Edmundson's passionate dedication to and enthusiasm for teaching make the book, despite the grimness of its portrait of American universities today, a spirited and cheering read.
I had the occasional quibble with Edmundson's claims — and once or twice I wasn't quite clear what he was getting at — but for the most part I found his descriptions, diagnoses and suggestions accurate and insightful, even inspiring.
I found myself wanting to give copies of "Why Teach? Perhaps some of them would dismiss Edmundson as a crank, a Luddite or some sort of malcontent. But others, I'm sure, would recognize him for who he is: an optimist and an idealist who believes that true education makes students into something far more valuable than consumerist robots and who believes that universities can still offer this kind of education.
All it would take is for those of us who have chosen teaching as our profession to remember that we made this choice because we believed in values that transcend the shallow and deeply corrosive values of the marketplace, and to find the integrity to proclaim our belief in those values to each other, to our students, and to the world. Skip to content. Mark Edmundson, author of 'Why Teach? Latest Books. First he exposes universities' ever-growing consumerism at the expense of a life-altering liberal arts education.
In today's colleges, students get what they most immediately want—country club campuses, professional training, easy grades, "fun" classes—rather than being challenged and inspired by great works of literature and art. But what can be done to change this sorry situation? Edmundson is highly skeptical about most established forms of literary teaching and criticism, believing that they ruin students' chances of truly being influenced by the best that's been thought and said.
Edmundson enjoins educators to stop offering condescending analytic technique and facile entertainment and to begin teaching students to read in a way that can change their lives for the better. He argues that questions about the uses of literature—what would it mean to live out of this book, to see it as a guide to life, to make it your secular Bible—are the central questions to ask in a literary education.
Right now these questions are being ignored, even suppressed, yet the questions have never been so pressing. If religion continues to lose its hold on significant sections of contemporary society, what can take its place in shaping and guiding souls?
Great writing, Edmundson argues. At once controversial and vital and inspiring, this is a groundbreaking book written with the elegance and power to change the way we teach and read. Other times, his points about his classroom and his students made me re-see what I do in my own classroom: especially regarding his focus on having students's own experiences guide course discussions and his points regarding universities selling school and pressure for classes to be viewed as entertainment.
Such ideas about the value of really delving into texts that connect with students' lives, whatever those texts may be, and having conversations about their views and lives in the classroom to help them not only analyze texts but really learn from them were the best parts of this book.
One such example of this was his framework for his classes putting religion at its foundation--despite how most educators would shy away from the subject. He asserts, "My sort of teaching assumes that a most pressing spiritual and intellectual task of the moment is to create a dialogue between religious and secular visions of the world" , while still recognizing "some will object to an open-ended vision of education in which we pursue our own visions, our own truths They fear disorder.
But perhaps what they fear, most truly, is genuine democracy" I think these are worthy points to make despite its perhaps haughty tone. I often have fearer disorder in classroom when considering how to give students more agency in material or content of the course, but such an excuse can certainly be a cop out in these ways. Again, when the book tackles such ideas in direct ways, it makes some great points.
Overall though I found the book outdated and often contradictory, particularly regarding some of its ideas on pop culture, cultural studies, and multiculturalism. For example, in his chapter on pop culture he writes, "We can strike to the central issues that confront students and the public at large, rather than relegating ourselves to the edges"--but then the next line seems to directly counter this assumption: "people who have taught themselves how to live--what to be, what to do--from reading great works will not be overly susceptible to the culture industry's latest wares" Such lines and others throughout these sections claim that contemporary music or even the works of Stephen King are distractions and mere entertainment only.
This begs the question he is often asking in his book: according to whom? Why can't these works offer relatable and valuable ways to question our place in the world and what we might become? He argues that they can't teach someone how to live and thus doesn't hold up to "great works" he offerssuch examples of said works throughout the book are, of course, from the largely white, male literary cannon.
Thus, I wound up skimming a lot of these passages, especially since I am primarily a composition instructor not a literature professor. I wanted him to speak more directly on his students and discuss how teaching reading and framing his class the way he does helps them in direct ways.
