Throughout the semester, questions of why we study literature and how we study literature have come up time and time again. Previously, I viewed the act of reading as purely pleasurable. Of course, when discussing a certain work the many different perspectives with which you can interpret the book arise, but I rarely thought about the author as specifically trying to portray a certain message (except for in political pieces etc.) I have come to realize that although the act of writing the book may have been a release for that artist, all books also have a message (or two) behind them. Take "In the Skin of a Lion" as an example, this work clearly displays the author's attempt to write in a new and exciting way; his creativity translates quite well into an example of the cubist novel (as Simmons' article clearly addresses). Ondaatje has shown us how the different pieces of a novel, much like in real life, fit together to form the whole. Depending on your position, you will see the form in a completely different way from your friend who is viewing the very same piece.
... I found the discussions on the Canon extremely interesting. We all know books like "The Catcher in the Rye" and "The Giver" but it is also quite apparent that less read works, such as "Speak", can have the same amount of merit as the more recognized novels. Thus, I believe that we should eliminate the Canon completely. The best books would obviously be passed from person to person, and recognized for their talent in this way, but the books that currently hang on the margins of "good literature" would be given another chance. It's not about what the novel brings to you, it's about what you bring to the novel.
... The most interesting article in this collection is written by Gerald Graff. He speaks about how a critical discussion of "Huckleberry Finn" lead to his love of literature (which I highly doubt since he was an English major to begin with). Previously, he did not see the point of reading, complaining that it was not concrete enough for him. Viewing literature through the Marxist/feminist/post colonial lens has helped him to discover the meaning of literature. I find that I am the complete opposite, I have enjoyed literature for as long as I can remember; learning about the various theories that surround it have only helped to deepen my love for it. But, I must admit that I am a bit hesitant to become well-learned in literary language for fear of missing the simple beauty that is the art of literature and expression. Graff says "the assumption was that leaving me alone with literary texts themselves, uncontaminated by the interpretations and theories of professional critics, would enable me to get on the closest possible terms with those texts" and although I wouldn't go quite that far, I must admit that I agree with this view.
... Later in his article Graff comments on the works of Bloom and how his interpretations of Plato and Dante are simply ridiculous. "What did Plato and Dante know about Freudians, Marxists, cultural relativists, and the other contemporary targets" he asks. I would argue that even though these works were written before this theories were even formulated that Bloom is not forcing them into a mold. Maybe all works apply to these theories even if they were weren't written with these objectives in mind (or even before they were objectives). Books that didn't address these issues wouldn't be books at all, they would be a meaningless jumble of words.
...Graff also states that the students who do well in school are those who learn to speak like their teachers, which I am quick to argue simply isn't true. I think a good teacher listens to a student's message, no matter how crudely spoken, and appreciates their statement in that it shows that the student was engaged in the topic. One does not have to regurgitate information to be heard.

I guess the main thing that these readings have opened my eyes to regarding the study of english is the question of the literary canon. While I was aware that something of a canon existed, I never bothered to ask the question of how the literature that made up the canon was decided. I suppose I assumed that the works that made up the canon were of the highest quality and had ascertained their position above other literature because people enjoyed them the most and saw them as having the most meaning. I didn't who those people were, and why it was them that got to make the decision.

I didn't know about the politics behind making books famous and entering them into the canon. Jane Tompkins' essay 'Masterpeice Theatre' helped me to realize that more went into making a book a classic than the words on the page. Her description of Nathaniel Hawthorne's rise to prominence shined a light on the role that his relationships with the noteworthy, white, male critics of the day had on his ability to achieve his high status and reputation. She also brings to light that the reasons his works have been celebrated-and which works themselves are celebrated-has changed over time. She uses this argument to call to question the validity of Hawthorne's position in the canon, or at least the explanation for his status being higher than others whose work might make them equally deserving.

Personally, I have read only 'The Scarlet Letter,' by Hawthorne and thought it was excellent. I am certainly able to understand why it is part of the canon, but do now find it interesting to think about the other factors that contribute to an author's canonization.

While this post is definitely a little bit late, the delay of this response in no way should be a reflection of the degree to which some of these articles have reinforced my opinions. On the contrary, I found many of the articles to be extremely constructive. Helen Vendler's concept that students must be taught both to understand and ENJOY literature is an extremely important concept I have always held as valuable to an education. I also concur with her statement that the best way to create good writers is to create good readers, who will gain valuable exposure to a variety of different styles and literary voices. Vendler's analysis of Keat's work, for all its unique grammatical 'faults' praises his style and voice, even though it may not be "perfect" in the contemporary opinion. She seems to celebrate all forms of writing, something flows well my own natural tendency while analyzing literature.

I have mixed feelings about "What We Have Loved, Others Will Love" by Helen Vendler. While I find her description of a pure love of reading and literature very familiar and, to me, true, it seems that she is limited to only what she believes, leaving out the fact that not everyone has an inherent love of reading(as Graff points out in "Disliking Books at an Early Age"). But I really do think that her opinion of being a good reader leads to being a good writer is true, and I like how she emphasizes teachers being passionate and really trying to impart their love of literature to students, rather than just getting the low level composition classes out of the way without really investing themselves in it.

What I found particularly interesting was the section in the Vendler article that posed the following question: Do the authors intentions matter and if so how much? Previously, I've considered the authors intentions to be the most important part of the work that they're presenting. After all, they are the one who came up with all of these ideas, who knows them better than they do? Intentions can be important to an author because they may want to lead the reader in a certain direction. For example, a persuasive essay can blatantly attempts to a set of views upon a reader , so it seems as though the authors intentions are the most important component of this work.

However, what is more important can be the thoughts that the writing invokes in the reader, rather than the opinions that the author attempts to force on the reader, if they do this at all. A persuasive essay may be important because it presents ideas that need to be refuted rather than supported. Additionally, many great works are entirely open, and provoke more questions than they answer. The writers intentions are non existent in some works, such as many novels. The writer simply has a train of thought that they want others to jump onto so that they can turn it from a unidirectional stream into a web that stretches in all different directions.

