Teaching Oneself Literature

[FoghornBellows]

I am majoring in biology and minoring in neuroscience. However, I want to learn how to understand literature on the level that it is taught in college classes. My parents will not pay me for to major in literature. That is not going to change.
Thus far, I've had the suggestions that I read voraciously and read critical literature from books. I am still struggling, though I will confess I have not read much critical literature yet. I also do not know the sequence of events--should I read critical literature on a piece before or after I begin it? When I read Kafka, I'm completely befuddled, and I've been struggling with him for weeks now.
Is it even possible to teach oneself to understand literature on an advanced college level? What are the substitutes for good teachers? What should I do? I have a library of about 50 books glaring at me.
Please offer honest and cogent advice. It will be greatly appreciated.
- Matt

[glover7]

No, no, no, no, no!

I've caught you before anybody else posted here. As a comparative literature student, I can tell you that you should NOT, no matter what anyone here tells you, start with the criticism of a work before reading the work itself. I do not care if someone quotes Harold Bloom to you.

In literary theory, around Bloom's time, theory and criticism attempted to compete with the works they criticized to the point where the story no longer mattered. This is NOT how a good literature student looks at literature. You should approach works on a case by case basis, bringing to it your own interpretations rather than relying on the (mostly boring and esoteric) works of others.

That being said, I can now calmly give you my own opinion on how to study literature at a college level: Read and write. After you read a text, whether it be a novel, epic, poem, epistolary, etc., write down your thoughts about it. Following that, structure those thoughts into a coherent essay arguing a point that is important to you. It sounds completely nerdy, but I've written around twenty essays that no one has ever read and that have never been submitted to a professor. They are not of inferior quality to my classwork; simply, they are irrelevant to any courses I have taken.

Sorry for the outburst in the beginning, but I have seen so much enthusiasm for reading crushed by people's insistence on having read theory before reading a text on its own. It's stupid because theory and criticism are means of interpretation, which you are perfectly capable of doing yourself.

[OrphanPip]

Well I have a degree in microbiology, and like you I didn't have much opportunity to study English at university. I don't think even many literature majors understand Kafka on the first go. I would recommend you read the work, then you read some criticism, then you reread the work of literature. Also, it might be worth it to start with something a lot simpler than Kafka

[kelby_lake]

Start with the work otherwise you're in danger of being swayed by critical opinions. Read the work, reflect on your own opinions, then read criticism and reflect on that. Does the critic have a point? Can you see where he might have got that opinion from? Criticism should be criticised too.

[mayneverhave]

Read criticism before you read the text? No.
Read it after? Of course.

This is coming from a person - though majoring in English at my university - who is well aware of the fact that the majority of what I have read during my 4 years has been on my own. None of my classes had me reading Dante, Rilke, Faulkner, Yeats, Pushkin, Dostoevsky, etc., so this makes me something of a paradox: an autodidact with a bachelor's degree.

[dfloyd]

read, read, and read some more. As an engineering type with a minor in mathematics, I can tell you it is much easier to understand literature than it is to comprehend engineering principles.

I have never read any literary criticism, and don't feel I've missed much. Perhaps you just got started on the wrong writer. I can remember how 30 years ago, I had a hard time with Shakespeare. Now I have read all 37 plays, and can enjoy them without reference to any outside source.

Undedrstanding Kafka's The Trial is not bad. I'm not certain anyone fully understands Metamorphosis (or is it ses, I can never remember).

It can help tremendously to watch the various courses offered by The Teaching Company. They offer everything from The Iliad and The Odyssey to James Joyce. They are 1/2 hour lectures on dvd and consist of 12 or more lectures per course. They are taught by University professors with a PHd degree. The last one I watched was on Joyce's Ulysses for (I think) 9 hours or 18 lectures. They can be purchased on line, but our local library stocks almost all so I've never had to buy any.Good luck!

[FoghornBellows]

I've been foundering in the assumption that I simply cannot understand Kafka. Today I simply read and re-read one of his aphorisms until I finally understood it. There is a lot of silence in his work; he has one connect many dots without aid. Reminds me of Camus' "The Stranger" a bit.
The leitmotif of your responses seems to be to read and subjectively analyze. For me, this requires several readings and a lot of thought. However, when I finally solve the puzzles, I'm buzzed. I had a lot of self-doubts approaching literature. I'm sure I'll come against them again, but in the meantime, I owe each of you a thank you.

[Dori]

You could also start with short stories; they're at least shorter. Get yourself a copy of "The Bedford Introduction to Literature".

[Modest Proposal]

I've responded to a couple of your threads now, and I wonder if you may just not like literature as much as you want to like literature. Honestly, it took me years--working toward my PhD--to realize how little English courses do besides force you to read, write and discuss--all things that can simply be done outside of a class--.

Here's what I suggest:

Read. Read and read. Mostly novels and short stories at first. Even if you aren't "getting" it all. Read.

Then read a little light criticism. Maybe even just book reviews to start. But keep mostly to fiction. Read more.

Now, find some freinds--hopefully in person--and set up a time to talk ABOUT A BOOK. Sit for the allotted time and discuss how the book's story seemed relevent to something you find important. Or talk about how it didn't. Now talk about why.

Finally, write. Chose the book you found most interesting and relevant and write a short essay on why it seemed so. Remember writing doesn't have to be--and often SHOULDN'T be a process of explaining but a process of understandig. You will be amazed how much you realize as you find yourself writing and going back through looking for relevent passsages. Your retroactive looking will connect the most recently read passages to ones you read before that didn't seem so important.

