Customer Reviews

Why Read?

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Edmundson has written the most provocative essay on the "crisis in the humanities" since Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. Unlike that book, however, Why Read? is itself eminently readable-- in fact a great pleasure from first page to last. Teachers in particular will find Edmundson's diagnosis and prescriptions bracing; he reminds us what got us into books in the first place, and why reading great works is indispensable to living the good life. Whether you agree with him or not, Edmundson's swift, lively polemic is already ingiting a debate we badly need to have.

Mark Edmundson's book will make you wish that you had studied English at the University of Virginia and that you had been fortunate enough to have been in one of Prof. Edmundson's classes. (I did not have this good fortune.) Edmundson's passion for life and learning, which no doubt makes him an outstanding professor, also makes this book such a pleasure to read.

Edmundson's argument in support of the examined life is all the more compelling because it is so democratic. Edumundson believes that the life of the mind is available to all, not just to a privileged elite. Thomas Jefferson would be proud of Mark Edmundson and glad to have him on the faculty of his university.

But you're already an avid reader? You read and you know why you read. Do you really need a book entitled "Why Read?" I think so. Edmundson's argument is really much broader than the title would seem to indicate, and he will also renew your interest in reading and reading widely.

This is a wise, short, and difficult book. For example, he includes a fascinating discussion using religion as a jumping-off point for resolving post-modernism's overly relativistic thinking. Edmundson focuses on deep questions for readers - what does your reaction to a book say about you? Why do you like a character and how does he/she reflect you?

I did find large portions of this book inaccessible--I haven't read Derrida, I am not particularly well versed in Shakespeare. I suppose I read mainly for pleasure and only partly for deep personal reflection. Edmundson would probably say--and rightly so--that this is because I am certainly a participatant/victim of the consumerism of the liberal arts education! And maybe that is one of his most important points. In any case, this was a stimulating read but it may make some readers feel intellectually inadequate.

In his book, "Why Read," Mark Edmundson writes that I once possessed "movie-star" good looks. That is not why I recommend the book. People who read to be sparked creatively, enriched and spiritually uplifted will be hard pressed to find a more satisfying book this season. There is one way. If you start by reading his earlier memoir, "Teacher: The One Who Made the Difference," so that you have a sense of who Edmundson is, you'll get even more out of this book.

Mark Edmundson is an earnest, honest, intelligent and disciplined teacher. What's more, he loves his students and work in the purest sense. He enters into relationship with them with an open mind, which is to say he attends and listens without predisposition, motive or bias. When he tells us to approach literature in the same way, to allow it its "maximum advocacy," he is both modeling and advocating the same message. The man lives what he teaches and it makes for grace and power, whether speaking or writing.

As Edmundson explains so elegantly, the real issue is not why we should read but how we should live. With the tail of our economic system increasingly wagging the dog of our political system - and swatting our freedoms in the process, it has become a critical question. Are we, as individuals as well as a society, going to proclaim our faith in ourselves and truly listen to one another, or are we going to give in to fear and assert to the exclusion of listening? Edmundson has the faith in himself to listen and he teaches us how to develop that same faith in ourselves by listening to ourselves through literature. Though short and sweet, "Why Read" is a profoundly wise and inspiring book.

I kind of got sucked into this book by surprise--literature and literary criticism are not at all my fields, and I've never really sympathized with people who would choose them as a field. (My own primary interests are religious studies, and the philosophy of science).

I got sucked in by the author's suggestion that literature can be a new religion, a secular religion. I got sucked in by his comments on modern pop culture. And then, since it's a short book, I kept reading.

One of the key issues in the contemporary university world, in case you don't already know, is how the humanities fields can justify themselves in comparison with science. Science has become the measure against which the humanities are judged and found wanting. So what can the humanities do? They try to deal with science in various ways.

I like Edmundson's implied answer: ignore science. Almost no one from the humanities dares to take this approach. But after all, does poetry ever try to do the same thing that science does? I wager, never. Thus, poetry has value as poetry, and criticism as an understanding and appreciation of poetry, with no scientific pretensions at all. Many arts departments have managed to learn this lesson thoroughly, but evidently literature is not.