The different articles are making me look at English in an entirely different way. I’ve enjoyed reading the history of English and understanding its development, as well as this idea of the canon. It interests me to follow English and wonder about what the future holds. I really enjoyed reading Vendler’s article, “What We Have Loved, Others Will Love.” I could feel the passion she felt about literature through her writing and could not agree more with her messages. It is so true that the required English classes we are forced to take in high school and in college are completely dedicated to vocabulary, punctuation, and how to structure sentences. Students are immediately taken back by the courses and decide that they hate English. It is true when she writes about other classes and the amazing introduction from other courses. In music classes one first hears an amazing piece of work and finds it captivating. In studio Art one sees a great image that captures the perfect light and is installed in ones mind. But in English class the first thing you learn are the things that no one, even individuals obsessed with the language (well some may argue) enjoy to learn. I knew that, but I had never read that. Her writing holds truth as she exclaims in one line, “We have given too little thought to the teaching of the language of literature; it is a separate language with its own rules.”

Having studied media a great deal, my tendency was to approach literary theory and its analysis in the way that it is approached by Jane Thompkins or Richer with respect to the canon. That is, I have always been concerned with what media we consume and why that media is in the literary canon or, more generally, mainstream public discourse. I have found my understanding to be rather marxist and economically based. But one huge part of literary theory that I had been ignoring was why we read. And I have found that varying opinions to why we read changes my view on why certain texts are fit for the literary canon. However, my disagreement with the authors discussing "why we read"(Gerald Graff, Helen Vendler etc.) has been the consistent premise that, whichever the view, everyone should read for the same reason. Helen thinks we should teach people to read and "love texts" the way she loves them and Garald Graff thinks we should all read analytically and have critical discussion (the way he was turned onto Huckleberry Finn) instead of blindly cherishing a text the way Helen Vendler proposes. The authors are clearly each addressing first their practices and second their wish that everyone else read accordingly, but not necessarily the reality that people do and will continue to read for both those reasons and more. This has made me think that if everyone doesn't read for the same reason, the discussing about what makes it into the canon must be more complex than I had previously thought.

The articles alone are enough to make me start to think differently about the study of English. The class discussions provided further insight and I now look at the study of English with more open eyes.
My favorite article is the one by Paulo Freire. In his article he brought up the banking concept which not only sparked thoughts in my own head but in the heads of other as well which I saw through class discussion. We aren't simply objects to be filled with facts because you learn more when you apply what you know; but in the same token you cannot apply things you don't know. In a perfect world we would start out strictly learning for a short period of time and after a certain point use what we know and expand upon it. the key is not to wait until senior year in college to make that switch. The earlier the better.

I thought these articles on the study of English were really fascinating, especially the fact that English as a study was initially founded as a colonial tool to educate the British colony of India into subordination. Given its heritage, it is interesting to think about the way English will continue in our modern age- in what forms, in what kind of significance. I found the discussions of the issue of the canon to be at times frustrating and at other times very valid. In my high school experience we were taught in the 'Great Books' tradition- from Greek and Roman literature and philosophy all the way to more modern American classics. I do see the value in this way of thinking- 'the best of tradition as handed down through the ages'- but i also can see the relativity of what books are present and what books are excluded. My favorite point out of these articles came from Scholes idea of disciplining the study of English into organized sections in order to transform the study into a structure. I also thought his point about centering classes around questions rather than exclusionary canons to be a better mode of considering literature.

The articles and class discussions have definitely changed my opinions on why I think that we study literature. The article that I benefited the most from reading was the Helen Vendler article because I feel that I can identify with her opinions. I think that she makes a valid point when she suggests that students should be taught to appriceate and love what they are reading. As an english major, I know that my interest in literature/english is caused by my love for reading, which began when I was in elementary school. I had great teachers who seemed passionate about what they were teaching. This is exactly the argument that Vendler makes; that if teachers are enthusiastic about the literature that they are teaching, then students will also become interested.
The also makes an important point when she says that in order to write well, students must know how to read and interpret great literature. By teaching students to be excited about what they are reading, they can follow the example of their favorite authors.

The course dicussions that we have done in this class along with the readings have dramatically changed the way I look at English as a subject. Before I recently switched to an English major the important questions for me was why study English rather than how. The best answer I could see to be an English major is to be a well-read intelligent person my whole life. This book has risen questions about the study of English and how in history it has been linked to social classes and our culture. The idea of the canon and a significant number of literary works that are so good they teach themselves is to me a little off. I related very well like Gerald Graff's "Disliking Books At An Early Age" and agree with Graff on the important of critical reading and theory to be used to interpret the great and not so great work. Vendler's writing explained a different model of the books teaching themselves through thier greatness; just as Graff suggests I find the easiest way to get lost in a book is by attempting to progress through it objectivly.
I also found Eagleton's essay to be interesting as it outlined literature and how it controls society. English rising to replace religion allowed for the ruling class to stay in power and use English as a tool of this power. I never had seen English as the roots of any control but more about freedom and choice. The human element to English that is sought for by many English scholars is an element that separates and differentiates the higher classes from the less literate middle and lower classes.

Coming into this class, I thought that studying literature meant you had to read a lot of books that are either uninteresting to me, or just full of early English. Books that someone else said I had to read because it would somehow enhance my education or make me a better person. What I have learned so far is that studying literature is more than just reading all these books that are uninteresting to me. It is about dissecting what is being said. I also learned that it isn't necessarily teachers or faculty who decide what we as students read, but more like the society. The idea of the canon is very interesting, and how books are constantly coming into the canon and leaving it and it is society that decides what books are in the canon and not.

The essay that I found the most intriguing was the essay called, "What We Read, The Literary Canon and the Curriculum after the Culture Wars" This is where I was introduced to the canon, the thing that changed how I look at literature and what I think studying literature is about. This essay really opened my eyes.

