Depth or Breadth?

[The Comedian]

Okay, say you're 17, 18, 19, 20ish. You're taking a few English courses; you're probably not an English major.

Would you rather study a couple of texts in depth. By depth I mean extended discussions, maybe a few scholarly articles, etc. . .

Or read more widely (more texts, more ethnic/regions covered) at the sacrifice of depth?

And, because time is limited "both", while ideal, is not realistic.

[OrphanPip]

I think each has its own benefits. When you study a few texts in depth there is always the risk that you'll absolutely hate some of the texts chosen, which is less of a problem if you're doing many texts over a longer period. Although, when I took English electives during my undergrad I preferred fewer texts in more depth, because it made getting the readings done a lot easier.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It depends how long the courses are going to last I suppose. Do you mean a module such as a 12 week course or say a year course?

[The Comedian]

I guess the US system is set up a little differently than the UK. A typical college/university course has a duration of about 16 weeks. So, it'd be a smidgen longer than the module.

I ask this because I always feel that this is my choice in putting together a course, especially a literature based course. Anyway, these days I think that most fall for breadth -- that wide reading is superior to deep reading of a few selected texts.

[BienvenuJDC]

There is a need to have a good breadth, however, it all depends on one's foundation already established. For someone to get a good introduction so that they have an idea what might be out there is good. However, I would hope that is achieved before one gets out of high school. Also to follow up (looking back on the breadth of knowledge) on all of studies that one has endured (placing all of the puzzle pieces in perspective) is another effective use of breadth studies. I believe that one needs to look at certain things with a bit of depth, but everything needs to be done with consideration to the other.

Let's look at this mathematically...
One could address the study too broadly (2 x 6 = two deep by six breadth)

...but one could also focus in too deeply, losing all perspective as to how it relates to all else.........without application, any learning is useless)

(6 x 2 = six deep by 2 breadth)

While we only have the resources to handle 12 units, I think that a deeper look would be better...

(4 x 3)

But one could disagree and venture to say (3 x 4)...

Did I lose anyone? Sorry, I have a heavy background in math....

[L.M. The Third]

Very hard question indeed! However, since the (hypothetical ?) person in question is probably not an English major I would probably go with breadth. Because this person won't need to know everything about a given author or work, or genre, etc. Instead they are probably looking to have a good general knowledge and appreciation of literature to last through their life. On the other hand, someone who is majoring in English probably already knows what they are going to keep paying major attention to.

And now I'm getting so sleepy I'm mixing myself up with grammar and ideas.. lol

[JuniperWoolf]

I'd definately go for depth.

The ideas and comprehension that I could gain in a class from discussions is something that I couldn't do on my own. If you read a bunch of books and don't go too deeply into them, well, you don't need a class for that.

[Katy North]

I'd say go with breadth until you get to something you like and think is fantastic, and then go for depth.

[Jazz_]

It depends what the aims of the course/student are. If they're not an English major, they are probably taking the course to become exposed to different types of literature - and probably hope to enjoy studying it.

For this reason, I would probably lean towards breadth - and leave depth for further down the track (or just for those doing English majors).

[blazeofglory]

It is always the depth that matters to me; and I do not care about the rest and I totally concentrate on the critical probation of a literary piece and oftentimes I first read the introductory or critical part of a text. Before reading the Brothers Karamazov, for instance I have read immensely its commentaries or analyses and that helped me understand the core or the message the writer always wanted to convey. A greatly masterly piece like Ulysses becomes an impossible read if we do not start with a commentary or interpretive text first. I have not read this great work of art and am preparing myself for it. I have already Odysseus and other comments on the book and then only I will start with it. Of course reading this text is not as easy as any Dickensian books and it is an onerous exercise that demands of us both scholarly exposures and great endurance and then only we can comprehend the book. Therefore I always suggest we read the text after reading about it

[Scheherazade]

Considering the age, interests and limitations on the course, I would go for breadth. Without the necessary background, concentrating on couple of works in depth might be both challenging and boring for the learners.

By introducing them to a variety of genres and styles, you might pique their interest and get them reading more (take other classes too?).

[Quark]

Go for breadth. Discover what you like to read before you take the time to study it exhaustively. There are so many genres, periods, styles, modes, and authors of literature that it's impossible to know what's worthwhile until you've read through a shelf or two of books. I'm still finding works that I wouldn't have thought interesting until after having read them. I wouldn't spend too long researching or close reading until you have a good idea what good literature is and what you want to do with it.

[Krauq]

Go for breadth.

But:


You're taking a few English courses

If you're reading for a class, depth is always better. Usually, you're writing a paper on one or two texts, and not the entire the list of works on the syllabus. Picking a text to study in depth would be a much better idea in this situation.

[kelby_lake]

If it's for school, depth.

[blp]

I always think the best course I ever did was my A-level art history course, which was based on Gombrich's The Story of Art. What was great about it was it gave us an overview of the whole of western art, from the Byzantine era, through the Renaissance, right up to the impressionists and early modernists. From there it was much easier to see what my choices were when it came to picking areas to go into in greater depth and much easier to see the significance of those things in terms of their contexts.

[shortstoryfan]

I've taken survey courses and courses focused on 6 or 7 texts, and I think the survey courses would be better in this instance. My survey course teacher is very knowlegable in his field, and really does a good job of giving us a sense of depth. I think the depth courses though, have kind of been harder to access. In fact, many of them, I find, rely on me having knowledge I simply don't have and am at a loss as to where I was to have gotten it. Scholarly articles usually aren't the best thing to give to non-English majors either.