Edmundson goes on: literature exists to help us become better people. (Science doesn't do this: if Edmundson is right, obviously we need more literature in this world!) Literature helps us find our way, existentially, when we are lost--the way religion used to. The role of a literature teacher, then, is to enable the student to encounter the literature, to be changed by the literature, and then to freely accept it or reject it.

I teach literature occasionally, as if by accident, when it falls to me. I often tell my students that the best literature is stuff that one can read over and over and over again, and it gets better every time. Edmundson says the best literature is literature that changes our lives. A good idea; I think we both might have a point.

I recommend the book fairly naively, without being aware of many similar options you might explore. I was happy to have a little (though obviously very biased) glance into the world of literature and criticism. I've read a few books by Harold Bloom, and I've recently been reading "A Jacques Barzun Reader" which has some essays along similar lines to Edmundson's thoughts here; and Italo Calvino's "Why Read the Classics," which you might want to browse as well. I suspect that, when I finish those two books, I may well decide that the book by Barzun was the best one, but this one will not be far behind.

"Why Read?" is a further elucidation of a student's (or anyone's for that matter) journey to self-knowledge and understanding of the world that the author began in "Teacher," an auto-biographical account of high-schoolers in a working class environment being given the opportunity to expand their horizons through the encouragement of an unconventional teacher. In the present case, the author has moved to the college classroom where literary classics are ideally read for their potential of answering such questions as: "Who Am I?" or "What Is Life?" There is the implication that the student at the college level feels a need to move beyond conventional socialization. This all seems to be standard practice - why write a book?

The author is more than a little concerned that the university has essentially adopted the values and the modus operandi of the broader consumer and entertainment society. A certain superficiality has engulfed our society. Being "hip" and "cool," that is projecting an image, must be the foremost stance taken in life, which excludes both passion and doubt. Multifarious information, often obtained via the Internet, displaces wisdom. That is what students expect within the university. Future technocrats and businessmen need an instrumental, factual education, not a "useless" wholesale examination of values. That entire orientation is to be contrasted with the author's view that "the function of a liberal arts education is to use major works of art and intellect to influence one's Final Narrative, ..., the ultimate set of terms that we use to confer value on experience." The self-doubt and introspection crucial to developing a Final Narrative is outside the boundaries of ubiquitous casualness.

Beyond disinterest in the classics, in criticism directed more towards the humanities professorate, there is the additional concern that literary works are being interpreted with a political agenda, which distorts the original authors' intents and, furthermore, interferes with the educational value of the works. For example, Dickens' novels concerning the horrid social conditions in early industrial England are used in hegemonic critiques not intended by Dickens. Nonetheless, the chiding of those advancing a Foucaultian "normalization and control" of society agenda by grafting such analyses onto literary works, comes across as more than a little disingenuous given the author's overall views.

"Democracy and democratic humanism" - those are the components of the author's "religion." He invites us to "imagine a nation, a world, where people have fuller self-knowledge, fuller self-determination, where self-making is a primary objective not just in the material sphere but in the circles of the mind and heart. We humanities teachers can help create such a world." There is no disagreement with the nobility of the goal here, but where is the reconciliation with the realities of a superficial, consumer ethos and Foucaultian control. In a world of artificiality, how does a student become aware of a need for self-discovery? How can a student possibly know whether such a search is possible in an institution without the assumption that awareness has already been obtained? And then there is the very real possibility of such an enlightened student wrecking on the realities outside the university. We can't all have the safe haven of college tenure to widely explore and espouse eternal truths. At one point the author recognizes that seeking truth is a subversive endeavor. But there seems to be little appreciation for the consequences.

The author disclaims that his approach is one of personal therapy. Yet it does seem to be very much one of personal growth and personal interpretation of the classics. He especially advocates the reading of poetry as being foremost in finding personal truth, which in the view of many is a particularly subjective endeavor. Literature comes before history in his view. Presumably that same ordering applies to any body of knowledge. He seems to require that a work engenders an emotional response, that the work of art can be lived, for it to be considered essential for self-discovery. He specifically discounts works that merely "teach us something about the larger world." This is a most curious position. Broad, historical understanding of political, economic, and social systems would seem to enhance anyone's pursuit of trying to define a life to live. Constructing a personal reality based on the personal interpretation of literary works, devoid of significant context, seems to merely self-indulging, with little to do with attaining intellectual heights.

