Scan barcode
tcerafice's review against another edition
4.0
like he’s right but he didn’t have to be like uber pretentious
colin_cox's review
4.0
Why Read? pivots from a seemingly simple idea adapted from Richard Rorty: all of us have Final Narratives which are "the ultimate set of terms that we use to confer value on experience. It's where our principles are manifest" (25). According to Edmundson, these Final Narratives are precise ideological positions that guide how we behave and interact with the world around us (what else would one expect ideology to do?). The teacher's task, in this specific case the university professor's, is to use the tenets of the humanities to guide students to newer, more complex Final Narratives. I suspect Edmundson might quibble with my use of "guide" in the previous sentence because he is equally committed to not being overly presciptive. He argues, "Get to your students' Final Narratives...seek out the defining beliefs. Uncover central convictions about politics, love, money, and the good life" (28). The distinction between "get" and "guide" are important to Edmundson. In addition, he sees the humanities as a necessary democratic mechanism. The loss of such a guiding mechanism turns a people into savagely passive consumers. In his final, passionate defense of the humanities, he proclaims, "Imagine a nation, or world, where people have fuller self-knowledge, fuller self-determination, where self-making is a primary objective not just in the material sphere but in the circles of the mind and heart...We humanities teachers can help create such a world" (142-143). Ultimately, statements like this encapsulate what I enjoy, appreciate, and simultaneously loathe about this book.
By his own omission, Edmundson is naively committed to the humanities and what it offers to students with the correct disposition. He sees the search for truth as the preferred method of analysis that humanities teachers, professors, and scholars should undertake. He dismisses New Historicism for missing the point of scholarship. He dismisses critical theory at large for its preoccupation with pedantry. His criticisms are well taken, in fact, on the whole I agree with him (with some reservations, of course). These criticisms make him seem at times a little stodgy. But I concede his point because he is ultimately critical of the industry that has emerged around humanities scholarship and pedagogy.
Yet, I cannot help but tentatively agree with the overarching claim made in Why Read?. Great literature has a message or truth. Check. Some popular forms of entertainment are just that, entertainment. Check. The study of great literature can and will make you a better person by expanding your horizons. Check...maybe...seems a little too simplistic, but I suspect that's his point.
By his own omission, Edmundson is naively committed to the humanities and what it offers to students with the correct disposition. He sees the search for truth as the preferred method of analysis that humanities teachers, professors, and scholars should undertake. He dismisses New Historicism for missing the point of scholarship. He dismisses critical theory at large for its preoccupation with pedantry. His criticisms are well taken, in fact, on the whole I agree with him (with some reservations, of course). These criticisms make him seem at times a little stodgy. But I concede his point because he is ultimately critical of the industry that has emerged around humanities scholarship and pedagogy.
Yet, I cannot help but tentatively agree with the overarching claim made in Why Read?. Great literature has a message or truth. Check. Some popular forms of entertainment are just that, entertainment. Check. The study of great literature can and will make you a better person by expanding your horizons. Check...maybe...seems a little too simplistic, but I suspect that's his point.
ericaceae's review against another edition
3.0
Trying on ideas found in literature to see if they work or improve your life is a great plan. Making literature the actual basis for your religion is absurd.
bloodravenlib's review against another edition
2.0
I just have a quick note in my journal that I read it back in 2004. However, it was a busy time, so I barely mentioned reading it. I barely recall it, but it was ok.
bbyrer's review against another edition
5.0
Although it is, at times, self-righteous, this book makes the compelling case for an adjustment of the teaching (and learning) of the Humanities through books. Mr Edmundson declares that with the current form of analysis through a negotiated lexicon and theoretical lenses, we pass over the intrinsic value of classic books. By failing to ask simple questions such as “Can I live according to this/these character(s)?” or “What is life?”—in the context of the book’s worldview and narrative—we disallow students to find meaning in an increasingly secular society. The consumption of classics and other strong-minded literature, at its best, can reveal inspiration or the limits of life and the people within. Therefore, we must engage with reading in a different manner so as to nullify the lazy malaise of popular culture and hedonistic tendencies of the late-20th and 21st centuries.
jeremychiasson's review against another edition
3.0
Approaching 150 books on the year, it doesn't seem that I would need to consult a book entitled "Why Read?". Still, I thought it would be an appropriate subject to ponder in my 200th review.
