Scan barcode
mlindner's review
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
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.
timk's review
1.0
This book should be named “why we should make collage students read” I’d recommend Azar Nafisi instead. While her work is also mostly centered around university it’s a lot more practical for everyday life.
If you’ve read “Reading Lolita in Tehran” and/or “The Republic of Imagination” this book becomes superfluous.
If you’ve read “Reading Lolita in Tehran” and/or “The Republic of Imagination” this book becomes superfluous.
nicreadsbooks's review
2.0
Book started alright, but he seemed to deviate from the premise of his book. By the end of the book, I wasn't quite sure if he was writing an Emersonian essay for a new American democracy or if a literary education was essential for every individual.
lep42's review
3.0
This book contained some provocative (and at the same time common sense) ideas about what the purpose of reading should be/how literature should be taught on the college level. I'd particularly recommend this book for teachers at all levels.
"The test of a book lies in its power to map or transform a life. The question we would ultimately ask of any work of art is this: Can you live it?" I recently moved from the East Coast to New Mexico. When I took a look on my shelves today at the books I already read that I choose to bring with me, they were noticeably books I could live.
"Democratic humanism a risk. We are betting that people will prefer life to death, creation to destruction, freedom to servitude."
"The test of a book lies in its power to map or transform a life. The question we would ultimately ask of any work of art is this: Can you live it?" I recently moved from the East Coast to New Mexico. When I took a look on my shelves today at the books I already read that I choose to bring with me, they were noticeably books I could live.
"Democratic humanism a risk. We are betting that people will prefer life to death, creation to destruction, freedom to servitude."
zelanator's review
5.0
This short essay turned into treatise was fascinating. Read from the perspective of a teacher of the humanities, Edmundson offers a number of fantastic ways that we can engage students in self-discovery and self-actualization through encounters with the best and greatest that’s been written in the past. Edmundson is able to succinctly argue why reading—and reading the complex, great works—still
matters in a world where fewer and fewer people see reading as a desirable alternative to television, social media, and other distractions.
matters in a world where fewer and fewer people see reading as a desirable alternative to television, social media, and other distractions.
daltonlp's review
4.0
What faces us is the prospect of a world where meaning withdraws and people are left in the midst of soul-destroying emptiness, hopping and blinking and taking their little poison for the day and their little poison for the night.
ashleybeth's review against another edition
2.0
Interesting but still not sure it was at all helpful or relevant to my topic. Oh well.
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.
bookwormmichelle's review against another edition
3.0
Hmm. I hardly know what to think of this book. I cheered at some parts, groaned at others.
The author, a humanities professor, wants us to reassess how (and why) we teach great literature. I was delighted at his well-aimed blows at over-analysis and literary criticism as ends in themselves, of the efforts of so many (including so many of my teachers) to distance the student from the work, telling us that its only value is to be picked apart as an intellectual exercise. This is fun for bright people, but eventually pales for many.
Unfortunately, Edmundson insists on seeing the role of literature as a sort of "religion replacement." His vision seems to be something like this--students show up in class with many built-in biases, being used only to being entertained. Teacher takes great book, "interprets" it for his students as a way to live, and lobs this at the students until he ends up challenging and exploding all those preconceived notions they came in with (he calls these things a "life narrative"). Upon seeing that religion really has no answer to life's questions, all the really worthwhile students will take poetry or literature as their religion instead, and go out to promulgate this gospel themselves. What about the students who fail to "convert"? Well, they really weren't good material for a true "literary education" anyway and they can go on to live mostly narrow but slightly enhanced lives. (While Edmundson claims he does not intend to "convert" students, it is obvious that he thinks the really good ones will pretty much come around to seeing things his way in general.)
While I appreciate Edmundson's excellent arguments in favor of examining literature as a way to find personal meaning, I cannot puzzle out why he insists that it must become the only way to find personal meaning. Why cannot a student come in with genuine beliefs, and find that literature sometimes supports, sometimes challenges, sometimes helps refine those beliefs, without requiring their rejection? Why does he insist on saying that religion really doesn't offer students a way to live--perhaps it did once, but we desperately need a new way now? This is a worthwhile read, but ends up in some strange places.
The author, a humanities professor, wants us to reassess how (and why) we teach great literature. I was delighted at his well-aimed blows at over-analysis and literary criticism as ends in themselves, of the efforts of so many (including so many of my teachers) to distance the student from the work, telling us that its only value is to be picked apart as an intellectual exercise. This is fun for bright people, but eventually pales for many.
Unfortunately, Edmundson insists on seeing the role of literature as a sort of "religion replacement." His vision seems to be something like this--students show up in class with many built-in biases, being used only to being entertained. Teacher takes great book, "interprets" it for his students as a way to live, and lobs this at the students until he ends up challenging and exploding all those preconceived notions they came in with (he calls these things a "life narrative"). Upon seeing that religion really has no answer to life's questions, all the really worthwhile students will take poetry or literature as their religion instead, and go out to promulgate this gospel themselves. What about the students who fail to "convert"? Well, they really weren't good material for a true "literary education" anyway and they can go on to live mostly narrow but slightly enhanced lives. (While Edmundson claims he does not intend to "convert" students, it is obvious that he thinks the really good ones will pretty much come around to seeing things his way in general.)
While I appreciate Edmundson's excellent arguments in favor of examining literature as a way to find personal meaning, I cannot puzzle out why he insists that it must become the only way to find personal meaning. Why cannot a student come in with genuine beliefs, and find that literature sometimes supports, sometimes challenges, sometimes helps refine those beliefs, without requiring their rejection? Why does he insist on saying that religion really doesn't offer students a way to live--perhaps it did once, but we desperately need a new way now? This is a worthwhile read, but ends up in some strange places.