How to Read Literature started with an extremely long section on fine-detail analysis at the individual word and sentence level. The illustrative examples were well chosen and the writing good, but this style of analysis doesn't appeal to me as it feels so over the top and analysis-for-the-sake-of-analysis. Eagleton argues that it doesn't matter if an interpretation is 'fanciful' or not what the author intended as long as you can support it and this doesn't feel right to me. Reading for me will never be about analysing individual word choices, even when I am seeking to read critically and objectively.
When Eagleton moved onto more broad themes of character analysis and literary style, I appreciated the book a lot more. In particular, there was a section on interpreting the Harry Potter series that was great fun to read. As in all texts of this kind, there was an emphasis on explaining themes and styles through examples. Although I hadn't read all of the books Eagleton referred to, that didn't matter as the examples were fully explained and could stand alone. I learned lots about styles such as modernism and realism, and this helped me to understand some classics I have already read a little better.
However, even when I was enjoying How to Read Literature, the cool, detached tone effected me. Eagleton takes a purely objective view and this can read as quite harsh e.g. constantly reinforcing that characters are just pen and ink, literary worlds unreal ("Literary figures do not have futures, any more than incarcerated serial killers do."). I don't believe you can or should fully take out the imagining part of reading, the illusion that you are stepping into a full, complete world, the connection you feel with certain characters. Jane Eyre feels real when you read about her, and my imagination is utterly peopled with characters from my favourite novels. Eagleton's approach may be more logical, but I could never read like that, and it stopped me from fully enjoying How to Read Literature.
Source: From the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.
First Published: 2013
Score: 2.5 out of 5
Dear Sam,
ReplyDeleteI'm an English teacher (both language and literature) but , guess what? I haven't read Eagleton but I totally agree with you!
My approach to literary texts is always based on a personal response and the analysis is never too academic or scientific. What I like doing is connecting literary texts, comparing and contrasting themes and characters.
I also think that a certain knowledge of the historical, social and cultural contexts can help to draw much more from the text.
Thanks for sharing this review!
I agree about the contexts of the book, and this is what I'd love to find a book about. Thanks for sharing your experiences :)
DeleteI taught Contemporary Theory at third year university level at an art school years ago; a basic course that outlined various theoretical models so that the students could base bodies of work around them and then defend them in a viva within their chosen theoretical model. I remember one student who, when faced with a painting to analyse, held back saying that because he'd never really understood 'theory' he didn't think he was qualified - and because it was the basis for his next body of work, upon which his degree depended, he was seriously considering dropping out. So, I asked him to stay back after the class then stood him in front of the painting and started asking him questions about the piece - no jargon, no 'theory' per se in the construct of my questions - and after about 15 minutes of this, played back to him everything he'd had to say about the work, and lo and behold, he'd done an extremely competent analysis of the work - within a simple iconographic theoretical model...which, when I pointed it out to him, left him completely amazed.
ReplyDeleteAs I said to him, with paintings, if you can look and articulate what it is that you can see, you can analyse. Same with reading. If you can read and articulate your impressions and feelings about the book, you're analysing it. We get too caught up in the mystique of 'the experts' - the jargon, the (in my world) 'art-speak', and all the bumph that goes along with it that so many use quite needlessly.
I love the books on theory and analysis too - but I've learned to trust what I think too, and to let myself write about it in my own style - and still understand that it can be a legitimate contribution to the discourse that others may or many not find useful and/or enjoyable - just as I do the huge amount of information, analysis and reviews that are already out there in the arena!
Thanks for the lovely detailed comment, ones like these are my favourites :)
DeleteI would love to take your course, I'm interested in learning more about the theoretical models. I like how your student was so humble, too.
I've been so disappointed with books like this that propose to help us make our way through complex text.
ReplyDeleteI have too. Maybe it's because reading is at heart such a personal thing?
Delete"Literary figures do not have futures, any more than incarcerated serial killers do." <~~ No no no! :( I don't like that at all. I think reading about the broad themes would be interesting but the itsy bitsy critique of every sentence would probably drive me mad as well ;)
ReplyDeleteIn my head, all of the literary figures most definitely have futures!
DeleteWell, that's just silly. Characters and the reader's reaction to them are so vital to the story! Otherwise you are just pontificating about a theme with pretty words.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. Eagleton was more about the word analysis/style and I am very much a character driven reader.
DeleteWell I'll definitely be passing on this one. I like the idea (in theory) of reading literary criticism texts in order to take a more educated view on literature. In practice though it's just more fun to read and enjoy it on a gut level.
ReplyDeleteI loved Kaz's comment! Very encouraging!
I tend to judge on the gut level too, although there was some analysis in this book that made me have a 'lightbulb moment' when thinking about classics I've already read.
DeleteThis book has been around blogs for a while now and I must admit it sounds like a great premise but somehow it just doesn't click for me. Of course characters don't have a future in the real world as people do, but they do have a future in the real world as characters. I don't know, it sounds quite silly to me!
ReplyDeleteImagining what happens to the characters 'off the page' is one of the things I like to do whilst reading. I tend to be a very character driven reader.
DeleteI requested this one from Netgalley and ended up just giving it up. I couldn't connect with Eagleton and it almost felt judgmental in the beginning. Glad you were able to finish and enjoy some of it.
ReplyDelete