The basic takeaway points from "Why Read?" were:
1. Literature as a Life Guide: Edmundson believes that classic literature should be treated as suggestions for how we can/should live. When you read a great work of art, you should be asking: Can I live this? How would this work in practice? The author argues that students in University are at a major turning point in their life, and are on the cusp of some major life decisions. Bearing this in mind,the author asks: shouldn't we be teaching them how to glean wisdom from these great works, rather than treating literature as a meaningless intellectual game? It would certainly go along way towards making the arts relevant again.
2. Discipleship: Mark Edmundson states that too much time is spent learning critical theory, which leads to an arrogant, detached way of looking at literature. Instead of smugly dismissing Dostoevsky using Derrida, we'd do better to try and become Dostoevsky's disciples. By this, Edmundson means that it is a teacher's job to merge with the author, so they can make the best possible case for their relevance to their class. Then you can let your students decide whether they can find personal value in the work. Northrop Frye's complete immersion in Blake, is used as the ideal example of this so-called "discipleship".
Along those lines, Edmundson goes so far as to suggest that literature could supplant religion, leading to a golden age of secular wisdom. He tiptoes around it a little bit, but you get the sense that he's just being diplomatic. I wish he hadn't been so polite, I was very interested in pursuing this line of inquiry, even if I wasn't completely sold.
All in all, it is a passionately argued little book, but not exactly earth-shattering to someone who already reads the way he is espousing. Still, it was validating to read a high-profile academic/teacher agree with me. If my professors at University saw things that way, I probably wouldn't have dropped out.
The basic takeaway points from "Why Read?" were:
1. Literature as a Life Guide: Edmundson believes that classic literature should be treated as suggestions for how we can/should live. When you read a great work of art, you should be asking: Can I live this? How would this work in practice? The author argues that students in University are at a major turning point in their life, and are on the cusp of some major life decisions. Bearing this in mind,the author asks: shouldn't we be teaching them how to glean wisdom from these great works, rather than treating literature as a meaningless intellectual game? It would certainly go along way towards making the arts relevant again.
2. Discipleship: Mark Edmundson states that too much time is spent learning critical theory, which leads to an arrogant, detached way of looking at literature. Instead of smugly dismissing Dostoevsky using Derrida, we'd do better to try and become Dostoevsky's disciples. By this, Edmundson means that it is a teacher's job to merge with the author, so they can make the best possible case for their relevance to their class. Then you can let your students decide whether they can find personal value in the work. Northrop Frye's complete immersion in Blake, is used as the ideal example of this so-called "discipleship".
Along those lines, Edmundson goes so far as to suggest that literature could supplant religion, leading to a golden age of secular wisdom. He tiptoes around it a little bit, but you get the sense that he's just being diplomatic. I wish he hadn't been so polite, I was very interested in pursuing this line of inquiry, even if I wasn't completely sold.
All in all, it is a passionately argued little book, but not exactly earth-shattering to someone who already reads the way he is espousing. Still, it was validating to read a high-profile academic/teacher agree with me. If my professors at University saw things that way, I probably wouldn't have dropped out.
meghan_brannon_reese's review against another edition
3.0
I’d give this 3.5 stars if I could, because there are parts of what Edmundson said that really resonated with me about the role that literature does, can, and should play in the lives of people, particularly in its ability to shape how we live and its potential democratizing effects.
However, there are moments that feel, not exactly pedantic, but very much steeped in a particular privileged worldview. He comes across in places as paternalistic, seems to favor the traditional canon, and poo-poohs pop culture and less canonical works. I think all forms of writing can be transformative, so I had a hard time with his stances on that (Stephen King fans, beware. He calls King a sentimental writer and suggests his understanding of the human condition is a bit facile.).
