Is academic literarydom shallow?

[Jtolj]

It would not be a stretch to say I am an anti-fan of the scholarly perspective on literature. I love literature, being an intellectual pursuit, and most certainly a pursuit of entertainment and art. But something about the scholarly aspect always struck me as shallow and empty. Where is the purpose in studying the words of another human, as if it were a grand spiritual text? Yes, people pick apart literature for leisure, but it's just that for leisure, well... I just think the collegiate pursuit to literature of picking apart and analyzing to an extreme degree is a shallow pursuit, and I also think the pursuit of style is just that style over substance.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the scholarly perspective of literature is skewed. Literature is about art, expression, and entertaining people. I have nothing against literature in academia, but I do have something against the way too many scholars tend to treat literature.

[Jean-Baptiste]

I see an academic focus on literature as a means of systematically becoming acquainted with the multitude of contributions made by people throughout written history. The purpose would certainly be a shallow one, if it were simply to pick things to pieces, but I don't think that is the case. As humans, we want to know how thinks work, and how things happen. To do this we must investigate, and I see nothing wrong with an official group seeking to do this together with literature, as with any other human pursuit.

I spent a good 7 years in libraries before enrolling in college. I was quite content to see my efforts as superior to the world of academia--but in time I realized that I was severely limiting myself to whatever literature I could come across by accident. That's when I decided that I needed some guidance if I was going to come close to fulfilling my ambition of becoming well-read. That is what I see as the purpose of academia. It is not only a means of discovering new directions for literature, but also passing on the tradition to the next generation, in a completely controlled setting, to prevent corruption of our heritage. Essentially, the body of world literature is a spiritual text, taken as a whole, and as such it should be contemplated, revered, and protected.

That's what I think. Thanks for posting.:)

[PeterL]

I just think the collegiate pursuit to literature of picking apart and analyzing to an extreme degree is a shallow pursuit, and I also think the pursuit of style is just that style over substance.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the scholarly perspective of literature is skewed. Literature is about art, expression, and entertaining people. I have nothing against literature in academia, but I do have something against the way too many scholars tend to treat literature.

When one studies painting, part of the study is the details of paint, bushes, brush strokes, lines, shading, etc. The academic study of literature is about the details of what literature is, what it communicates, and how it is created. Do you think that it would be better to just read, then chat about whether one liked it? If you were to teach a course in literature, what would you do with the course?

[Jtolj]

When one studies painting, part of the study is the details of paint, bushes, brush strokes, lines, shading, etc. The academic study of literature is about the details of what literature is, what it communicates, and how it is created. Do you think that it would be better to just read, then chat about whether one liked it? If you were to teach a course in literature, what would you do with the course?
I would have the people read the book, and then I would discuss the book itself, and instead of taring about metalies and simiphors, I would talk about the author themselves, and the history behind the book and its time period.

In addition to discussing the nature of the book, I would discuss about the book. Rather than viewing the book, as the sole source of the book study, I would use the book as a basis to study what the book represents.

That's where the great take of academic literature study lies.

For example:
I would make the students read the novel, without interuption of work
While they read it, I will talk about the themes and about the author, without forcing them to support conjecture
Then I'd discuss it and then I would make the study rather than based on the words of the book, the ideas of the book

[cuppajoe_9]

Studying literature in detail does not necisarily constitute 'picking it appart', and does not subtract from the beauty, relevance or central message of the piece in any way. Just as looking closely at Guarnica does not make it any less powerful, neither does studying all the layers of meaning in King Lear make it any less tragic.

[PeterL]

I would have the people read the book, and then I would discuss the book itself, and instead of taring about metalies and simiphors, I would talk about the author themselves, and the history behind the book and its time period.

In addition to discussing the nature of the book, I would discuss about the book. Rather than viewing the book, as the sole source of the book study, I would use the book as a basis to study what the book represents.

That's where the great take of academic literature study lies.

For example:
I would make the students read the novel, without interuption of work
While they read it, I will talk about the themes and about the author, without forcing them to support conjecture
Then I'd discuss it and then I would make the study rather than based on the words of the book, the ideas of the book

I see. I think that your approach is rather shallow. After discussing the theme and what and why the author would want people to get from the book, the next step is a discussion of how the author expressed himself; how the characters were created and filled out; how the action leads to the conclusion; etc.. Knowing what the author wrote is only part of the matter.

[Jean-Baptiste]

By PeterL: "I see. I think that your approach is rather shallow."

Yes, I agree, that is a shallow approach. It is, I believe, what is known as "historical criticism," and as there are about thirteen million methods of criticism, choosing to focus merely on the authors background is severely limiting the scope of any work of literature. While I do think that the environment from which the author springs contributes a great deal to any particular work, claiming it as a sole importance suggests that authors in general have no brains or creativity, and no capability to see beyond their own presence.