If I'm to pick just one influential essay or article it would be Graff; for providing a perspective I found as stimulating as it was refreshing. Not being very familiar with literary criticism, I certainly never heard any argument like this one, not supporting literary criticism as it were, but supporting the very act of reading through the practice of literary criticism. It certainly wasn't the sort of message I received as a child, back when "Get Hooked On Books, Not Drugs," used to be plastered on every school bus, locker, or any other smooth surface divergent of propaganda.
That is not to say I agree with Graff, who, I feel means well, but doesn't understand the coexisting forces of pedagogy toward literature he describes, as confined and opposing, have been equally used and exhausted throughout the world. From this essay, it sounds as though Graff, if he were to hear that China does not teach music through standard notation, he would be dumbfound. It is quite firmly a Western tradition to apply measures to the (clearly) immeasurable. Graff is certainly in his right mind to make the arguments he does. Why, everything else we learn in this society not only does not depend on our intuition, it practically negates it.
What I find most interesting about Graff's piece is his clarity to distinguish the differences in pedagogy toward the teaching of English literature. It truly is an anomaly. We developed a process of intrinsic identification to Western works as something to make ourselves more "Western" using Eastern ideology. Chinese kung-fu practitioners or musicians would relate to Vendler's approach better than we might ourselves. This clearly is an inconsistency and perhaps to blame for misunderstandings Graff relates to us in "Disliking Books at an Early Age."

While I have always sincerely valued the place of literature in school curriculum's, I find myself more thoroughly contemplating the ROLE of specific texts in shaping the political, cultural, and intellectual perceptions of the students. Scholes and Eagleton in particular seemed to emphasize the manner in which historical and national contexts promote greater understanding and wider exposure. Certain works can, in fact, considerably influence the niche a student makes in the world. Now, I have always been of the opinion that it is as much a student's responsibility to explore a wide range of texts as it is the schools. Some of the articles don't seem to support this notion, yet they only reaffirm my commitment to an inherent responsibility to pursue knowledge via the written word. Therefore, I believe it is a teacher's responsibility to provide students with basic reading and analysis skills so that they can independently continue the never ending process of read and research. I believe that Freire's "Banking Concept" could potentially support my perspective, as it supports building up from a steady foundation. I found his article most interesting because of the logistical and highly structured way it approaches teaching. I felt that Freire's provided a clear and thought-out solution to a prevalent problem in most school systems today.

The articles we have read over the past weeks have brought a few things to my attention. I was surprised at the complexity of the study of the English language. I had never thought of the question of a canon, or the reasoning behind teaching in this field. Most often, it is taken as a concrete fact that people teach and learn - reading and discussing the reasons for these impulses and actions was interesting. At first, I was slightly aloof to the idea that a canon is a debatable. But Graff's idea that the debate creates interest towards literature made me look at the situation in a different light. Barthes was also engaging, the idea that the reader actually writes the novel is one I have not explored or even realized. Though I must follow the trend and state that Vendler's article is my favorite. Her ideas on education and the love of the material as being an utter necessity is inspirational and uplifting. Passion for a subject is infectious, it will transfer from teacher to student.

I found the Viswanathan article relating to the use of English language as a colonial tool in India to be particularly interesting. I felt that it demonstrated the applicability and importance of language outside strictly literary circles. In my discussions with other university students and with non-English-scholars, I find there to be a perception of the study of English as a soft or irrelevant focus, useful only in libraries. Viswanathan illustrates that the value of language is not limited to literary studies or composition, but is the all-important way in which humans interact with each other and process their world. As something of an extension to this concept, I also gravitated to Schole's idea of situating a text in its historical context: I cannot imagine a better way to understand a text than by examining the events and surroundings that it was purposed to react to and interact with.

Before reading and discussing these articles I never truly thought so much of the analytical side of literature. Being an English major that might not be the best thing to admit, but I always thought of english and lit as being strictly focused on writing, reading and responding. Yes, we talk about where stories come from, the people that write them, and whether or not we think they are entertaining, but up until now I have never really delved into why we read, talk, and respond to them at all. Each of the articles we've read have all given valuable points for the analyzing of english works. My favorite was Helen Vendler. I think that her point about teaching others to love what we love can be applied to any aspect of life, not just academics. She talks of languages and styles being forgotten forever due to a lack of interest in them, the same can happen to recipes, music, and memories. As for using this train of thought towards "studying english", I think it's probably the best way to do it. Teachers who teach something they love are far more passionate about their students understanding and resonating with what they are saying, opposed to a teacher who is teaching a curriculum they could care less about.

“Falling into Theory” as a text has inspired me to think more in depth about the study of English. Not necessarily what we read, but how and why we read and study such a traditional group of literary pieces. I liked the article “A Fortunate Fall” by Robert Scholes as he urges those who study English to stray from what is the traditional literary cannon. When asked, most of our class realized that through out our own individual studies of English from an array of different parts of the country, we have all, for the most part, read the same traditional texts. I agree with Scholes in that he urges us to give the study of English in its early stages some leeway in order to introduce different types of texts, not just of this traditional literary cannon. He says that it isn’t until college that a person should focus on a more specialized field of English. The points he brings up to his audience makes people think about the study of English and how the teaching of English has become so standard in that it is always the same texts over and over.

I too found that Helen Vendler's "What We Have Loved, Others Will Love" to be the most concrete idea. I am of the thinking that the basis of studying literature should be found in reading it. However, I am very sympathetic to arguments of both Geral Graff and Robert Scholes, the intellectual exploration of literature is incomplete without a more particular knowledge set, but the idea that the study of literature should start with anything other than reading literature seems ridicules. Additionally, I also support the idea of the canon. Reading literature that has been traditionally identified as "good" will help students write in styles commonly accepted. Also, the canon provides almost a basis of knowledge to build upon, I understand the need to diversify learning but the idea of there being a certain set of books and poems that everyone would have in common seems to good to ignore. Young writers would have a definite group of books that they could reefer to while maintaining complete confidence that all of his readers follow. Conversely young readers would be able to be able to read intellectual essays with a valuable level of understanding and in so doing learn how to make such references in their own writing. After a certain amount of the canon has be covered I would encourage diversifying works and authors as well has approaches and theories but making the having a specific starting point seems to have far more pros than cons.

