Not too long ago, I finished reading Jean Webster's
Daddy Long-Legs, a novel from 1912 that might be seeing a resurgence in readership after being featured in one of the Mother-Daughter Book Club books, which is why I picked it up. It's a series of letters from an orphan to her benefactor, a trustee of the orphan asylum where she grew up (maybe a prototype of Daddy Warbucks?). He pays to send her to a girls' college with the only stipulation being that she write him monthly letters. It is a bit sappy in that early twentieth century way, but the heroine Jerusha (who nicknames herself Judy) develops a sense of independence and diligence that shows her rough upbringing has made her resilient and persevering. Her background is in stark contrast to her wealthy roommate's. While she envies the beauty of her rich roommate's wardrobe, she comments more than once on this friend's apathy and notes that because this girl has always had her wants and needs met, she has no real understanding of what it means to be happy. Judy comes to appreciate her early hardknock life that makes her so grateful for the gifts she has received and the beautiful things she learns about and sees.
This book offers another take on the benefit of hardships and setbacks, a hundred years ago. Again, not much changes about human nature. Thinking back to a
previous post, we can tinker with school methods and parenting styles, but a kid's temperament is innate. Some kids will do better at school, some at home. Some may falter for a few years before returning to the faith. A few missteps in youth are inevitable, perhaps. But happiness lies in recognizing, with gratitude, the things of beauty around you and their transience, things that may be fleeting or taken away. Like innocence and babyhood. But even mourning and loss can become a beautiful, happy thing because something new is on the way.
So that paragraph is a little Pollyannaish in the same way as
Daddy Long-Legs, but my current state of feeling caught in limbo needs cheerleader reminders of the benefits of suffering. Not that my suffering compares to that of poor orphans - mine is a "poor me" syndrome. I feel like I can't start anything like a job or training for something because in a few months life will change dramatically. I keep having these moments where I see other women succeeding at their jobs, and I think, I could have done something like that. I have an ambitious/competitive streak that has been frustrated by circumstances and choices. I know the choices I've made have been made for good reasons, but I haven't yet been able to silence the voice of vanity. Plus, I don't like our house, but at least in two years we'll be moving again. I'm feel perpetually caught in a state of stasis waiting for insight. Maybe I should take up a letter writing campaign like Judy.
The other book I read last week was an attempt to avoid stagnating too much. Robert Scholes
The Crafty Reader was a collection of essays on reading as a craft - a practice that can be learned and improved through, well, practice. We all should become better readers, meaning more insightful, more thoughtful, he argues. But I didn't finish the book with a very clear sense of what the craft of reading is or why it is important (even though I could name some reasons myself - to develop empathy, imagination, critical thinking, cultural literacy, a sense of the limits and expanses of human nature, including its fall and redemption, etc. Did I link to this article
"Reading Literary Fiction Improves Empathy" at the Guardian before? ). Scholes doesn't like the New Critics, so most of the book is a critique of their criticism, which, he argues, presents reading as an art that requires a sort of genius in order to excel. I might disagree with that view, although I haven't read deeply in the New Critics since grad school, when perhaps I was more sympathetic to a high concept of art. I appreciate the New Critics insistence on reading the text closely to discover meaning. Of course, knowledge of the cultural and historical context of a work is important to grasp meaning, as is knowledge of an author's oeuvre, but when all you have access to are the words on a page, reading closely is your only means to uncover meaning.
I do appreciate Scholes emphasis on debunking students' fear of poetry. He points out that most students believe poetry (and most literary fiction) has a secret meaning that they have to discover. They don't like poetry because they don't like hunting for symbols and tone. Against the New Critics preference for formal, unsentimental, artistic poetry, Scholes advocates for teaching narrative poetry and poetry with emotional intensity.
I can see the value of this, especially with young students or students like those in my community college class who had little or no previous experience with reading poetry. While cool and restrained poetry may make good art, emotional and exuberant poetry is sometimes more enjoyable to read until a greater familiarity with poetic form and language is gained. I am happy to report that my elementary students have been busy memorizing poems for their school's "Dialogues and Monologues" event coming up. Three of the four chose narrative verse. My eighth grader is doing the "To Be or Not to Be" soliloquy because he likes to talk in a British accent and pose in a Shakespearean manner.
Scholes also criticizes the reliance on poetic terms that fit the needs of standardized tests, but produce a mechanical and artificial reading of poetry. He wants poetry to be brought close to the lives of students, for students to see that way that poetic language describes the ordinary events of their lives (why I loved Richard Wilbur's "Love Calls Us to the Things of This World"), so that they enjoy it and want to read it. Here I quibble with him again. Without knowing what a metaphor or symbol is, without appreciating the pleasure of alliteration and assonance, or the disturbance of dissonance, students don't appreciate the full power of poetic language. I agree that poetry shouldn't be taught as a vocabulary course so that teachers can easily grade exams, but I do think students, especially in the upper grades, need to know the language of the discipline, just as biology students need to know about micro- and macrobiomes and algebra students need to understand polynomials. So I both agree and disagree with Scholes' critique.
Here are the main aspects of the craft of reading poetry that Scholes delineates:
-Read first for prose sense, noting punctuation and word meaning and patterns (particularly for poetry)
-Situate the text - what situation is described, who's the speaker, who is addressed?
- What historical context can you glean about the author's life and world?
- What event or condition is represented?
- Is the work meant to persuade?
-What emotion is generated?
- What is your response or evaluation?
The other interesting chapter in his book compared Norman Rockwell and Salvador Dali - the surreal and the hyperreal being related ways of interpreting signs and symbols. Scholes praises Rockwell for highlighting discrepancies between the real thing and the image he created, focusing on Rockwell's self portrait. While Rockwell was often dismissed as simply being an illustrator, or for making art for the common man, not high art, he is increasingly gaining more critical praise.
I make these notes for any future use. Maybe one day I'll teach the craft/art of reading again. I wish Scholes had gone a little further in advancing his idea of how to be a crafty ready and why, rather than giving examples of poems that the New Critics didn't like, but that he deems worthy of attention. I appreciate his encouragement of letting students study the poetry they like first - narrative and emotionally charged verse.
Meanwhile I'm on to something else: currently enjoying what would appear to be an emotionally restrained book to today's readers, but might have been emotionally intense in its day: Anthony Trollope's
Can You Forgive Her, despite it being the WORST formatted ebook ever. The heroine is an independently minded young lady who can't decide if she wants to marry a husband who will be solid and dependable, but her master, or a rather rash, adventurous young man whom she could assist with her money in gaining and keeping a seat in Parliament. Will she be ambitious or practical? Will she choose the mate who will take care of all her needs but treat her as a kind of adult child or the man who might break her heart but who values her mind? Perhaps I'm reading a modern sensibility into this, because in last night's chapter the good, solid guy showed a new side in his desire to win the heart of his betrothed. He treated her quite nobly. Maybe he'll end up being more compassionate than it first appears.