Teaching Literature as a Science

[Gladys]

You mean that the meaning is to be found in the text and not made up intuitively. I agree with that.

Precisely. When interpreting a page of text, almost all students leap to intuition, instead of seeking sequentially all the evidence presented on the page.

I look at understanding literature as circles that over lap each other One circle is the author's intention and then there are circles of different meanings that surround, intersect, and create subsets of interpretations.

For me the innermost circle contains the literal meaning(s) conveyed by written language.

They will fail when meeting Kafka. So their method will be a failure.

Placing literary criticism on a more scientific footing can only be an improvement on the current fetish with Freud, Marx, feminism and colonialism. I am advocating a systematic (more scientific) approach, which expects students to first establish the literal meaning conveyed by the written language of text.

I love Kafka, and I am certain that students can make little progress here also, unless they first establish the literal meaning conveyed by the written language of each paragraph. Sadly, students instead use the teacher or a study guide as a crutch.

I also love Soren Kierkegaard, and I defy anyone to understand a word he writes without rigorously decoding literal meaning.

...is there any place where basic linguistic principles are not taught before even mathematics?

In Australia, at least, such teaching is woefully lacking in rigour. We need a more scientific approach - both to reading and to teaching!

[Virgil]

Precisely. When interpreting a page of text, almost all students leap to intuition, instead of seeking sequentially all the evidence presented on the page.



For me the innermost circle contains the literal meaning(s) conveyed by written language.

I agree with mostly what your saying Gladys. Just be aware that language that is dramatised or incorporates a conceit (metaphor) requires a leap of understanding that is not literal. We have to interpret to a higher level of abstraction what the conveyed dram implies.

[JCamilo]

I am baffled by the idea that literal meaning is under such damage. For what I know most people can graps this and mostly, the reason why literature is in danger is because writers only use a basical literal meaning. Are you sure, Gladys, that most people in Australia trouble is not the literal meaning, but when they attempt to convey anything beyond this? For example, Kafka is almost pointless if we only consider the literal meaning.

In other hand, the proper teaching of language must be used, I am not sure if this is scientific or in what sense would this apply. But I am sure, the intuitive understanding of a text is fundamental. The greatest, in my opinion, critic of XX century is Borges and he is intuitive. (I must give my example, I did not studied english, just a basic level. I started to read english because I had to follow texts - most comics books or animation subs - in english. They are basic, so I feel one day confidant to read a book. I started with a dictionary at my side but in the second page I abandoned it. The meaning of the text could be achived by intuintion, by the fact I reckonized elements of the text from previous experiences, etc) Of course, he have a great knowledge, but nothing of that is organized or basead on systems. The Marxism and Freudiam feitish (bad indeed) are attempts to create systems.
Again, I must say that it depends: I do not even know if you are talking about young kids that are learning the ABC or more madure students. The objectives changes, the teaching plan must change as well.

[Gladys]

Just be aware that language that is dramatised or incorporates a conceit (metaphor) requires a leap of understanding that is not literal.

With a metaphor, for instance, visualising the precise literal meaning, in the immediate context of the paragraph, may well lead to clarity.

I am baffled by the idea that literal meaning is under such damage. For what I know most people can grasp this and mostly, the reason why literature is in danger is because writers only use a basic literal meaning.

I would argue that 'literal meaning' is much more important than you suggest. Incidentally, I know several gifted students (in the final year of high-school) and well-educated adults, who speculate about figurative meaning before they have adequately grasped the literal meaning of a passage; they seem to think that some idea of literal meaning is enough. But frequent errors in literal decoding can only undermine their interpretations. Even worse, as they read they disregard evidence from literal decoding that conflicts with their figurative understanding - as if the writer had erred! Such mistakes are made on these forums.

I disagree strongly that literature is in danger 'because writers only use a basic literal meaning'. If a reader were to gain a perfect understanding of the literal meaning(s) of even a Kafka novel, he would have such a grasp of plot and character development that, he would use redundant information scattered throughout the novel to eliminate all but valid interpretations.

Admittedly, a text like T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland demands a wealth of background knowledge. But even here, a rigorous and flawless decoding of literal meaning would take the reader a long way.

Am I to believe that most readers in Brazil decode literal meaning in a rigorous, flawless and scientific way?

[Virgil]

With a metaphor, for instance, visualising the precise literal meaning, in the immediate context of the paragraph, may well lead to clarity.

Yes, and I think it depends on the writer's style. There are writers that strive toward clarity (some times referred to as classical or neo classical) and writers that strive for suggestive or intuitive meaning (sometimes referred to as Romantic though they span all eras). Someone like Shakespeare might be in both camps.

[JCamilo]

With a metaphor, for instance, visualising the precise literal meaning, in the immediate context of the paragraph, may well lead to clarity.