I have been reading for fun and for school since i was a small child, but i never thought about literature as more than an enjoyable way to learn about the world around you through timeless truths. However, the article by Terry Eagleton was very interesting to me because it showed me to examine literature from the perspective of how reading might actually shape my views on how the world is and should be rather than just amuse me. I thought the connection between the previous role of religion and the current role of English was especially well articulated, and I admit that I never previously saw English as a way to constrain citizens, but rather a way to liberate them. Though it isnt doubted that education is essential to liberation, I will from now on take a more critical look at what a book is saying to me and question whether i wish to emulate those characteristics before considering them noble.

Overall, this course has made me question my education up to this point. Throughout high school I always found myself questioning many of the practices of my various English teachers. I realize now that I have a fundamental disagreement with the ways in which English is "thrown" at kids these days. It makes little boys and girls everywhere forced to read and especially for kids like me, anytime I'm forced to do something I immediately loathe it.

After discussing/reading about the politics behind the Canon I began to realize the "grey" areas that are apparent in the study of English. Gauri Viswanathan's Introduction to Masks of Conquest states that English is a method of overtly-controlling a population. This makes perfect sense to me. Discussions within English studies classes promote people to be respectful, intelligent, and thoughtful looking deep into every aspect they or any of there classmates seem fit enough to begin discussing in the first place. These, in my opinion are the positive aspects to the controlling methods put forth inevitably by the study of English. However, I can now see how themes and curriculum can be used as a means to shape and sway students perspectives on reality and morality. Think for instance of Shakespere's Macbeth, it is a tale lush with trickery, blackmailing, and death. Do we all read it just because its an interesting tale? Or are we overtly being fed some of the 10 commandments, most notably thou shall not kill, thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife, thou shall not steal and the list goes on. After vastly critiquing the canon in class i began to make these types of connections. I like Viswanathans avant-garde approach to critiquing the methods used by colonial England to fix the "Indian Problem". It is very rare to see such a power like colonial England so heavily critiqued in this nature. What is studying English all about? I'm not sure and I don't think I should be at this stage in the course, but I am starting to formulate an idea. I think studying English is a pursuit of intelligence. How you may ask? I believe that if one chooses to study English they ask not what Job they can get with this degree, but how will studying English make me a more intelligent human being. Studying English by its very nature is quite a scholarly thing to do for by its very nature it widens your perspective and allows you to think about moral dilemmas, odd (out of this world) situations and then you get to inflect back upon them asking, what would I do in this situation, or how would I handle that. I believe that by asking these questions and dealing with these problems and discussing them with your peers you are on a constant quest to expand and increase your intelligence.

In a general sense what I have come to take from reading about Literary criticism is it's ambiguous nature. At first that reaction was slightly troubling to me but of course short lived due to the fact that we were given this book with the warning of almost guaranteed confusion. I think what I find so interesting revolves around the idea of confrontation between literary scholars regarding proper ways of teaching. The issue of literary criticism was never one of great interest to me and I have to admit I was shocked at first to see such a violent fervor between opinions.
The most interesting article I have read so far in this book is Louis Menand's The Demise of Disciplinary Authority. The reason I appreciated this article so much was that it specifically laid out the problems of the arguments between critics without providing a end all save all conclusion. Menand illuminates one of the basic problems for cohesive agreement that went on ignored for some time in the literary world when he says when talking about the writings of Kuhn and Derrida "...but both were enormous influence on English professors, because they provided theoretical and historical arguments for something that should have been intuitively obvious, which is that literature does not have an essence and literary criticism is not a science." I really enjoyed reading this statement because on a whole so far I have felt that that issue has go on ignored. Literature is not one big blanket topic that can be compartmentalized into categories that best fit a umbrella type curriculum. When scholars make literature into something it's not there efforts in turn go to waste.

I always find it hard to clearly understand a text to it's full meaning. I feel like just reading it and not really looking in to, you are potentially missing something huge that the author was trying to get across. I feel like theory is what helps us students out as a whole to grasp the meaning of the text. We do read a lot of the same texts because it is in our curriculum, but I'm sure that many people didn't fully understand exactly what we are reading, even when it's right in front of us, as we are going word for word, sentence for sentence, page for page. It's a little disheartening as an English major to see these texts just lie in the dust where their true meanings haven't even been revealed, just thrown to the side of an old bookshelf never to be looked at again. I believe that Vendler's concepts are great, to immerse in to the pleasure of the text. She obviously loves what she reads and teaches, and I feel like that is what she wants for us. To love the texts that we read, to understand it, to feel at that exact moment what the author was thinking. I think the emphasis on reading and understanding the composition is important and once you get it, it is really easy to love it.

So far in class our readings have informed us a great deal about the history of English as an area of study. Richard Ohmann's "The Function of English at the Present Time", seems quite relevant to our own situation as students of the university. He talks about the effect that a struggling U.S. economy and an increasingly competitive job market has on students and their choice about what to dedicate their college careers to. He noticed a trend that students at all colleges but the most selective were majoring in Literature less frequently and instead pursuing studies in fields that they thought would be most likely to secure them a job. We are at a point in U.S. history that is very similar because job security is not guaranteed and I think that future employment is the single most important factor students consider when selecting a major. The fact that the English department here at UVM may be downsized significantly is possible evidence of this trend repeating itself in the university community today. This selection made me think about my own ambitions to study Environmental Science because I feel that I don’t just want to have a job. I want to have a job I really find interesting and engaging. That said I feel that a well rounded employment prospect is much more attractive to an employer and therefore the study of literature must be incorporated in to all areas of study. In my own experience, the curriculum for math and science majors do not provide enough practice in articulate self expression.

