A Review of Why Read?

      In the majority of serious writing about literature from the critics, theorists, and professors who are most immersed in the subject, a question as basic as “why read?” would never come up. After all, reading is such an integral component of their livelihood that the act is taken for granted; why would anyone not read? Although Mark Edmundson doesn't intend his title to be taken quite that literally, in Why Read? he poses this question, among others, to himself and colleagues. Feeling the need for literary academia to undergo a thorough self-examination and prescription for improvement (“professor, heal thyself”), Edmundson provides some guidelines for consideration, citing a pantheon of past and present literati as he makes his arguments.

     Edmundson’s basic premise is that the teaching of literature has drifted away from the core principle that should guide it- offering students a means to increase their life options by finding truth in poems and novels; meaning that can be applied to their present and future situations as they interact with the world. He fears instead that the literary elite have become too self-absorbed, obsessed with whatever theory is in vogue, or a work's historical context- to the point that they're missing the forest for the trees. Why Read? can be viewed as a sort of map and guidebook to getting literary education back on the right path, notwithstanding that it takes plenty of twists and turns itself in the process.

     As a student encountering this collection of essays, I can forgive its author for losing me here and there along his meandering way; I am not his primary audience. My own professor has reminded me and fellow classmates that we are, in a sense, listening in on the “water cooler conversations” that Edmundson and his peers engage in. It's a closed system with its own jargon and protocols, many of which are unfamiliar to laity such as ourselves. We are nevertheless encouraged by Edmundson to “read over the shoulders of your teachers... for much of what teachers can offer, you can provide for yourself... it's a matter of knowing what you might ask for and get from a literary education” (3).

     The answer to “why read?” is given early by Edmundson, first page, first paragraph: "there may be no medium that can help us learn to live our lives as well as poetry, and literature overall, can" (1). A somewhat lofty statement at first glance, he does make a convincing case for it within his first chapter “Literary Life.” Reading can wake us up, he claims, offering himself as example: “It took me from a world of harsh limits into expanded possibility” (1). The knowledge we gain from reading great literature is that there are myriad ways of looking at life, far beyond the familiar surroundings we've grown up in, or what family and friends/church and state have provided us in our early years. We may embrace the ideas we encounter or be repelled by them; but along the way both the positive and negative options we survey add to our own narrative. Our horizons broaden exponentially from the experience.

     One would think that this perspective would lie at the heart of all literary teaching, and especially at the university level, but apparently Edmundson doesn't think such is the case. After giving us the best reasons why we should read, a majority of the book's remainder is spent admonishing academia for losing sight of them. The title is therefore a little deceptive, more of a “hook” to lure us in. The real focus of Why Read? consists of the author's opinions on what books should be taught, and how best to do so. (Not nearly as catchy a title, so this can be overlooked). The questions to be asked in reviewing the work are: does Edmundson give good advice to his colleagues? And is it practical‒ does it have real life application?

     First, there is a question I as reviewer must ask myself. Am I qualified to critique a work from such an eminent man in his field? My answer is that I can merely give my best opinions, drawing upon my own background. I'm a student of literature, one who hopefully benefits from Edmundson’s advice to those in his profession who instruct me. So this, in the author's own words, is an “over the shoulder” look; my evaluation must be based mostly on how it applies to my college experience. Or, taking somegood advice from professional reviewer Jay Parini: "Describe the book before you accurately, and, when possible, with empathy for the writer. Your opinions will be evident if you describe the book well" (Parini 3).

     Of Edmundson, it can be stated unequivocally that he has great passion for the subject of literature and its teaching; this shines through all the references and quotes, sometimes distracting, that are provided.(Some name-dropping, if you will). One ends up being a little intimidated by the citing of Foucault or Richard Rorty, and such concepts as "de Marian suspension between alternatives" (49). What impresses more, at least on my level, are the nuggets of wisdom found among the more arcane offerings. From the chapter "The World According to Falwell" for example, where one reads, in relation to churches and universities, "they do their work, we do ours" (23). Basically, churches save souls, universities save minds. This is a concept I can sink my teeth into.

