Graff
Helena Lopes
Every once in a while, I read something that perfectly articulates some estranged sense that I had been feeling, and that I did not know I was feeling. This is the case with Graff’s essay. Gerald Graff in his piece “Taking Cover in Coverage” strongly insisted on the need for integrating literary theory in undergraduate university or even high school English or literary studies— something I vehemently agree with. In my experience with English and literary studies, and even in courses in other disciplines, I have always felt an absence of a large, coherent thread that ties our studies together. Graff’s claim that “students need theoretical framework in order to conceptualize, and talk about, literature” really grabbed me and made me realize that I had been missing something in a lot of my studies (109). Learning the particulars just for the sake of the particulars, to me, seems empty and lacks significance. As Graff articulated, “All the close concentration in the world on the particularities of literary texts will not help a student make sense of these particularities without the categories that give them meaning” (110).
I think the integration of literary theory in literary studies is not only beneficial but to some extent necessary. Being familiar with different theories allows one to not just identify already established theories in texts, but it opens up the possibility that the reader can come up with their own theories. In understanding the “conflict” between some theories and theorists, it allows the reader to understand that there are endless forms of literary interpretation, and that maybe they, too, can add to the world of theory. It turns the leisurely reader into a critical reader— which is really the whole point to studying literature in the first place. Studying theory, as we’ve discussed in class, will certainly change how I read for the better. (word count: 310)
Matthew Schumacher
Kaitlin Ormerod
I also definitely agree with Gaff’s argument that literary theory needs to be a part of our education at the undergraduate even high school levels. If we’re supposed to eventually enter into the critical discussion of literature, shouldn’t we have a thorough knowledge of what the conversation has been up until this point? This is not to say that we need to agree with everything that has been said, but I think that we should still understand the thoughts and arguments of those preceding us and those that are going on right now. However, this does not mean to say that I think literary criticism is not already present in undergraduate education, and not just in this class. I think that many of us, if not all, have encountered theory and have been working with it for as long as we’ve been actively training our brains to think about literature; it was just never called “theory.” If you’ve ever done close reading, and learned how to read literature and think critically about it, that’s New Criticism. If you’ve read John Steinbeck, that’s a lot of Marxism. And so on and so forth. Perhaps these ideas weren’t really discussed in detail the way they were in this class, but they do get covered somehow, which is why I would disagree with Gaff’s argument that theory has been completely separated from a study of literature. If anything, it seems to me that criticism and the study of literature are unable to be separated at all. While it’s true that courses are often broken down into genre or time periods or what have you and often are very specific, when have you ever taken a literature class and not critically discussed the works? When did you ever just read them and say that you liked it and that was it? The fact that we are able to talk about literature and articulate why we like or don’t like certain works goes to show that we have absorbed some of these tenants of criticism and can use them to support our own ideas. In the end, I think that’s what it’s all about. You need to know where you come from in order to understand where you are.
Kyle Guadagno
Marlee Brannock
Quenitra Knight
On the number eleven quiz, I was conflicted on which question to answer, but one question out of the four caught my interest with asking “if theories should be a required course for undergraduate requirements.” The response at the beginning of this course would be hell no, but now after the duration of the class my answer changed to a yes because of my new perceptions on life and literature. When Gerald Graff wrote Taking Cover in Coverage he expressed his thoughts of high school and college students are getting an injustice in education. The lack of theories that is not being taught is because of how teaching involves popularization. In a direct quote from Taking Cover in Coverage “It is the average-to-poor student who suffers most from the established curriculum’s poverty of theory, for such a student lacks command of the conceptual contexts that make it possible to integrate perceptions and generalize from them.” In my opinion, the statement from Graff reflects on how typically the average or poor student educational environment isn’t up to par to the students who receive excellent grades. In school, typically the student who reads makes the better grades and those are the ones more likely that are exposed to certain types of theories. When they have the upper hand of exposure in theories they are able to have better understandings in different things like looking at a glass half full or empty. Also, if one took a look at green benches then looked more into the bench then make a connection how the bench is a representation of a man but, it’s the diversity that theories incorporate in students. In education and life in general, diversity is needed and there is no better start than in high school and continuing into undergraduate studies.( Word 300)
Donald DeBevoise
Haley Wetherington
Learning theory should definitely be necessary! And not just for English majors, but for all majors. Theories help you to look at the world through different lenses and they help to give your thoughts something to go off of. You can still very easily be biased even with so much knowledge of theory, but at least you have been made aware of what other ideas and concepts are out in the world. Everyone should be willing and able to see the world through different lenses, not just English majors. Thinking critically and having the ability to look at the world (or a situation) from a different angle makes is more interesting people and, in my opinion, better human beings because maybe we will be less inclined to be so one sided about an issue because we do have the ability to approach a matter from a different side.