The article that caught my attention was "The Function of English at the Present Time." by Richard Ohman. His article was about how in the 1960's when there was a shortage of educated people any person who achieved a bachelor's degree had a secure job waiting for them, but since then the workforce has become flooded by educated people who are no longered guarenteed a job. This is the reason for declining liberal arts educations and declining numbers in english majors. He states that students will pursue an inherently pleasent and humane activity when there is no penalty for doing so, but not so many of them will when jobs are short, when there is a premium on marketable skills, and when educational authorities set a course toward vocational training rather than liberal arts. I agree with his ideas that such an education is easily pursued at the elite universities where the name on the degree overshadows the education recieved there, but at the "lesser" universities more emphasis is placed on vocational training or specialized areas of study.

The article that I've found the most interesting is Robert Scholes' A Fortune Fall. Reading the other authors and talking in class about the canon has really made me realize how many high school curriculums include the same material. I like Scholes' idea to rethink these curriculums and present the elements of English as theory, history, production, and consumption. I just think that certain English classes are too consumed by the canon and agree with his proposition to replace the canon of texts with a cannon of methods. Not only do we need to be able to read the texts presented but also understand where they're coming from. This emphasis on theory can also make reading more enjoyable. I also thought it was pretty interesting that he included history as something that needs to be studied in English. In recognizing the cultural changes that have taken place over the last two centuries, one can have a better understanding of what each book is representing. Scholes breaking down the bumper stick he saw was pretty cool. It's funny to see that reading a simple bumper sticker requires the same skills as reading a much larger text.

The article that has tremendously impacted the way I view about literature is "The Banking Concept of Education" by Paulo Freire. This article challenged me to think in a way that I have never thought of before. Throughout my whole educational career I have sat down in a class room and listened to a teacher who basically told me this was wrong and this was right. Freire compared education to the banking model, in which students are an "empty barrel" and it was the teachers job to fill students with knowledge until he/she feels that they were filled. After reading this article I started to challenge the structure of our education system. I started to wonder of this educational structure that we indulge is actually weakening us rather then strengthening us. Freire states " The banking concept of education, which serves the interest of oppression, is also necrophilic. Based on mechanistic, static, naturalistic, spatialized view of consciouness, it transforms students into receiving objects. It attmpts to control thinking and action, leads men to adjust to the world, and inhibits their creative power". I personally feel that their is truth behind this statement. It is our right to challenge thought and think of other creative schemes and transition. At the same time there also has to to a certain structure and form. Imagine what classes would be like if education was based around opinions and individualistic thoughts. Freire's article really opened up a new way of thinking for me.

Writing has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. My father is a writer and my mother is a writer. At a young age I was introduced to the world of writing through the acclaim and popularity of my fathers books. Through this lifestyle of writing and reading I came to adore the tumble of words and the meanings behind them.

I experienced a strange feeling when reading Helen Vendler's "What We Have Loved, Others Will Love." It is so inherently strange to recognize one's own thoughts through the writing of another. Vendler's essay spoke to me in more ways than one-the first one being the notion of language and its linear relationship with writing.

I am a language minor (Italian to be specific) and have come to appreciate the concept of reading a piece in its original form. Vendler harps on this idea—she mentions Dante’s poems and their utterly beautiful Italian phrases, some of which can only truly be understood in Italian. She explains that although Keats wrote in a sort of broken form of English, with typos and grammar issue throughout his works, there is a type of splendor in those writings and the readers must take that into account. I thought that this was one of the most vibrant section of her essay.

The second sentiments I acknowledged while reading Vendler’s piece were the feelings I felt when she spoke of pure adoration. Vendler encourages teachers to express to their students their ardent feelings for literary works, instead of just thrusting some textbook at them, hoping for good results. This section of the essay resonated deeply with me as well. If my past teachers had had as much enthusiasm for certain books as Vendler does for subjects and theories, I believe that I would have a deeper appreciation for certain literary luminaries and works.

Reading these articles from Falling Into Theory so far has given me a lot more insight into the study of English and literature in general. The articles raise major problems in the study of English today and offer suggestions to help improve and make it a more popular field of study rather than a "small elite field".

I particularly liked the Robert Scholes article, A fortunate Fall?. I like how the author suggests replacing the typical canon of texts, that we all read the same books in High School, to a "canon of methods", which gives English as a discipline more leeway in what can be taught and read while providing the important "general education" early in life so that the students can go on to "their more specialized work" in college. The four elements he proposes, Theory, History, Production, and Consumption, in the excerpt makes a great case for the change of the way English should be taught.

The article that really stood out to me was Robert Scholes "A Fortunate Fall?" I liked how he wanted to replace the canon of texts with a canon of methods. It is a way to look at a piece of literature and gain knowledge from it while still enjoying the reading aspect of it. This is what really changed the way I look at reading. I think it is important that we know the history of the time period the book was written in because it explains a lot about the book and why it was written. Scholes says this is "necessary in order to situate works in the cultural contexts that originally shaped their forms and their meanings." Scholes also talks about that being a good reader helps you be a good writer. I think this is a very true comment. Reading broadens peoples vocabulary and helps us write with for meaning. I also agree with the fact the we should study all types of literature. We should study films, political speeches and poems to fully understand all older and contemporary texts.