Also, what is your distinction, Jtolj, between "discussing the nature of the book," and "discuss[ing] about the book"? the comment seems to place an emphasis on the type of paper that the words are printed on. I'm sure that this is not what you mean, but you'll have to clarify that point.

Also, studying "what the book represents" is merely another way of making the dreaded "conjectures" that you so vehemently denounce. This is entirely the point of many academic programs. Therefore, I feel that perhaps you've had a run-in with a nasty sort of professor, who has turned you against even yourself with regard to literature. Don't let it spoil you. Remember, no matter what that old prof says, you can still think what you want, you can think about literature however you like, but throwing away academia in general is no answer.

[breaddough]

It would not be a stretch to say I am an anti-fan of the scholarly perspective on literature. I love literature, being an intellectual pursuit, and most certainly a pursuit of entertainment and art. But something about the scholarly aspect always struck me as shallow and empty. Where is the purpose in studying the words of another human, as if it were a grand spiritual text? Yes, people pick apart literature for leisure, but it's just that for leisure, well... I just think the collegiate pursuit to literature of picking apart and analyzing to an extreme degree is a shallow pursuit, and I also think the pursuit of style is just that style over substance.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the scholarly perspective of literature is skewed. Literature is about art, expression, and entertaining people. I have nothing against literature in academia, but I do have something against the way too many scholars tend to treat literature.

I agree completely with you. Because I have had a certain advanced level high school English course, my brain has been trained to analyse the things I read, especially poems. But I have actually found this an enjoyable change from passive reading. However, the things that a person gets from a work of literature are very personal, in my estimation, they are based on past experiences and current state of mind; for a pack of scholars to say, "we know best" and tell you what it means ruins a measure of the enjoyment from reading it.

[EAP]

Yes.

Filler Filler Filler Filler Filler Filler Filler Filler Filler

[grace86]

To Jean-Baptiste: I agree with your sentiments on studying literature.

I tried to read Dante's Inferno without prior study and knowledge. It sucked, I couldn't appreciate it for what it is. I learned in a literature class about its terza rima form and all the multiples of the Cantos and numbers in the poem...and for anyone who knows what terza rima is - knows that it is not something people easily spit out. Dante put all kinds of people in Hell, and not one of them was random....my point is, I wouldn't have been able to read and understand it and put as much value as it deserves if I hadn't picked at it a little bit in a Literature course.

Some professors are probably horrible and full of it when teaching lit, but then that happens in all the courses one takes. But you can't let that affect you. I think you can still have personal sentiments, emotions and views about a piece and not be wrong about it. Reading is still for enjoyment, and I think that the reason for these classes are to help us gain an understanding and to further enjoy reading.

[Eagleheart]

Directly to the question-academic analysis-pssssssssssssssss
/cannot overcome the emotional dissatisfaction/- it seems to me nothing more than attempting to read a book by ANALYSING THE LETTERS/...sheer dissection...anyone blurring the distinction between knowledge of the parts to understand the whole and preoccupation with the elements/then you see comes the moment when you ask yourself WHAT WAS THE TEXT ALL ABOUT?/ will happen to be a good literary critic...No I am being inaccurate...will make a brilliant career...
and for the more sensitive on the matter...literary dissection will happen to be intellectual inquisition as well......on this point I thoroughly agree with Jtolj

keeping the same tone - psssssssssssssssssssssss

[PeterL]

Eagleheart, I really don't understand that sentiment. When people study most things, they look at the whole and they look at what makes up the whole, when they study indetail. As analogies, consider architecture and flowers.
If an architect just looked at buildings as a whole, looking at them from a distance, the architect might go on to design nice shapes, but the buildings might fall apart, because the construction details were ignored. Then consider a flower, if you just look at a flower, ot might look nice, but if you study flowers, its purpose and the pusposes of each part of it become clear, and the flower as a whole has more meaning that a pleasant shape and color. One can read and enjoy literature, but if one studies literature, one learns how the parts of a written work are designed, and how they go together to make a complete work.
To thoroughly understand literature, one has to understand how people think, how semiotic systems work, how language works, literary devices, etc.. If you want to read and enjoy literature, great; but that isn't studying literature.

[Virgil]

It would not be a stretch to say I am an anti-fan of the scholarly perspective on literature. I love literature, being an intellectual pursuit, and most certainly a pursuit of entertainment and art. But something about the scholarly aspect always struck me as shallow and empty. Where is the purpose in studying the words of another human, as if it were a grand spiritual text? Yes, people pick apart literature for leisure, but it's just that for leisure, well... I just think the collegiate pursuit to literature of picking apart and analyzing to an extreme degree is a shallow pursuit, and I also think the pursuit of style is just that style over substance.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the scholarly perspective of literature is skewed. Literature is about art, expression, and entertaining people. I have nothing against literature in academia, but I do have something against the way too many scholars tend to treat literature.