I don’t happen to agree with him there, and in a few other places, but generally I like his take on the Final Narrative and his advocating for reading and the Humanities in general.
It’s a slim book, but it took me a while to get through, as I was finishing other books on a deadline, and I admit I did get impatient with his tone, so I’d leave it frequently, only to come back because I so valued what he said in the first 80 or so pages.
Overall, it was a worthwhile read. It gave me some things to think about and made me re-examine both my pedagogy and praxis, so though there were issues with the book, I consider it a good use of my time and attention.
However, there are moments that feel, not exactly pedantic, but very much steeped in a particular privileged worldview. He comes across in places as paternalistic, seems to favor the traditional canon, and poo-poohs pop culture and less canonical works. I think all forms of writing can be transformative, so I had a hard time with his stances on that (Stephen King fans, beware. He calls King a sentimental writer and suggests his understanding of the human condition is a bit facile.).
I don’t happen to agree with him there, and in a few other places, but generally I like his take on the Final Narrative and his advocating for reading and the Humanities in general.
It’s a slim book, but it took me a while to get through, as I was finishing other books on a deadline, and I admit I did get impatient with his tone, so I’d leave it frequently, only to come back because I so valued what he said in the first 80 or so pages.
Overall, it was a worthwhile read. It gave me some things to think about and made me re-examine both my pedagogy and praxis, so though there were issues with the book, I consider it a good use of my time and attention.
redbecca's review against another edition
3.0
This book is thought-provoking despite being a bit of a reactionary manifesto against cultural studies as it exists in English departments. The general argument is to teachers, whom the author would like to see adopt the model of Robin Williams' character in the Dead Poets Society when teaching English classes. That is, he argues that literature promotes values for humanity to live by, and that the way to teach this is to inspire reverence for great books. In the process, Edmundson makes some very insightful observations about the reading process itself, especially as it relates to identification and self-development. He deplores the use of literary theory as a mechanical exercise that elevates the critic above the truth and beauty of literary work. There is validity to this critique of contemporary criticism - many people who love literature also rebel against literary critics who seem to reduce inspiring books to mere examples of ideology. Put more sympathetically, the criticism he despises is more democratic than what he advocates. It pulls works of art down to earth, rather than upholding them as idols, showing that they are products of a complex and hierarchical society at specific historical conjunctures, rather than bearers of transcendent human truth. While I agree with a certain argument he makes about both teaching and reading - that readers should think from within texts in order to understand them, and that books can be criticized based on the idea of what kind of model for life they provide, this very way of reading a book can also be understood to be exactly what the best engaged, ideological criticism actually does. The reverential attitude toward literature is often experienced by students as simply a worshipful approach to western civilization and all its inequalities - they do not feel empowered by identifying with works of literature in which characters they might identify with exist only as foils, enemies, and obstacles. Even if some of the critical work that points out these problems in western literature appears tendentious and reductive, they might be described as essentially democratic in their irreverence and iconoclasm. Edmundson's argument that critical approaches to great books are really promoting a snobbish hatred of literature is a bit of a familiar straw-man argument that uses the charge of elitism to deflect criticism of one's favorites, whatever the favorites may be.
mlindner's review against another edition
5.0
Not sure when I read this but I did. Well, maybe this is what blogs are for?! http://marklindner.info/blog/2005/07/09/why-read-a-review/
nes166's review against another edition
1.0
I liked the premise of the book and the first few pages, so I purchased it. I thought Edmundson sounded a little old-school in his theory and approach, but her really lost me when he starting reinforcing author's intention as the point of the "art of interpretation" (55). I skipped forward to the last few chapters, where he has unclear messages about the "canon," multiculturalism, pop culture studies ("But we can do better [than pop culture studies] [135]), and he makes a pointed rip at the "cultural studies gang" (121). But then, flipping back through the book, I'm hard-pressed to find mention of female authors or authors of color - Bronte, Shelley, Austen, and Malcom X are mentioned. Indeed, "Gender and Identification" doesn't seem to address gender at all. Definitely a bail for me.