We don’t all need to agree on one theory or idea because different ideas help to create new ideas. But by learning other theories, it may help people to become more comfortable with accepting new thoughts and opinions because they are used to hearing a different perspective.
The downside of learning theory is once you’ve been taught… there is no going back. It’s almost as though the ideas are permanently stuck in your head and you start to see examples of Marxism and Feminism in EVERYTHING. Not that this is a bad thing; it’s actually really cool, but you will never again be able to pick up you beloved copy of Harry Potter and read it with the same sense of childlike innocence that you once had. Your head will now be racing with the feminist theories that course throughout the metaphorical veins of the series. However, it gives purpose to my leisure reading and it does make it more interesting.
Word Count: 307
Donald Carbone
Post #5
Graff’s analysis of literature and literary theory in curriculum is something that should be seriously considered. Our schools study literature and enforce reading comprehension, but I think in high school literary theory should be taught and discovered as more developed literature is taught. This is important because the threads and different origins of theory would bring clarity to why authors have different styles and rhetoric. The controversial nature of queer theory, Marxism, and even feminism are not even open for discussion in public schools, let alone the value theory and the evolution and reaction one another throughout history. Graff explains there is no context to the way literature by itself without the theory behind it. It can’t survive any other way, only by studying literature for tests and quizzes, using spark notes to get by and recite theme and motifs, not identifying with the systematic conditions of society set up by interests of classes. He continues by explaining that theory also creates the dialogue and debate when history and perspective are drawn into view through literature that confronts society. Theory has been a vehicle for reform within art in society, the essence of literature. The categories within a pedagogical structure theoretical ones yet have real repercussions the way to decide and teach them. Theory, in my opinion isn’t too difficult for high school to understand, it conveys the way ideas are brought to life through the minds expression and conscious, and literature that reflect major avenues are beneficial for students to understand authorial intent, but also using literary elements to find these theories embedded in the text. Graff’s criticism should be more than considered considering it doesn’t destroy the goal of literature, only permitting a free flow of ideas that can be implemented into an institution of higher learning rather than organizational development driving to only continue itself rather than the education its providing.
nicole valdes
Taryn Fenske
Taryn Fenske- Post #5
Graff’s articulated a need for theory to be integrated into everyday classes concerning literature. After taking many rhetoric classes, I can completely empathize with her article. I feel very educated on the early theories that surround rhetoric, i.e. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates but after that many theories get ignored. For example, I am taking a class on Rhetorical Theories and Practices and while I highly respect the topic the professor chose to center the class on (civil rights,) I feel as if her main objective is to focus on rhetorical strategies rather than specific theories. There is no correlation between rhetorical strategies and the theories they are based on which is desperately needed for comprehension of why rhetoric is used.
The understanding of theories can open student’s eyes to new lessons and allows them to read critically. I also believe that to critically analyze any essay one needs to understand both portions of the spectrum. Theory and rhetoric go hand in hand but many professors in a high school and college level obviously find it very difficult to combine the two. I thought I was pretty well educated on theory before this class but I realized there is a distinct difference between rhetoric and theory. I believe theory is a body of thought a person identifies with and rhetoric is how you persuade a person to identify with your theory.
I believe that the Editing, Writing, and Media major should focus more on theory and less on rhetoric because the rhetoric is derived from a theory. Now that I have learned certain theories I can better understand why certain strategies were used and better understand an author’s purpose and meaning. I completely agree with Hayley’s post when she says Critical Issues in Literary Studies has given my leisurely reading a purpose.
Christen Caporali
This class has definitely helped me to gain more perspective on literature. I feel much more confident in my ability to not only analyze literature, but categorize it under different theories and ways of thinking. While I understand that some people like to read for fun and not have to think about theory, I think it also makes the reading that much more interesting when you are able to break it down and find hidden meaning in the material. I definitely agree with Kaitlyn, in that we are all indirectly exposed to theory through literature courses. The different types of theory are present in what we read and how we analyze it, we just don’t have a name for what we are doing. Graff argues that literary theory needs to be learned at an undergraduate level, and I agree. I think that there should be different levels of classes to take in order to build an understanding of literature, not just for English majors but for all majors. “It is the average-to-poor student who suffers most from the established curriculum’s poverty of theory, for such a student lacks command of the conceptual contexts that make it possible to integrate perceptions and generalize from them.” By learning theory, one is able to see the world through different perspectives and be able to think critically about every situation. Not only that, but gaining an understanding of different theories and why authors have different styles of writing. For example, I am currently taking Rhetorical Theory and Practice, and while the professor has clearly explained each author’s rhetorical strategy, I have no understanding of the theory behind the rhetoric. Why does the author write in the way they do? Without having an understanding of theory, I would know what the author was trying to say, but not why or how the author was saying it.