Instead, I felt I was often reading from a conference panel--the very thing he was chastising along the way. Apr 07, Rebecca rated it liked it Shelves: slow-professors-collection-essay. 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 ve This book is thought-provoking despite being a bit of a reactionary manifesto against cultural studies as it exists in English departments.
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. Jul 02, Paul Manytravels rated it it was amazing. A few months ago, I read Edmundson's later book, Self and Soul: A Defense of Ideals and was intellectually excited by its ideas, its cogent arguments, and its overall argument.
Books that stretch the mind as this one had, make me think and consider things not previously thought of, or immerse me in new or fresh ideas, are treasures that are hard to find and are like gold when I do find them Self and Soul was just such a book.
So my hopes and expectations were high when I turned to Edmundson's earl A few months ago, I read Edmundson's later book, Self and Soul: A Defense of Ideals and was intellectually excited by its ideas, its cogent arguments, and its overall argument. So my hopes and expectations were high when I turned to Edmundson's earlier book, Why Read?
And the book certainly lived up to those expectations. At first, the question, "Why read? But Edmundson makes a case that reading is more than just casual entertainment and an enjoyable pastime.
When the material is right, when the author tries to challenge his readers rather than just entertaining them, reading can take the reader to new vistas, help him examine his own beliefs and values, move him toward his better aspirations, and inform him pointedly about his fellow human beings. Edmundson presents a case for reading the world's finest literature, its best poetry, its most thoughtful non-fiction. The book seems to be an argument aimed at college instructors to challenge their students with only the best in literature, both because it accomplishes all of the goals just mentioned and also because it trains students to recognize the good materials, the deepest thoughts,the best of man's ideals, and separate those from the bad.
No wonder Americans are seen around the world as being uninformed, stupid even. No wonder Americans elect the people they do, believe the myths they do, and are so uncritical in making decisions. Edmundson argues that university professors ought to be placing great books before students and challenging them to personalize the book, to consider how it fits into their own life or values system, and to see the book as a tool for learning about the nature and complexity of human beings.
But his argument is not just aimed at his university colleagues, it is aimed at all readers, challenging us all by subtlety asking, "With so much wonderful and enlightening literature available, why not use it to elevate your life?
Edmundson argues that we do grow from such readings, and that is the answer to "Why Read? May 15, Eric Spreng rated it really liked it Shelves: teaching , education , literary-criticism , readers-on-reading.
One thing I can say with conviction about this book— It has pushed me to a greater Kindle-literacy: Never have I spent so much time grappling with the impossible keyboard of my Paperwhite than while reading this book. Beyond that, where to begin? When we can simply label, why read? Categorical imperative. What sort of knowledge are we creating exactly? Edmundson likens such shortcuts to that sort of religious knowledge that can be attained and conveniently packed away.
No need to probe or reflect. But when we simply borrow their terms to encase aesthetic work which, when it actually has something to say about our lives, is much more worth our attention, we are cheating ourselves.
Great works are worth more than that, Edmundson insists. If a work is great, it constitutes a way of being or living. But this is very much out-of-vogue in the university climate. Harold Bloom et al would labor much to change that.
Still, the religious fervor of this book strikes me as awkward, jangly. And yet, as a reader, I find this enthusiasm This may owe something to the circumstance that I recently read Karen Armstrong, whom Edmundson quotes in the book, and so I am looking for ways to live out the mythos which has been written out of modern life. And yet, while Edmundson attempts to articulate many different humanisms, I find it hard to find myself, as a humanist, anywhere.
I guess that is sort of the point. While reading Why Read? Is he here suggesting or applying a system? Is it systematic? He explicitly rejects the systems of Eliot, others. Are the clumsy metaphysics an outgrowth? Are they completely necessary? Mar 02, Mark Valentine rated it really liked it.
I found this collection of brief essays to be a quiet classic. Edmundson writes in lucid sentences and is clearly very well read himself and so reading his paragraphs became a pleasure in two ways: The pleasure lies in the reading of his sentences, and in tracking his wisdom.
In particular, I value his reliance on reading using the mind and the heart. He works to debunk the assorted multiculturalisms and critical theories that have abounded in the recent decades in favor of reading for pleasure a I found this collection of brief essays to be a quiet classic. He works to debunk the assorted multiculturalisms and critical theories that have abounded in the recent decades in favor of reading for pleasure and for insight.
He notes that critical theory has become such a large sport that if extended beyond play, it has the crippling effect of disengaging the reader from caring. That is, if the critical reading disengages too much from the message of the text, the new risk lies in learning how to disengage critical thinking from ethics--it becomes easier to red and do nothing. I found it beneficial too in its message of why we read the good books. The truism states that Life is too short to read bad books.
Edmunds offers solid reading counsel. I would love to take Mr. Edmundson to a corner booth in a classy restaurant, buy us a bottle of wine, and converse. Jun 15, Bryan Byrer rated it it was amazing. 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. 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 lateth and 21st centuries.
Jun 22, Nadine rated it did not like it. 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" 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] [] , and he makes a pointed rip at the "cul I liked the premise of the book and the first few pages, so I purchased it.
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] [] , and he makes a pointed rip at the "cultural studies gang" 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. Aug 19, Kirsten rated it it was amazing. A persuasive articulation of the view that students ought to be fed a diet of great books books that tackle the most ambitious questions about life and, instead of being asked merely to interpret them or consider their historical interest, ought to be encouraged to test their philosophies, ought to consider--How can I translate this book's philosophy into action?
Reading not as intellectual exercise but as soul crafting. I like A persuasive articulation of the view that students ought to be fed a diet of great books books that tackle the most ambitious questions about life and, instead of being asked merely to interpret them or consider their historical interest, ought to be encouraged to test their philosophies, ought to consider--How can I translate this book's philosophy into action? I liked this book so much I tried two of his other books--Why Teach?
They cover a lot of the same territory as this book, but less well. Nov 02, SweetPea rated it it was ok Shelves: , pg-count-up-to , non-fiction. This should have been titled "Why Teach? There were a few interesting points but my general sense when reading this is that it was an example of why people consider readers pompous. Aug 06, Mrs.
Newsom rated it it was amazing. It took me from a world of harsh limits into expanded possibility. Without poetry, without literature and art, I and I believe many others, too could well have died miserably. It was this belief in great writing that Mar 07, Beth Adams rated it liked it. I don't need reasons to read and I wanted to love this but it was a slog for me to get through.
Very academic writing, on a noble topic. Lost me, tho and I gave up. A thoughtful, restrained, and reasonable book that makes an argument without overstatement or hyperbole but which nonetheless seems to provoke some reviewers to insist on reading it as an overbearing polemic. Or worse, describing it as 'pretentious,' always a tell that you're dealing with someone preoccupied with looking over the shoulder in fear that someone might witness them taking something more seriously than capitalist culture permits.
Edmundson is making--not for the first time--an old-fa A thoughtful, restrained, and reasonable book that makes an argument without overstatement or hyperbole but which nonetheless seems to provoke some reviewers to insist on reading it as an overbearing polemic. Edmundson is making--not for the first time--an old-fashioned argument here, but he's doing it intentionally, and he's not launching a take-no-prisoners broadside against theory in the academy, or even pop culture for that matter.
He's arguing that neither theory nor pop culture is really enough for helping the average person lead a worthwhile life, and that there's no shame in looking for something more than what most of us are usually given. This argument always tends to make most Americans instantly clutch for the nearest pearl, and Edmundson is wise to point out that this impulse is something long cultivated by consumer, corporate culture for its own benefit.
Ednundson's point necessarily requires making distinctions between 'high' and 'low,' but he's remarkably calm about it. He may invoke Harold Bloom more than once but he keeps well apart from Allan Bloom, and it's a pleasant surprise to find a book like this offering considered and thought-provoking propositions instead of hellfire denunciations.
One could also argue his argument would have been easier to make now, in the age of the earnest Millennial, than it had been back in , still the age of the ironic Gen-Xer. His critique of the relentlessly all-knowing, Letterman-style, late-night talk show host is dead on. The problem, then and now, is that the pervading culture in the US has never been good at providing worthwhile material for heartfelt sincerity of any kind.
0コメント