     Also enlightening are Edmundson's observatons on the current state of universities and their students. "Total Entertainment All the Time" addresses the mindset of the youth on campus today, who have come of age with hundreds of channels of cable television and the internet. "they grew up with their noses pressed against the window of that second spectral world that spins parallel to our own, the World Wide Web" (10). The internet can be a blessing or a curse. As a distance learner at UNCG, it has been the only feasible method of my obtaining an education. On the flip side, there's the temptation to use it for easy answers, via Wikipedia and the like. I have witnessed a student in another course quote from it with abandon- ( without any citation!) and for all I know he may have gotten away with it. The modern student doesn't have to dig very deep, and misses out on the rewards of such exertion.

     Colleges too have fallen prey to consumer culture, as Edmundson observes in "Cool School." Universities have become a buyer's market, where student's desires are more catered to. Since the historical drop in attendance after the baby-boom generation, colleges had to offer "more comfortable, less challenging environments, places where almost no one failed, everything was enjoyable, and everyone was nice" (18).

     Going further into it, he notes that departments must compete as well, and that English curricula and grading standards have loosened as a result. "we grade much more genially than our colleagues in the sciences" (19). This has not been my personal college experience. While there is obviously more leeway in how one answers a question about literature than in solving an algebra equation, I have found the majority of my literature and other humanities courses to be rigorous and demanding in their expectations. This has particularly been the case at UNCG and I have acclimated to these standards happily.

     A substantial amount of Why Read? is a defense of the long standing literary canon, or the "major works" as Edmundson deems them. In "Wordsworth's Truth" he states that "only major works will sustain this question... can you live it? Can you put it into action?" (56). Coleridge, the Brontes, Shakespeare, Milton, Homer, Plutarch... these and numerous others are mentioned as the standard by which other major works are so named. I believe that Edmundson is making a good argument on their behalf because they have stood the test of time. A book's "shelf life" should be for centuries or longer to be considered a classic. "I think that canonical works... ought to be testing and transforming books that have influenced people in exciting ways over a long period" (122).

     History, being so integral to literature and to the accumulation of major works, is given its fair time in Why Read? It's enlightening to me when Edmundson states that history "begins as a branch of literature" (115). I'd never thought about it that way, but he's right. Whether oral or written (or more modernly, whether photographed or filmed) the transcription of history does depend on some literary medium. History might theoretically exist in a vacuum, but it can't practically. The fact that people wrote down what they witnessed and heard is how history exists.

     The distinction between literature and history, seen in that light, is that literature is not confined to real facts and events; in the broadest sense it is any form of verbal communication. History is held to a more demanding standard. The sentences we read in a history are supposed to be true- accurate renderings of events that really happened.

  I don't think that literature can have much existence without history, either. They're symbiotic- they need each other, benefit from their partnership. Except maybe when the relationship becomes more parasitic- and one benefits while the other suffers. This is a problem Edmundson is addressing in the "Always Historicize?" section. "To qualify as a respectable scholar, one needs to put the work at hand into its historical context... By no means should the real scholar see what the work can do in the present” (119). The danger of "relegating" every work into its place in history is that it takes away the relevance to the present. It's like saying Hard Times by Dickens had lessons for the Industrial Age, but not our own.

     Why Read? The book answers that question well, and very early on. Edmundson, to his credit, goes much more in depth, advising on what should be read, and how. Perhaps more importantly, given his audience, he suggests ways to improve how literature is being taught at the university level, not the least of which is improving the context in which it is presented. Literature, in the author's opinion, has to impart meaning into the readers' lives; truths which they can apply in the present and in their own realities. A traditionalist at heart, and for good reason, Edmundson defends the great literary works; while reminding the professors that teach them that this enterprise demands their utmost care and attention to detail.

     I cannot pretend to have the depth of knowledge or body of references to draw upon required for a full appreciation of Why Read? But Edmundson has me covered there as well‒ I have “what may be the most precious knowledge one can have at the start of an education, knowledge of one's own ignorance” (33). Yes, I have that precious commodity for certain. Thank you, Mr. Edmundson.

Works Cited

Edmundson, Mark. Why Read? New York: Bloomsbury, 2004. Print.

Parini, Jay. "The Disappearing Art of Reviewing Books." The Chronicle of Higher Education. 45.46

(1999). Print.

Professor McKinnon's comments:

"Excellent review Mark. By now we both know that you are an excellent writer and a profound and sensitive thinker. This is but one more example of your ability to analyze and discuss a text with precision, creativity, and wit. I’ll spare a discussion of what you do right; suffice it to say that it is most everything. Great work".