A lot of what has been said here and in class epitomizes, in my opinion, contemporary perception of young students and their attitudes toward literature. Indeed (if the admissions people did their job), nobody admitted to the University lacks the ability to read a text and understand SOME subtext. I notice varying degrees to which people do this, but apparently we're in a state of theory so what matters actually is HOW we analyze. There was a two year period in high school when I studied English with a teacher who enabled me to think "critically" without even realizing it and without teaching us any of the terms Richard Ohmann lists in his essay (New Criticism, structural criticism, Marxist Criticism, etc). This is all very new and curious to me. A parallel that does between my high school teacher and Ohmann's essay is the list of adjectives that describes a student of English - punctuality, good verbal manners, attention to problem-solving assignments set by someone else, long hours spent in one place. (I omit "submission to authority," because its implication is negative and border-line demeaning, though that is a separate discussion entirely). These characteristics accentuate discipline that is applicable to a multiplicity of different jobs. As another student mentioned below, this doesn't mean English majors aren't going to be able to get jobs. I'm majoring in English to help ensure I DO get a job because businesses are going to value articulate, thoughtful, and respectful employees. These are simply economic issues that one can debate ad nauseum that will change with technology and social interests (as we mentioned in class). What's most important in the present is what we're going to obtain in college, since that's where we are for the next couple of years or so. In this case I find solace in Vendler's essay out of all those we've read: "...we hope that some [students] will become the teachers who replace us - and that they will teach out of love," (34). Though I hope to someday be a high school english teacher (after giving professional music a shot), it's still possible to teach literature or the study of English to others even outside of a classroom setting because I care about it. I apply the same set of values to this discipline as I do to music - the reason I play music is because it has emotionally moved me and I love it so others should share in that humanity. Music also has "theory," but the general public who listens to it will have little to no understanding of this so it becomes irrelevant to all but the performers and practitioners of it. The same applies to English.

I found the essay by Terry Eagleton, “The Rise of English,” to be especially interesting. Before reading this, I never thought of literature as something that could be used to intentionally control and bind a society together. This makes me want to go back and think twice about everything that I have been taught in my English classes! But really, this is why I think that theory is important, because theory teaches us to not only analyze what the author of a text is saying but to develop our own understanding of that text. This is why I like what Bell Hooks says of feminist pedagogy, that it "should engage students in a learning process that makes the world 'more rather than less real.'" Literature should open the world to people, not close it as was hoped in the subject's early years.

I particularly like the part in Eagleton's essay where he talks about how the study of English began as “a subject fit for women, workers, and those wishing to impress the natives” that took a long time “to penetrate the bastions of ruling-class power in Oxford and Cambridge.” The way that students view English as an academic subject now contradicts the older view of English as a subject for women and the lower classes. For example, Ohmann points out that the overall number of students choosing English as an undergraduate major is down more than fifty percent over the past two decades, except for students attending the most selective and expensive schools, where there has been no decline in the number of students majoring in English. This makes me wonder how much the value of an English major is dependent upon the value that society as a whole places on the study of English. It also makes me think of supply and demand— that if there are less and less students receiving degrees in English, perhaps their skills will eventually become more valuable.

As someone who enjoys picking apart the little details in works of literature, I like what Robert Scholes had to say about the short saying on the bumper sticker that he saw. Scholes says that in order to understand the bumper sticker, you have to invoke your knowledge of historical, biblical, and linguistic concepts, a view with which I totally agree.

I learned a lot from the articles and liked Eagleton's piece about the history of English. That literature holds people together and is also a way for the ruling class to control people. Learning about the canon and how education keeps the system going was interesting. Tompkins article was also informative, I had assumed that the Great Books (books in the canon), really were great because they've been around so long and represent complex truths that only well-educated people can grasp and understand. Now I'm doubting that and am curious to read other authors from Hawthorne's time. Viswanathan's article also stood out to me, I hadn't thought about the impact of teaching English under colonial rule. It's interesting that English literature was taught in India before it was popular in England.

The articles that we have read so far have definitely changed my view about what we read and why we read it when studying English. The ideas of the canon had never really come up in any of my classes before this, and I had never really questioned why I was taught a certain book from a certain time period. The idea of how education in general is viewed, as useful in the post-education job search instead of self and societal improvement also affected how I look at my studies here.
The articles that I found the most interesting were the articles by Menand and Scholes. Menand talks about the rise in professionalism and the drop in enrollment of humanities majors in universities. Viewing education as a product or commodity aimed to a consumer rather than fostering enlightenment for students. Scholes was also interesting because he was one of the only authors who provided a guide for how to improve the curriculum instead of just pointing out its faults. I though the idea of incorporating the history of a text was really interesting. I was in a combined American History and American Literature class in high school, and having both the historical events and the text presented at the time allowed for a more complex understanding of the text.

The essay that spoke to me the most was Robert Scholes' 'A fortunate Fall?'. In pursuing English as a major, I have often been confused about exactly what skills or perspectives I am expected to develop. Is it just a matter of reading a variety of texts from various time periods? I never saw that as the correct approach. Instead of lending me more understanding as an English student, I feel that would only give me knowledge on the specifics of the text I read. Overall, I feel English as a field lacks a clear consensus on what and how we should read.
Therefore, I especially liked Robert Scholes' piece. I like how he breaks English studies into a series of methods: theory, history, production and consumption. In his perspective, we should focus on mastering these methods instead of trying to read every classic. With this mindset, I feel less like I need to speed through every "important" text, but rather I can focus on methods of study that will apply to every text. I don't feel like English is purely about covering text, it is about doing so intelligently.

I actually really enjoyed all of the theorists we have read so far and have learned a lot. The words of Friere and Vendler have stuck in my mind the most though as I continue to bring them up in my education classes. I think, for me, I was more interested in Vendler's argument that teachers should teach their students to love what they love. I agree with this argument because I believe that it has proven true. Students can always tell when they are just learning something because it is required or learning a topic that their teachers are uninterseted in and it usually reflect in the enthusiasm of the class overall. Students will not learn as well if they are not excited or interested with the material.
I know that from being in a classroom as a student for so many years it is apparent that students learn better when they express an interest in the subject. My Spanish teacher in highschool loved everything about teaching. She loved grammar, literature, poetry, vocabulary, speaking, writing, absolutely everything in her practice. When she taught she approached every class with love and enthusiasm. She taught using knowledge of other courses and she really engaged the students by expressing her own passion for the language. For me and countless other students over the years she has been the ideal teacher. I believe that it was due to her passion and energy that students were comfortable with learning, were interested in learning, and who liked to learn. Though many people I think find this and idealistic and unrealistic teaching style, I believe it is essential.