Honestly, I don't know what to say other than this. You seem so in earnest to WANT to like literature and willing to extend your time and effort but unable to be moved. Usually it is the opposite; people are moved but too lasy to take the time to read. Literature just may not be your cup 'o tea.

[sixsmith]

I've responded to a couple of your threads now, and I wonder if you may just not like literature as much as you want to like literature. Honestly, it took me years--working toward my PhD--to realize how little English courses do besides force you to read, write and discuss--all things that can simply be done outside of a class--.

Here's what I suggest:

Read. Read and read. Mostly novels and short stories at first. Even if you aren't "getting" it all. Read.

Then read a little light criticism. Maybe even just book reviews to start. But keep mostly to fiction. Read more.

Now, find some freinds--hopefully in person--and set up a time to talk ABOUT A BOOK. Sit for the allotted time and discuss how the book's story seemed relevent to something you find important. Or talk about how it didn't. Now talk about why.

Finally, write. Chose the book you found most interesting and relevant and write a short essay on why it seemed so. Remember writing doesn't have to be--and often SHOULDN'T be a process of explaining but a process of understandig. You will be amazed how much you realize as you find yourself writing and going back through looking for relevent passsages. Your retroactive looking will connect the most recently read passages to ones you read before that didn't seem so important.

Honestly, I don't know what to say other than this. You seem so in earnest to WANT to like literature and willing to extend your time and effort but unable to be moved. Usually it is the opposite; people are moved but too lasy to take the time to read. Literature just may not be your cup 'o tea.

Basically agree. I think you're over thinking this Foghorn. I majored in English at university (along with History) and i hated a great deal of it. I believe that much of the jargon heavy theory i was exposed to primarily serves to prop up professors who are of no other use. Sorry to any deconstructionist hangers-on out there. Moreover, even the courses that i enjoyed did not provide any 'a-ha' moments of clarity. I never really had time to read closely let alone reflect sufficiently on what i was reading. I can unequivocally state that i've learnt more about literature in the years since i left university than i did when i was studying.

My approach is basically what the posters set out above. I'll make some basic notes, underline passages I like or consider prescient/important. Sometimes i'll scratch out a very, very short essay. Though it is assuredly considered lowbrow by some, I also find that many public critics provide an accessible window into texts. But don't get hung up on not 'getting' things. Kafka is one of my favourite authors and I remain befuddled by a good deal he writes. You've already referenced Camus in thinking about Kafka so that tells me you're understanding something.

Ultimately if you have a love of literature, you'll become educated in literature. Some of the most passionate and learned readers i know come from educational backgrounds totally unrelated to English lit. Don't sweat it - just enjoy it.

[dfloyd]

I read many, many books before I read Kafka. Why not start with some clasics of American literature. Some of the books I read at first were A Conneticut Yakee, Huckleberry Finn, and The Scarlet Letter. It seems to me you're trying to hard. When I read The Brothers Karamazov at twenty, I had a hard time with it. Wen I read it at Thirty, it had gotten much easier. When I read it at forty, I zipped through it. Writing an essay may help, but other than reading the book introduction before and after reading the book, I have not used outside help except for the Teaching Company's lectures which are much better than normal college courses because of the quality of the teachers.

[stlukesguild]

I can only concur with most of what has already been said. The only way to a better understanding, fluency and appreciation of literature is to read a lot. Don't read only novels and short stories but also philosophy, essays, plays, biographies, poetry, etc... If you find that you are completely baffled or simply dislike what you are reading, move on. Not every book... no matter how good... is for everybody... at every age. As you gain experience with literature, you will find that you will develop a fluency... an understanding and appreciation of the use of language, literary forms, symbols, etc... You will also find that you need not focus on the more esoteric strains of literature that you may imagine will impress. A great many works that seem straight-forward and easy will reveal greater and greater depths upon re-readings...

[mortalterror]

“Read, read, read. Read everything - trash, classics, good and bad, and see how they do it. Just like a carpenter who works as an apprentice and studies the master. Read! You'll absorb it. Then write. If it is good, you'll find out. If it's not, throw it out the window.”- William Faulkner

Mice: But reading all the good writers might discourage you.
Y.C.: Then you ought to be discouraged.
Mice: What is the best early training for a writer?
Y.C.: An unhappy childhood.
-Ernest Hemingway

[JBI]

I can only concur with most of what has already been said. The only way to a better understanding, fluency and appreciation of literature is to read a lot. Don't read only novels and short stories but also philosophy, essays, plays, biographies, poetry, etc... If you find that you are completely baffled or simply dislike what you are reading, move on. Not every book... no matter how good... is for everybody... at every age. As you gain experience with literature, you will find that you will develop a fluency... an understanding and appreciation of the use of language, literary forms, symbols, etc... You will also find that you need not focus on the more esoteric strains of literature that you may imagine will impress. A great many works that seem straight-forward and easy will reveal greater and greater depths upon re-readings...

I couldn't agree more.

[mal4mac]

I read Kafka's main novels when I was about 17, on the science track, and not very well read. I thought they were wonderful. So I don't think you need to read a bookcase full of serious literature. Maybe your mind just needs to work in certain ways? Maybe i was well primed by reading "complex" science fiction - Ballard, Orwell, Huxley...? You might want to try these authors and then come back to Kafka. Certainly don't give up on literature, try reading the best (or most approachable!) works of several writers until someone clicks.