I hear where you're coming from, but are you confusing an understanding of literature as art with the garbage they tend to teach these days called literary theory?

Understanding literature as art is a noble pursuit. Understanding how a work is created, its themes, the author's perspective of life, and just the beauty of the work is something that ought to be taught in academia. Nobody is going to pay you any more or less because you took these classes in school. But trust me, if you know how artist organize their work, you will be more skilled in organizing and expressing your work, whatever that may be. And that will make you more succesful in the long run.

However literary criticism of the last 15-20 years has evolved to where academia imposes its view on a work rather than an understanding of what the author intended. It pretty much amounts to professors imposing their political view on students. I always have to laugh when I see a "marxist" interpretation of Shakespeare, as if Shakespeare had even heard of Marx. So you may be reacting to professor's distorting literature for their purposes. And professors doing that frankly is wrong.

What you also may be reacting to is the self importance that academia places on literature. Even good professors who teach as they should are paid to teach not be literary critics. And yet many seem to think that they are in academia to perform some great research, as if they are going to be the next Aristotle. There is very little utility in the open market for a literature professor, other than to teach. These professors however delude themselves into thinking that they are as important as the artist.

When you say: "Literature is about art, expression, and entertaining people." I couldn't agree with you more.

[Eagleheart]

PeterL,
I am confused...somehow I detect a disagreement in your tone of writing, but in the content of your text cannot see the disagreement...When I discussed the distinction between the parts serving the whole...and ignorance of the whole because of some ardent detail exploration I meant exactly this...Tell me- in the end what do people see in architectural masterpieces-bolts and joints? following the same line...take the human organism-you cannot say that when you have studied the cardiac system you already know...what the human essence is ...the problem with academic and not personal analysis is that it forgets to view the elements in their context...it seeks independently and thus sometimes has the repulsive inclination to equate composition with meaning...after all when in the middle of the road you forget where you are heading to ,you cannot claim any right to guidance for the "uninitiated" ...well this is my my main dissatisfaction with the scholarly approach to literature..

-after all the last question never seems to be HOW .../just considering the matter chronologically/

when asking someone about his dreams I do not expect he will indulge in explanations of brain construction...the last question of self-realization remains Why...literature in the domain of some self-development inevitably follows the chronology...I just think that the place of "How" is somewhere in the middle...

[PeterL]

PeterL,
I am confused...somehow I detect a disagreement in your tone of writing, but in the content of your text cannot see the disagreement...When I discussed the distinction between the parts serving the whole...and ignorance of the whole because of some ardent detail exploration I meant exactly this...Tell me- in the end what do people see in architectural masterpieces-bolts and joints? following the same line...take the human organism-you cannot say that when you have studied the cardiac system you already know...what the human essence is ...the problem with academic and not personal analysis is that it forgets to view the elements in their context...it seeks independently and thus sometimes has the repulsive inclination to equate composition with meaning...after all when in the middle of the road you forget where you are heading to ,you cannot claim any right to guidance for the "uninitiated" ...well this is my my main dissatisfaction with the scholarly approach to literature..


Our disagreement may not be very large. You mentioned "forgets to view the elements in their context", and those who ignore the context are missing the point of studying the details. So we agree on that. But looking only at the whole is not the point of studying literature. Architectural masterpieces are piles of pieces that have been carefully arranged. The cathedral of Rheims is just rocks and dirt that were carefully arragned to make a building. If the builders had ignored the details of construction, then it would still be a pile of rocks. But you are right; the context is essential. My experience in college literature courses was variable. Some professors looked at the some details while others looked at others. I regarded it as my responsibility to put the different viewpoints together into a whole. Someone who does not understand the parts of literature, can't even hope to understand literature, much less to guide anyone else into understanding literature. I don understand why you think "the problem with academic and not personal analysis is that it forgets to view the elements in their context." My experience and observation has led me to think that many individuals have personal analyses of literature that are not very good, because they haven't studied the details of literature; they only look at the complete work from a distance.


when asking someone about his dreams I do not expect he will indulge in explanations of brain construction...the last question of self-realization remains Why...literature in the domain of some self-development inevitably follows the chronology...I just think that the place of "How" is somewhere in the middle...

I used to think like that, then I did some study of brain chemistry in parallel with studying semiotics. Now I consider emotions, dreams, and thought to be essentially identical. I will agree that there is development over time, and one can't expect to understand everything about human thought and the expression of thought instantly. There was a time when I thought of literature as something that I either liked or didn't like. I have moved on from there, so now I judge literature based on the theme, the plot, the characters, the writing, the characterizations, the overall development, the verbiage, etc., and I also regard it from a semiotic perspective and consider what was conveyed and whether that was what the author wanted to convey.