Throughout my many years in school and taking English classes I find that I am very stubborn when it comes to reading a novel that is assigned to me in class. If i begin to read a book and find it interesting, i continue to read it and become very involved with class discussions, homework assignments, etc.. However, if I don't like the book I stop reading the book altogether and accept whatever bad grade I get. It may be a juvenile approach, but I can't help it.
Therefore, I agree with Helen Venler's essay the most when she says teachers should have a passion for their work and teach that passion and love onto their students. To fully gain knowledge and appreciation for a novel, the teacher must show an interest as well and make the student excited to start (and continue) reading the novel that is assigned.

I was under the impression that the articles we were going to read would be conflicting, or contradictory. Friere and Ohmann feel the same way about capitalism and I do not think there is anyone in this book who opposes them. Freire and other educational progressives like Jonathan Kozol compare our educational system to the banking system. As students, we are just empty containers waiting to be filled. Well,our educational system must be doing something right, or else we would not have made it this far, and neither would have Freire. I did not expect Freire, or anyone else we read, to mention anything like that.
Ohmann feels that capitalism is the reason English has become less popular in higher education.
If Ohmann knew anything about supply and demand, he would know that it is the students who want high paying jobs and will go into fields like math and science, because they happen to be particularly useful in our society. This makes me think of the values of citizens, not the society we have constructed. This does not mean that there are less jobs available for English majors, or that English has become less important in other jobs; this simply means that we are putting more value on higher paying jobs. Ohmann is benefitting from our capitalist society since we are forced to read excerpts from his books in our capitalist schools.

I’ve always preferred writing to reading and have never thought about the study of English being so focused around literature – a lot of my earlier schooling has also focused on becoming a good writer, and the elements of reading it has focused on has run along the lines of picking out various literary devices and centering around one meaning.

I found Gerald Graff’s article the most interesting because it promotes pretty much everything I don’t like about reading. I have had a love-hate relationship with reading most of my life – I love the stories and the writing, but I hate the process for reading. And I actually really dislike reading for school. Thinking about various critical lenses as a toolbox and a way to relate to what you are reading is quite different as I find personal connections to literature more rewarding than any communal forum for discussion than I have found. Like Graff, I agree that one’s ability to talk about what they read is very important and can certainly make reading more interesting, however I often find various lenses and schools of thought somehow restrictive and limiting; I find that they actually often take the joy out of reading something. However, Graff makes valid points that are certainly helpful to keep in mind in an academic setting.

The article I enjoyed the most was Robert Scholes's article, not only because it was refreshing in that it offered a potential answer to the question of how to teach English as a discipline, but also because it struck very close to my own experience as a student of English. A few weeks ago, a friend of mine who received her B.A. in English at Lawrence was lamenting the fact that she hadn't taken any grammar classes during her time in college. She felt there was a huge gap in her knowledge as graduate with an English degree, that of the actual English language. I expressed similar frustration. Within our own English curriculum at UVM, there are no linguistics courses offered (they are offered through the CMS department), and there is no required study of grammar, syntax, or even of etymology. I do realize that this is not what most English students have in mind when they come to study English, but as a self-professed English Dork, it pains me in my heart that while I must study 19th C lit, the correct usage of the semi-colon passes untouched through my English education.

I guess my real beef with the English curriculum here at UVM is the lack of structure. As I said, I'm an English dork; I love reading and writing, but I also love linguistics, grammar, history of language, philology, etc. Not to mention theory. My frustration is that I'm not able to pursue all these avenues of study within my English education; there simply isn't the time, especially if you add in the core requirements and minor. Robert Scholes's essay seemed to me an excellent proposition of one way English education could be re-structured so that the emphasis would be less on literature (coverage) and more on equipping students with a comprehensive knowledge of the English language and a variety of tools in which to pursue the numerous areas of study within the discipline. Reading literature I can do on my own, and I will, if given the free time. Studying theory, however, or linguistics, or taking the time to really learn the craft of writing- these things I won't do on my own. I just don't have the discipline. And that's what I'm looking for in my English education.

The article that made me think the most was Paulo Friere's "The 'Banking' Concept of Education". It was not the "banking" concept which intrigued me, teachers have preached against it since high school yet practiced it religiously from elementary school on. What grabbed me while I was reading Friere's article was the notion that if students resist the banking system we can have a say in what is taught. The more we question and analyze texts and theories and their value the more we can help to shape the subject of English and what is called English literature.

Our influence can be extended to the canon as well. Though canonical works usually posses the qualities of being universal and an artistic use of language, the factors that allow one great work to be canonical and another to be lost to the annals of time appears to be quite ambiguous. One factor that seems to play a large role is curriculum. The curriculum is something which we as students, some of whom will be come teachers and professors, can influence. Though immediate change is possible, it is rare. Our biggest impact can be the long term change on the canon and how it is viewed when we become the professors and teachers, editors and publishers. While Tompkins and Scholes have had an impression on me the match was definately lit by Friere.

The article that made me think the most about why we read and study English was Paulo Freire’s “The ‘Banking’ Concept of Education.” The teacher – student relationship is an overlooked one, and I think that Freire makes many good points about the importance of well balanced and meaningful interactions in the classroom. I enjoyed his representation of the traditional classroom structure as a bank, where the teacher makes deposits into the students, who are then free to file and store the deposits as they please. I also agree with his belief of the importance of the necessary role reversal between students and teachers so that all parties involved can critically think about the problems surrounding reality. Freire’s assertion that “[l]iberating education consists in acts of cognition, not transferrals of information” has caused me to question the way that the American educational system works, and I believe that I would greater appreciate my education and learn more if I were considered as an equal to all of my teachers. On the contrary, it is important for all participants in a conversation or debate to have the same basic understanding of the topic, so I believe that it is important to include both the banking method of education and the problem-posing method in the classroom in order to most effectively educate the students and the teachers. This essay has challenged my previous conceptions of effective teaching and learning, and I’m now convinced of the true importance of problem prosing and critical problem solving.