Thomas Scheip
The Graff and Christian readings spurred a lot of thinking about my own experiences in the English major. There’s been a sharp divide between the reading experiences in my literature and writing classes in terms of what the instructor wanted us to be gaining from the texts we were working with. I imagine the field-coverage model has limited and cornered the approaches to a text, The literature approach is much more familiar, as it’s been the approach of every English teacher I’ve had since sixth grade (outside of writing professors). It’s the desire and need to search for an orchestrated theme from any given text, taking for granted the tenet that literature should provide for the reader a subtextual didactic message they can take in and absorb. I don’t mean to discredit these types of classes, but they can (and usually do) overlook the schematics of a piece by focusing more on the question “did you get it?” And that’s the gap I didn’t even know was there until I started taking writing classes for my major. Francine Prose’s (is there a more apt name) Reading Like A Writer trained my eye to read fiction in a completely new regard. Instead of asking of a piece of literature why?, my reading became a matter of combing the text for the answer to how?. This brought an almost elementary focus on the language and craft of a work, analyzing the diction, syntax, structure, paragraphing, voice and tone without a concern for the piece’s intentions or message. At first, this approach seemed difficult and limiting, as it placed its focus on the separate pieces of the puzzle that is a work of fiction instead of its overarching theme. However, I’ve grown to appreciate this mode of reading, as it’s more concerned with what can be unequivocally gathered by the physical text on the page, and less concerned with (in some cases rather arrogantly) trying to interpret an author’s intentions with their work. While this does make reading less entertaining, it also enables me to take any work as an instruction on writing.
Allyson Flynn
Post-5
Well, I suppose I’m pretty much just jumping on the bandwagon with this post since I agree with everyone here, but I wanted to write on this topic because it reminded me of something I read a month or so ago. Since I’m an English Literature major nearing the end of my degree (and I don’t want to be a teacher) I’m getting pretty antsy about entering the real world—definitely having that “what am I going to do with my life my degree is pointless” panic attack. But one day, I got online to check my email and one of the articles that popped up on the Yahoo homepage was something to the effect of “Why your English degree isn’t worthless,” and it was a whole article in which the figureheads of major corporations and companies valued individuals who studied English in school. The main reason that they did so, they said, was because English students, unlike everyone else, are taught and required to think critically. And, I guess I’d never thought of critical thinking as a skill before since it’s always been something that I was just required to do, but reading that article really put things into perspective for me. So, this is why I think that learning theory is relevant to the undergraduate English education. What is theory but applying a new lens and forcing yourself to re-think critically about what it is you’re reading? Most people who have been arguing against theory being taught seem to be thinking of theory as an end all, be all; they seem to think that once you apply it, that piece of literature is lost forever in that theory. But, I don’t think theory is like that at all. Theory is something you can try on to view a piece of literature one way and then take off again to see it in a different way—hell, if you want to get crazy throw on another theory, or even combine two theories! As readers, we are never going to know every single true intention of an author in a work, the best we can do is take what the author has put out into the world and try to make meaning of it for ourselves. Since this is what theory aims to do, it should definitely be a staple of undergraduate education.
cmcmil...@gmail.com
Michaella Malone
Kristi Sardina
The role of literary theory within most undergraduate courses is minimal, as professors tend to skim briefly over these various views in a halfhearted attempt to create some general understanding within their students. Theory itself clearly plays a prominent role within literary analysis, and although students may unknowingly adopt various techniques or strategies to approaching a piece which align with a particular theory, I would have to say this isn't a true integration. Prior to taking this course I encountered several theories on a superficial level such as New Historicism, Feminism, and Animal Studies, yet the explanations on these topics were entirely too brief. I felt as though I had never truly learned anything about them once we began our discussions in this class because we examined each theory so much more in depth than I had ever done in any prior course. While undergraduate students may unknowingly apply these theories throughout their studies, I believe an understanding of the theory itself is necessary to truly achieve an in depth analysis. Graff insists within Taking Cover in Coverage that literary theory must possess a prominent role within undergraduate courses and although, in my opinion, his view is agreeable most universities fail to provide this integration. Perhaps not all courses can go as in depth as this particular class, however, there should be some greater explanation of Feminism itself within a course discussing feminist authors. Looking back on prior courses, it seems silly to me now that we never discussed what in fact Feminism is. What inspired the movement, its shortcomings and drawbacks, all of this information seems relevant to me now and yet none of it was discussed within the course. We immediately jumped into the works of various feminist authors, but wouldn't have our analysis of the text have been much more meaningful had we truly known all this information rather than depended on our own superficial idea of what Feminism is? I guess what I'm trying to say is that although theory plays a role within any literature course, it's presence in the background is simply not enough to produce this integration Graff discusses. Instead universities should emphasize an understanding of theory in order to produce better literary analysis among undergraduate students, because in this current system I feel as though I was only getting half of the picture. I don't mean to say I entirely understand theory itself, but what I've learned throughout this course is going to help me become a better Literature major by encouraging me to take into account an aspect of the piece I previously had no knowledge of.