good example of that concept.
One more impressive aspect that Rexroth demonstrates- literature feeds on itself. For all the great works out there, there are many more books written about them. People make good livings just by critiquing, or translating, the works of others. Genres, such as science-fiction, split into sub-genres such as cyberpunk or alternate history. The internet, with its proliferation of blogs and other website's written content, expands the possibilities exponentially more.
I noticed when I got to the end of the reading that this essay was an article was first published in Encyclopaedia Brittanica, and they made an wise choice. Rexroth gave a summary of literature about as comprehensive, yet concise, as one could hope for.
(Literature Question 2) How Should One Read A Book?
What do you think the answer is to the question Woolf poses in the title of her essay?
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/w/woolf/virginia/w91c2/chapter22.html
Virginia Woolfe's first recommendation on how to read a book, there in her opening lines, is a beautiful contradiction that yet is valid: her advice not to take anyone's advice. It is very wise on her part to do so, because it then frees her up to give a series of wonderful suggestions instead.
I've been lucky enough to have possessed this trait of wanting to read in my own way, and moreso whatever I choose to read, for most of my reading life. So Wolfe's suggestion that one should “open your mind as widely as possible” is a strong one that I agree with. It is therefore my response to Literature Question 2: I think the answer to Wolfe's question is to read as freely and eclecticly as one can, and be open to new ideas.
A good example from my own experience comes from my 12th grade in high school. I stumbled upon a book about Zen Buddhism in the school library, and purely on a whim checked it out for myself, not even knowing anything about the subject. It changed my life. That same year, an English teacher (who must have sensed I was a little bored) suggested Kurt Vonnegut Jr., but she “warned” me that he could get a little profane, and of course that was all it took. And again, life-changing.
For me, a highlight of Wolfe's essay is the delight she conveys to us in how the different types of books can take us to different places. I really admire the section where she takes the potential reader into the novels of Defoe, Austen, and Hardy- “It is not merely that we're in the presence of a different person... we are living in a different world”, and then describes these fictional realms so vividly that it makes me want to read these books! Wolfe is saying that the reader has to “let go”, and trust the authors long enough to be led where they want to take you.
Finally, Wolfe shows the wisdom of a true lover of books in her very subtle hint that the reader “wait for the dust of reading to settle....walk, talk, pull the dead petals from a rose...the book will return, but differently...it will float to the top of the mind as a whole”. There can be no question of it. Virginia Woolfe knew how to read a book.
(Literature Question 3)
Hidden Meaning, or, Disliking Books at an Early Age
Does “a good book teach itself”? What does Graff have to say? What do you think?
I'm very impressed that so far in the course, the essayists we've read are very divided on what literature is, how to read it, and how it should be taught. Gerald Graff's personal experience with reading is about as far away as one can get from what Virginia Woolf recommended. Woolf would have definitely agreed that a "good book teaches itself". Graff doesn't think so. He had to be exposed to critique, and other people's advice (anathema to Woolf) before he began to get anything for his efforts.
Graff relates how in early attempts to read on his own, he could never develop an interest, but would instead "stare bleakly at the pages". He was also afraid that he would be perceived as a "sissy" or "bookworm" by his male peers in the neighborhood. I think this is an often overlooked factor in how students perform- their self-consciousness. At certain times in early life, and especially adolescence, how others perceive you becomes an obsession. I remember mine well... I had been something of a precocious student through about the 6th grade, but when puberty arrived, I started "dumbing myself down". I sensed a resentment from my peers for the smart kids. Being smart just wasn't cool. I remember hearing a 15 year-old blonde classmate (one of the "cool" people) proudly announce to her friends that she'd never read a book in her life...Anyone else ever dealt with that?
Graff states his thesis near the end (he calls it the "moral" he drew from his experiences): that our ability to read well depends a lot on how well we can discuss what we've read, and that "reading books with comprehension, making arguments, writing papers... are social activities". (One other very interesting observation he makes is that "the students who do well... are those that learn to talk more or less like their teacher"). Any thoughts from classmates or our professor on this? I'm sure that most teachers try to avoid such biases, but there could be at least some of that going on at a subconscious level, from both sides.
This discussion forum we're engaged in supports Graff's main point, doesn't it? I find myself re-reading some of our posts and thinking "wow, we're really having a strong exchange of ideas here". I think Graff made some excellent points, even if they contradicted Woolf's and/or Rexroth's. We're learning how very subjective this endeavor of reading can be.
(Literature Question 4)
Theme for English B
If you were the instructor who gave the assignment in “Theme for English B” what grade would you give Hughes’ submission and why?
Langston Hughes gets an A+ for this submission. I've had to read quite a bit of his work in the past few years, and in my personal opinion this is, by far, the best thing he ever wrote. The unorthodox approach he takes, and the subsequent honesty and freshness that result, would have impressed me very much as his instructor. Hughes took what could easily have been a very pedestrian assignment and made it into art. We're discussing it right here, over a half century later...
The "hook" is his beginning. By making the instructor (and his directions) part of the poem, he then is able to have a dialogue with the teacher, himself, and the reader simultaneously- The opening lines, up to "I wonder if it's that simple" are his only direct communication to us on the "outside" of the assignment, but we're now emotionally involved in the remaining exchange between student and teacher. We can identify with either or both.
I get the impression that these words flowed out of Langston Hughes almost effortlessly, once he had the epiphany of addressing his teacher directly. And I think that's the lesson we all can take from "Theme for English B"- think and then write "outside the box".
I'll take my own advice, in closing, and postulate that this work could be considered a very early instance of what hip-hop enthusiasts label "freestyle". There are places in this poem where he starts "riffing", such as in "Harlem, I hear you: hear you, hear me---we two---you, me, talk on this page". (I can hear a beat behind that in my head). Langston Hughes- proto-rap artist.
icons at the top right corner of the subsection.