Richter's introduction made me think the most. This book is not the most recent, but I doubt much has changed. As an English major who only has a true passion for reading and understanding literature as well as writing, it makes me wonder where I'm going. If we are in a state of theory now, what will it be like by the time I'm finished with my education (especially since I currently don't plan to stop at a BA)? If the state of theory can be resolved, I hope for something like Robert Scholes' proposed curriculum. Not only is it centered around theory, but it is also based on production and consumption. I'm most impressed by his reach to history; I think that theory requires knowing what was happening at the time a piece of literature was written. I think most true understanding of any book depends on its time period. I'm optimistic, and I hope English will not become an obscure discipline for educated eccentrics.

The articles we have read to date, including Richter’s introduction, have been enlightening. Originally, I thought the study of English was objective. Many of these articles take the position: it is not objective, while others believe it is, or at least should be. The information in Why We Read that is somewhat new to me. The main theme seems to be: the study of English began with an increasing skepticism of religion in England; it’s purpose was to disseminate humanistic qualities among the working-class. This was outlined in The Rise of English by Terry Eagleton. English study was then used as a tool for colonization as outlined in Introduction to Masks of Conquest by Gauri Viswanathan. This is seen as the first steps towards the study of English. What I’ve gathered from some of the articles is that the study of English is making a complete cycle. In The “Banking” Concept of Education by Paulo Freire and Toward a Revolutionary Feminist Pedagogy by Bell Hooks, it appears the education our students are getting is subjective; this is similar to the colonization of India, when the ruling class instructed Indians on what they could read. What We Have Loved, Others Will Love by Helen Vendler talks of how colleges now want composition taught more, in a vocational manner. This is all similar to how English as a study came about. It makes me wonder if the study will make another cycle or simply come to an End (I hope not).
The article I found most interesting was Disliking Books at an Early Age by Gerald Graff. This article came in opposition to We Have Loved, Others Will Love by Helen Vendler who believed that one should read simply for the text, “the literature will teach itself.” Gerald Graff is a proponent of critical reading and discussion; this propelled him toward his further study in literature. Like Graff, I don’t agree with “The traditional maxim…that a good book teaches itself”. I find that I gain much more out of reading literature if I’m looking for something within the text. Like Graff, I find myself blankly reading books without questions to ask of the text or questions to look for. “The assumption was that leaving me alone with literary texts themselves, uncontaminated by the interpretations and theories of professional critics would enable me to get on the closest possible terms with those texts. But being alone with the texts only left me feeling bored and helpless, since I had no language with which to make them mine” This outlines Graff’s sentiments toward the “let the book teach itself” theory, and supports his theory of looking for criticism. I’m not comparing myself to Gerald Graff by any means; I liked his article because I could relate to his problems and solutions toward the study of literature.

The article I found the most interesting was the Gerald Graff atricle. He found that literature was more interesting to him once he had a way of taking it apart. He liked the theory and critical debates that could go along with the texts. He craved to be able to debate over what is really meant in the text and whether or not what is being said is actually what is meant and the criticism of the text that goes along with that. I also enjoy taking texts apart and looking for the meaning and social context behind the words and the critism that goes along with that. Yet I cannot agree with him that the theory and criticism that goes into the text is what should drive students. Although there is more to a text than what is written and there has to be some type of thought into the deeper meaning of the text, this should not be what students "live" for. Sometimes a text can be overanalyzed. If you are diving into the book too much, you can miss the beauty of the writing and the story. Shakespeare wanted to entertain his audience, and in some plays make them think about the politics and society going on around them, but I do not think he ever expected students to sit around in a class and take apart his plays and poems to analyze them. By doing nothing but analyze the texts, I feel you miss the beauty of the text and the lesson or story that it may contain. There does have to be some type of analysis, but professors should not expect students to be driven by the criticism. The criticism should be more of a suppliment to the text, rather than take over the text and the classroom discussion.

"What we have loved, others will love" by Helen Vendler is the article that caught my attention the most. Vendler speaks about the way students are taught. I feel that Vendler’s article gave voice to a lot of my feelings in how I’ve had English taught to me. Her idea is that if students are taught to enjoy and love reading, it gives them a strong base to build upon. Through better reading comes better writing. And if a student is taught not only to read but to love to read as well as the language the literature is written in, they will become better informed of the world of language and literature around them. Her argument is that if the teacher teaches something that they themselves love and are passionate about, the student will learn to love it as well. I find this idea intriguing as before coming to college I had only had one English teacher that was extremely passionate about the books we read in his class. It did make a difference in the students he turned out. In his class, we were more willing to read due to his enthusiastic praise of each book, just to see what he loved about it. The part about Vendler argument that really caught my attention though, is that the student should learn about the native language the literature was written in. I can see the reasoning behind this. A lot of subtle details and word plays can and are lost in translations. A more complete understanding of the culture, time period and language are sometimes required to help make sense of a book or piece of literature.

The article that made me think the most was The Demise of Disciplinary Authority by Louis Menand. I think that I was able to relate to this article the most because he speaks of the student and relates them to his theory. He gives attention to the fact that the future of students who receive degrees is not concrete, and it is possible that not only the economy, but the way in which we have been learning contributes to that fact. It seems that we are on a continuum where trends of learning, the economy, HOW we are learning, and ideologies of what should be taught come in and out of 'style'. Menand's example of Modernist art and literature being focused on form and technique and then in the sixties art and literature turned more ornamental, a way of SHOWING what is to be learned and the professor shows the students how to interpret instead of ALLOWING them to fully understand and grasp the subject. It seems in my opinion the Modernist way of technique would be more of a rewarding experience intellectually. His mention of these trends relating to professionalism shows how the society which one is living directly affects how they are learning and what type of student they are expected to be. I believe that a lot of the articles we are reading touch on the idea that a spectrum of a 'type' of student has evolved from educational trends.