Use a Combination! Approaches to studying literature.
March 9, 2008 by ilrlo
In the couple of readings that discuss reader-response approach versus close textual reading/interpretation, I agree with a teacher’s response to a narrative in Alsup and Bush. The narrative tells about a teacher’s experience in having students write a personal response that ties into The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. After students read about how being on a raft in the middle of a river is a safe peaceful place for Huck, the teacher asks the students to choose a personal place to write about that students associate with peaceful and happy feelings. The response of another teacher to this lesson is positive, but this teacher takes the lesson a little farther. This teacher suggests that the activity could move into “deeper analysis and criticism of Huck Finn” by reflecting on the time period in which the character is living, the actions that take place on the river, how the actions and setting reflect the culture, etc. This teacher basically suggests that students can benefit from both making personal connections and by literary study.
I like this narrative and the response because I think that approaching a text at times using reader-response theory can be a catalyst for involving students in moving into analysis, interpretation, studying themes, characterization, culture, and criticisms. By first addressing the text in context with personal experience, students may be more easily drawn into the text. Once students have entered the story and engaged their interests, perhaps they would be open to deeper more critical literary study. Focusing only on reader-response or on close textual reading leaves out a huge chunk of learning opportunity. Making only personal connections does not fully help students to understand how issues look through different perspectives. By beginning with personal perspective and moving through various theories/lenses, students will have a broader range of understanding, open-mindedness, and communication skills.
I have not thought about it enough previously, but I have found that I do agree with Appleman’s prompts to share with students the definition of reader-response theory. Students should know that what they are using at times to interpret or connect to texts is a certain lens. Once students understand that, even when they are looking at a text in connection to their own lives, they are using a specific kind of process, students should not be as intimidated when they are called upon to try on some other lens.
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
I agree with you that students ought to know the underpinnings of reader’s response, but perhaps not for the same reasons that you do. Your post makes me think of the chapter in Bruce Pirie’s book Reshaping High School English entitled “Beyond Barney and the Cult of the Individual”; it was cited in the Appleman book on p. 28. He argues that by soliciting students’ opinions without context, we may be “romanticizing” the individual at the expense of context. In other words, by simply asking students what they “feel” about a given reading, we’re elevating their opinions far beyond where they deserve to be. Face it: High-school kids have always been self-absorbed, and with a culture that tells them that they’re the center of the universe, do we really need to be further feeding their egos by making their opinions paramount? I think not. That’s why I agree with Appleman (and you) that students ought to understand the balance inherent in the reader’s response approach. Kids should at least have some awareness of context before their opinions can mean anything. I’m not worried about kids not expressing their viewpoints. In fact, I’m more concerned about them spouting their opinions and calling it learning at the expense of academic rigor.
Wow, did I just write all that? Gosh, I guess I did …
I completely agree with your take on reader-response theory. The first and foremost step to get students invested in any literature is to connect the text with their own lives. Once a student achieves the “lens” from the text to their life, their opinions and experience are being shared with the text, and that makes reading the personal experience we as teachers are attempting to share with them.
To connect my students to the text, I use journal topics. For instance, in my class I am starting on the novella “Anthem” by Ayn Rand, so my journal topic was to define equality and explain to me when equality is necessary and when it is not. We then have a discussion about it where I connect the idea of equality to my student’s lives, and at the end of the discussion I segway into a conversation about the novella. Hopefully this invests them into the text. At the very least it creates some spirited discussion.
Every time I speak of “themes” with my students, I have to come to them with a disclaimer that it’s possible to find a different theme within the text than we talk about in class, since a different individual reading the same text creates a different text. My students might think this is some new wave type of thinking, but in actuality, it’s reader response theory.
I concur with your point about giving students the definition of the lens and knowledge of knowledge of a specific approach for two reasons: Number one, students who develop metacognition skills (thinking about their thinking) become better readers and writers, and, number two, students should know when their personal connections are relevant to discussion. Especially for college prep students, close reading skills are essential. But students should not necessarily come away with a view of literature as a cold thing to be dissected, and reader response definitely helps students enjoy reading more if nothing else. Or does it? I wonder if students instead see literature as flabby compared to other subjects, and therefore apply less effort, which further undermines their potential enjoyment. But, as you suggest, combining approaches can help students practice useful methods of analysis, and keep any one approach from growing too stale.
Utopian, you ask a very good question. Do students see literature as flabby? I feel that my students feel that literature is easy and unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I am often told that my homework was not as important as their math or science or even world history assignments. The question that I end up asking myself is how can reader response theory influence a student’s opinion of a literature classroom. While other theories, such as Marxist or Feminist, seem cold they may feel rigorous to a student than reader response. They may not have the easy feeling that reader response may have but at the same time, other theories exclude the reader from the transaction. I think that the only solution is to balance the theories that students are exposed to.