"Why Read?" is thought-provoking, but puzzles because of the author's unwillingness to complete his analysis. It is clear that the author understands much: the culture is dumbed-down; the university system makes little effort to advance the growth and wisdom of attendees; a business mentality permeates our society; democracy, humanistic or otherwise, is a tenuous project in our society; and tremendous risks are incurred if one confronts this hegemonic situation.

What is to be inferred here? Does the author accept the fact that substantial wealth is a legitimate litmus test in allowing attendance at his employing university, which ultimately will amount to little more than gaining a credential to enter the business world at an elevated position? Where is the call for reform? Where is the political critique? Is he genuinely interested in democratic empowerment?

The book is ultimately just not that satisfying because even though the author is well aware of the landscape, he doesn't seem to be going anywhere with his understanding. What a waste.

I approached this book thinking it was in the spirit of Mortimer Adler's classic How to Read a Book--an instructional guide on how to read effectively--but I was surprised with Edmundson's style and content. Why Read? is not an instructional manual but rather a compelling essay asking both teachers--mainly college professors--and students to approach their reading in a different manner. His main thesis is to learn how to live through the wisdom found in classical literature. Learning how to live does not mean knowing how to be perfectly happy. Rather, it is how to find more about ourselves from stories. Like ancient poets of old, great authors preserve a human narrative that runs through out all of our lives and which must be preserved for future generations. Whatever pain and hardship we've endured have been expressed in writings of the past.

In his opening passage, Edmundson quotes William Carlos Williams saying that many people hold poetry (and poets) in contempt, thinking they are dreamers, but when we look closer we can see that men had died fighting for the ideas written and expressed in poetry and great literatures. Unlike the cold logical reasoning of philosophy, literature offers an accessible wisdom that touches us at the most sublime consciousness. Modern teachers have shun off this wisdom and refuse to challenge their students to approach literature using their own personal experience and see how what they're reading is similar to their own lives and personal struggle. Instead, many professors choose to create this false culture of intellectualism that imposes a strict system of deconstructionism that tears out the soul of great literature. What the students ended up is not a deeper understanding about their lives, but a false sense of intellectual achievement thinking they had triumph over the great authors by demolishing the authors' works in a classroom setting.

Edmundson has given me a new reason to re-read many of the classic works I had passed off as irrelevant and to seek out new literature to enrich my own life.

This is a short little book, but its brevity belies its significance. Here is one of the most clear-headed, profound, straightforward, well-reasoned, and eloquent arguments for the value of literature--as Literature, not ideology or entertainment or historical artifact or whatnot--I've seen in a long time. Since I was expecting something of a diatribe against critical theory, pop culture studies, and all that jazz, I also found this book to be admirably even-handed. Edmundson gives these things their due while critiquing the way they can get in the way of the matter at hand if given too much emphasis. And the matter at hand is of course literature's ability to expand the reader, to ask the big questions without providing pat answers or stereotyped solutions universally applicable, to challenge one to think and feel for oneself--to know oneself, in fact.

Such themes could easily lead a writer to get self-inflated and pedantic, but Edmundson expresses himself with wit, dry humor, and a good sense of proportion. He is assured but not arrogant, and passionate but not apoplectic. He can discuss the most momentous issues in a flowing conversational idiom that is comfortably and unselfconsciously erudite. It's almost like being in your favorite professor's office as an undergrad having a good, interesting discussion, or (if you're a professor) talking shop with a friendly respected colleague.

And if you indeed plan on becoming a teacher of literature, I VERY highly recommend this book; reflecting on what Edmundson has to say here should definitely help you define and refine your priorities and motivations...and teaching style, probably. And it will remind you of why you fell in love with literature in the first place.

"Prepackaged"

By Steven Haack

I use the word Prepackaged to describe what some professors have pawned off as a college education. In comparison, one may ask, how healthy is prepackage food compared to a five star restaurant or you may want to compare your first car to a 2010 Lexus.

Next month, I "celebrate five years since I graduated from college. I was forty-seven at the time. When I received my BA, I had one major question: "Is that all there is?" (Dr. V, forgive me for using there.)

For the past five years, I have been on the prowl for something more. I even looked into Graduate School. However, I invite you to discover where the gods have led me. The following is a letter I wrote to a friend.

"During a visit to a bookstore called the Book Loft in German Village in the summer of 2007, I watched a friend's eyes light up as she looked at a book called "The Knowledge Deficit" by E. D. Hirsch that I showed her. I too was fascinated by this book.

Thank goodness, though, the powers that be made me so that I am never completely satisfied. Last Tuesday, I went to the Main Branch Library. I found this book, read a few chapters, and the next day, I took the bus to Borders and purchased it.

A common theme and sensation that I get from this book is that I am and will always be incomplete. However, this does not mean I will not find some satisfaction at times.

I mention an article that you can find on the Internet by the author of this book called "Why Read." The title of this article is "On the Uses of a Liberal Education" by Mark Edmundson. This is article is what spurred him to write this book.

While we have fantastic technology and awesome amounts of purchasing power compared to other "centuries," we seem to have less satisfaction and more discontentment.

Nothing makes me feel bad than the sensations that accompany three rhythmic words, woulda, shoulda, coulda. In reading this book, Why Read, it seems something has replaced these feelings and that is anxiety: anxiety about what I know and what I don't know.

Although "Why Read" leaves me with anxiety, it is what some doctors call "Good Stress." Truth is disturbing at first, however, living in the dark can be more scary and debilitating."

I read this book hoping to find some answers to the question "Why Read?;but found it to be too preoccupied with reading from the perspective of a teacher. What makes any teacher more qualified to instruct one as to what they should read? I have read a lot in my lifetime and have benefited greatly from it. My father read a great deal and was extremely well versed on a wide range of subjects,particularly current events and politics.More so, than the vast majority of the teachers I came across in school and university;and he didn't have the opportunity to complete high school,let alone attend university. I guess I developed my love of reading from him and spent endless hours as a youth reading the family's Book of Knowledge and any other book I could obtain.What about school ,university and "english teachers"? Well,to be quite frank about it;they tended to turn me off reading,and particularly the books and authors they talked about in their courses.I had no interest in authors such as Scott,Dickens,Kipling and the literature of England and English Literature;as if the only english literature worth reading or poetry such as Tenneson,Byron,and other European poets were what was important. I was more interested in Mark Twain or the poetry of Robert Service;but they seemed to be beneath what academics thought important.In other words,teachers tended to turn me off reading much more than inspired me.I have discussed this with many people over the years and have found that many lifelong readers agree with me;but obviously not teachers.
It is not an easy thing to create an interest in other people and I have concluded that this is done by inspiring them as opposed to "teaching" which tends to be more a process of instructing and correction.
One day ,while on a boat,I spent a couple of hours discussing this with a retired university president. I suggested to him ,that in all the teachers I encountered in school and university;I found only one or two that ever "inspired" me,and I thought that was what a good teacher should do.I expected he would disagree with me,but his response was,"If you had more than one,consider yoursely very lucky.
The one teacher that stood out, taught high school Mathematics and Science. He had to quit Medicine due to back injuries.He inspired me in several ways. We were studying Logs and I was very impressed with them.I was telling him how much I was impressed with what one could do with them and he reached into his desk and pulled out a Slide Rule and asked me if I ever saw one of them.I thought it looked like some kind of a fancy ruler.He explained how it was basically a set of Log tables on a sliding stick and showed me how you could multiply and divide with it .He loaned it,and an instruction book to me,and I learned to use it .I was the only kid in the high school that could use a slide rule.
Back to reading.I didn't care much for the type of books the teachers taugh us about,but on my own I "found" much to read ,and quickly read everything I could find by John Steinbeck;after stumbling upon "Cannery Row" and "Grapes of Wrath".
I read "Teacher Man" by Frank Mc Court and found it a marvelous book.Now there is a teacher I would have loved to have had and I am sure he was inspiring to his students. How he fit in to the academic establishment and how he comes across to the conventional teacher ,is another matter.