Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rov Liddle's avatar

I remember being taught The Great Gatsby in High School. It was the kind of teaching which is geared toward prepping you for particular essay questions. I came away with the belief that literature consisted entirely of deliberately hidden clues and symbols, and by decoding them correctly the reader could mine a concrete set of meanings from the text like gold; you either "get it" or you don't. Faltering my way through an English degree like a blind whale on two legs somehow didn't disabuse me of that idea.

I was in my mid-twenties before I discovered that you really can just experience and describe a text, more or less straightforwardly as it is. You can taste it like it's a sandwich, no math necessary, and appreciate it for the flavour. That was also around the time I started to like myself more and make friends more easily, although I'm sure that's unrelated.

Props to Mr Hetler. He sounds like a real one.

"Let me submit the following practical suggestion. Literature, real literature, must not be gulped down like some potion which may be good for the heart or good for the brain - the brain, that stomach of the soul. Literature must be taken and broken to bits, pulled apart, squashed - then its lovely reek will be smelt in the hollow of the palm, it will be munched and rolled upon the tongue with relish; then, and only then, its rare flavor will be appreciated at its true worth and the broken and crushed parts will again come together in your mind and disclose the beauty of a unity to which you have contributed something of your own blood."

- Nabokov

Expand full comment
LF's avatar

Most of the time when I see an argument for reading things outside of "the cannon" the response is a straw man saying person A is "unintellectual" or "emotional". It seems to me that the person replying is the one exhibiting those traits. I think there's a good argument for reading other things because that will make someone a stronger reader. I remember a teacher asking us to think further than symbols and foreshadowing while reading "fool's crow". It was a bit jarring to have to completely reexamine my reader's toolbox, but I think it made me a stronger reader to analyze literature outside of the predetermined categories I had become accustomed to.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I liked this piece and thank you for sharing that one from Howe.

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts