Cheerskep wrote: > I do agreee that the kind of analysis behind the Salinger "Study Questions & > Essay Topics" (I reprint them below) is misplaced, destructive, as it > often is in "Appreciation of Literature",
Michael responded: "That sounds like a graduate seminar view of an Introductory course approach. I presume that any "appreciation" course it aimed at interested but unschooled students. One of the first tasks of the instructor is to lead the class by example in developing critical skills. The Franny and Zooey questions, like the typical art class lessons in using a palette of close harmonies or a basic piano exercise, are framed to direct the students' attention to salient aspects of the story. "Caveat critor: Prospective analysis can indeed be vitiating, but retrospective analysis can hardly be so (you've already experienced the play or story), unless you let the criticism or analysis rob you of the feelings." In "Appreciation of Literature" courses, all analysis is effectively prospective after the first week or two. The students learn the kind of questions the prof will be putting to them. So they thereafter read the stories looking for the "theme", the "meaning", what a given section "is", for "symbols" and "representations" - all the while being drawn away from where the real rewards of the story are. "Read for the theme, kids -- what the story means!" But a theme is never what makes a story great. 'War is hell, jealousy is bad, man needs his illusions, you can't recover the past.' A million awful stories have exactly those august, commonplace themes. "Oh, but looking for themes helps students pay attention to what the author wrote!" So would reading it for misspelled words. Both methods focus kids on "teachable", "testable" stuff and away from what is ever likely to give them an aesthetic experience. Besides, stories don't have a "the meaning of". In sum, the "critical skills" that awful "examples" lead the kids to "develop" have very little to do with why the writer's work is enjoyable, a source of aesthetic experience. It's roughly like saying, "Now we shall study a Wagner opera. You don't need the music because I'm giving you the librettos." (However, I do grant that some of the Salinger test questions do have the value of getting the student to ask WHY some given choices by Salinger have the EFFECT they have.) Michael also quotes me: "Without Elia > Kazan's insights, we wouldn't DEATH OF A SALESMAN. Without Maxwell Perkins we > wouldn't have THE GREAT GATSBY." And Michael comments: "This sounds much different from either the "appreciation" class guidance or the seminar-level analysis, and a lot more like the developmental editor talking to the professional writer." Indeed, it's much different. Don't forget the original topic-matter was a pair of quotes condemning all "analysis" - at whatever level. Analysis of a text can be very salubrious when it's done with an eye to seeing how the author's intended EFFECT can be made more likely or cherishable. I very much hope that's what you do as a teacher, and that you don't dwell on the student-painter's "theme" or "meaning".