[stlukesguild]

Jtolj- It would not be a stretch to say I am an anti-fan of the scholarly perspective on literature. I love literature, being an intellectual pursuit, and most certainly a pursuit of entertainment and art. But something about the scholarly aspect always struck me as shallow and empty. Where is the purpose in studying the words of another human, as if it were a grand spiritual text? Yes, people pick apart literature for leisure, but it's just that for leisure, well... I just think the collegiate pursuit to literature of picking apart and analyzing to an extreme degree is a shallow pursuit, and I also think the pursuit of style is just that style over substance.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the scholarly perspective of literature is skewed. Literature is about art, expression, and entertaining people. I have nothing against literature in academia, but I do have something against the way too many scholars tend to treat literature.

SLG- I agree with a great deal of what Virgil had to say. I question whether you are confusing a serious academic/critical study of literature with much that passes for literary theory today. I have nothing but the greatest respect for those critics/writers who have been able to open my eyes to aspects of literature I might not have appreciated on my own... but I have no interest at all in the work of those literary theorists who read everything with a certain cant... who approach a work of literary art merely as a means to an end... a way of illustrating their own Marxist, feminist, Socialist (etc... etc...) theories. As for the notion of literary study being somehow shallow as a scholary endeavor, I could not disagree more. Are you suggesting that the only pursuits worthy of such scolarly efforts are those with clear, concrete results... monetary or otherwise? Is it only finance, law, science, medicine, ploitics, and the like that are worthy of such study? I have no problem in admitting that I do indeed see the study of the great works of literary writings (as well as the great musical and artistic creations) as almost something spiritual. Yes, it is also art and entertainment... or at least a source of pleasure... but as I noted elsewhere I don't think such pleasure is always easy or attained without some degree of effort... including the prior knowledge grace86 mentioned. My own personal reasons for taking the study of literature... and all art seriously is probably best stated in two quotes I have posted more than once before:

The first... or elder... is by Walter Pater... and consists of the final paragraphs (with a few brief omissions) from his conclusion to The Renaissance: Studies in Art and Poetry:

The service of philosophy, of speculative culture, towards the human spirit, is to rouse, to startle it to a life of constant and eager observation. Every moment some form grows perfect in hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the rest; some mood of passion or insight or intellectual excitement is irresistibly real and attractive to us,–for that moment only. Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end. A counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated, dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to seen in them by the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point to point, and be present always at the focus where the greatest number of vital forces unite in their purest energy?

To burn always with this hard, gemlike flame, to maintain this ecstasy, is success in life. In a sense it might even be said that our failure is to form habits... While all melts under our feet, we may well grasp at any exquisite passion, or any contribution to knowledge that seems by a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a moment, or any stirring of the senses, strange dyes, strange colours, and curious odours, or work of the artist’s hands, or the face of one’s friend. Not to discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in those about us, and in the very brilliancy of their gifts some tragic dividing of forces on their ways, is, on this short day of frost and sun, to sleep before evening. With this sense of the splendour of our experience and of its awful brevity, gathering all we are into one desperate effort to see and touch, we shall hardly have time to make theories about the things we see and touch. What we have to do is to be for ever curiously testing new opinions and courting new impressions, never acquiescing in a facile orthodoxy of Comte, or of Hegel, or of our own...

One of the most beautiful passages of Rousseau is that in the sixth book of the Confessions, where he describes the awakening in him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had clung always about him, and now in early manhood he believed himself smitten by mortal disease. He asked himself how he might make as much as possible of the interval that remained; and he was not biassed by anything in his previous life when he decided that it must be by intellectual excitement, which he found just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire. Well! we are all condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve–les hommes sont tous condamnes a mort avec des sursis indefinis: we have an interval, and then our place knows us no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness, some in high passions, the wisest, at least among "the children of this world,” in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time. Great passions may give us this quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which come naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion–that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments’ sake.

The other... far more brief... is from Anna Quindlen, from her essay, How Reading Changed my Life:

Books are the means to immortality:
... Through them we experience other times, other places, other lives. We manage to become much more than our own selves. The only dead are those who grow sere and shriveled within, unable to step outside their own lives and into those of others. Ignorance is death. A closed mind is a catafalque.

In one final note... I must question your comment that the serious academic or scolarly study of literature strikes you as something of a pursuit of style over substance. It would seem to me that all great art is something of a brilliant merger of style... or rather form and content (substance). One may have something brilliant to say, but without the ability to say it well... to give it a beautiful artistic form... it fails as art (one need merely compare Leonardo's Last Supper with that of the endless Last Supper paintings on black velvet.) On the other hand, mere artistic brilliance without a content that may hold our interest leads to an art that strikes us something like fireworks or a lovely decorated cake: as display... but lacking any lasting value. It would seem to me that the study of any art must involve both of these aspects.