Metaphors are easy, altough they have no literal meaning. The problem starts with allegories for example. The literal meaning will not lead to understanding. Sometimes they would be the very opposite.

I would argue that 'literal meaning' is much more important than you suggest. Incidentally, I know several gifted students (in the final year of high-school) and well-educated adults, who speculate about figurative meaning before they have adequately grasped the literal meaning of a passage; they seem to think that some idea of literal meaning is enough. But frequent errors in literal decoding can only undermine their interpretations. Even worse, as they read they disregard evidence from literal decoding that conflicts with their figurative understanding - as if the writer had erred! Such mistakes are made on these forums.

Literal meaning is the basic level of interpretation. Just it. No great text have vallue because of that, but because the different layers.
But you have said what I said: the problem is not understanding the literal meaning, but moving to the allegorical/poetical meaning being unable to do so. (Ok, I say a problem, but obviously, they have every right to do so.).
And yes, it is annoying when someone confunds the freedom of interpretation with a new form of tirany, instead of the tyrant writer, we have the tyrant reader.

[Gladys]

The problem starts with allegories for example. The literal meaning will not lead to understanding. Sometimes they would be the very opposite.

Inasmuch as an allegory is a rhetorical comparison 'sustained longer and more fully in its details than a metaphor' (to quote from Wikipedia), decoding precisely it's literal meaning takes one a fair distance towards clarity.

[JCamilo]

wiki is not helping. The definition used by Chesterton while analysing the Allegory - Metaphor debate : An allegory is a symbolism used that moves from the universal symbol to a particular meaning. A metaphor uses the different path.
By such (which is not contraditory to wiki definition) an allegory do not use much literarity, but relations and analogies that demmand an outside knowledge.

[Gladys]

An allegory is a symbolism used that moves from the universal symbol to a particular meaning.

Yes; but were a reader to gain a perfect understanding of the literal meaning(s) of an allegory, the nature of 'the universal symbol' would be clear, leaving only a small step to attain the 'particular meaning'

[JCamilo]

not exactly, sometimes the allegorical meaning is contradictory to the literal meaning. Some writers like to pull the carpet bellow the reader.

[Gladys]

A perfect understanding of literal meaning takes one far, but never far enough.

Dostoevsky's The Idiot illustrates this well. Literal meaning will show the peerless integrity of Prince Myshkin, his boundless self-sacrificing compassion, and the terrible toll fate and human selfishness play in undermining his acts of love. But only an appreciation of the ever so subtle allusions to existentialist philosophy and Scripture (the life, sufferings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) can bridge the gap to mature understanding.

[JCamilo]

The idiot is not an allegory however. I agree with you (altough the examples you gave just are obvious to the literal meaning. It is not that hard to see Myshkin as a martyr) that extra information about the context helps.
But the point with the allegory is not this one. It is when the literal meaning conveys no information to help to understand the text. A good example is the Bible. The literal interpretation of the bible is a mistake and often leads (of course, I am not talking about the book of laws,etc) more to ignorance than enlightment.
I am not saying that you can do anything with a text without reading it, but sometimes the literal meaning is a illusion rather than a source of light. Prose writers or with a more realistic style such as Dostoievisky obviously are very linked to the literal meaning.

[Gladys]

The Idiot is not an allegory however. I agree with you (although the examples you gave just are obvious to the literal meaning. It is not that hard to see Myshkin as a martyr) that extra information about the context helps.

But the point with the allegory is not this one. It is when the literal meaning conveys no information to help to understand the text.

The Idiot illustrates my point consummately, with powerful allegorical overtones that are most difficult to see. Within the constraints of realism, the The Idiot (like Albert Camus' The Stranger and George Orwell's Animal Farm) fits this definition of allegory:

Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social or religious significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy.

'It is not that hard to see Myshkin as a martyr', but very difficult to see that martyrdom as that glorious triumph threading through the entire novel. But more of this, later, in the Dostoevsky thread.

[JCamilo]

That because it is your vision, not everyone. And even so, a Martym is someone that tryumph over death. It is not hard to see.
And that definition of Allegory is just flawed. Allegory and metaphors are two different things, so any definition of allegory that afirms it is a metaphor is an over-simplification that is putting in the same bag two forms of symbolism.

They even are contraditory with the earlier definition: the prince (the symbol of the idiot) is something particular moving to an universal symbolism (In this case two universal : the fool and the martyr. Since the allegory moves from universal to particular, that is not the case).

And The Idiot does not help, because great books always work with conection with other works and that was not my point at all: I said about books which the literal meaning are contraditory to the allegorical meaning or that even writers use the literal as a fog cloud to manipulate the writer. I gave the example of the Bible, which literal reading is a flaw and not an asset, insisting on an example that works with the literal meaning wont nullify the example that shows the different relation).

[Gladys]

That because it is your vision, not everyone's.

I've detailed my vision in the post: Allegorical overtones in ‘The Idiot’.