Book Review "Why Read"

Review of Mark Edmundson’s Why Read? “Why should I read? I do not understand the majority of what I do read.” That is a bold opening line for an essay. That was me when I was 29 years old, pregnant, stuck in bed by my physician, watching limited boring television until someone brought me a grocery bag full of all types of paperbacks to read. I learned to read and step outside that “societal box.” The “societal box” is the old custom of the way a southern woman was supposed to be – wife and mother. [Fast forward] the time is 2011 and I have just finished reading Mark Edmundson’s Why Read? It is a very interesting book about why students should read, comparing the educational knowledge and wisdom of the Liberal Arts reader to other professions, interpretations, instructional methods, and more. It is an over-whelming book that I cannot agree with wholeheartedly. I also think this book is too long winded, repetitive, and lacking in the real support of individualism—after all reading is part of life in every aspect whether or not a person is 6 years old or 76 years old. It is humanly impossible for an average human being not to read once they get past the age of 6 years old. (Keep in mind that will always be exceptions to this rule.) It is important not to confuse plain reading with comprehension. Reading, though, is a second nature to every single person able to do so. In this book, I honestly feel that, Edmundson wanted to convey that if we do not read, how can we learn about ourselves—our likes and dislikes in life? (5) This is a great notion that does not pertain to gender, race, culture, religion, or sexual orientation; reading is equally open to all persons. I feel that the core to his argument is the value of liberal reading – such as in a liberal arts program. These are the types of curriculum that train many a collegiate student to go out and take their place in the world with an avant-garde wisdom, dogma, or training needed to be prolific in today’s society—almost in any area. If that being the core of his argument, I am not so sure I agree with it. In the summer of 2002 and summer of 2011, Hardwick Day conducted a study (2700 person telephone interviews) exploring the “lasting effects of college in such areas as career preparation and advancement, skill development, development of personal and professional values and attitude, and community involvement.” (Salem College) Key findings: 1. 75% of Liberal Arts degree people rated excellent compared to 53% of other graduates 2. 70% of Liberal Arts degree people benefited from a highly-qualified teaching-oriented instructor, compared 63% of private and 40% public universities 3. 88% of Liberal Arts degree stated there was a sense of community among students compared to 79% of private and 63% public universities. (Salem College) These results just support other surveys previously conducted that state; the students are happiest and more successful in Liberal Arts Programs, because it gave them an edge in writing and speaking. This was compared to other degree programs not in a humanities type development. (Salem College) I do not agree with this is because of the actual value of the education that a younger person might receive. I am not speaking of financial value but an emotional value of appreciation in literature beyond the collegiate levels. In this book, I did not make a connection other than through the economic, the “pocket book.” It is true general knowledge that there will always be a certain amount of students who will not choose to take a liberal arts program because of the reading. These types of jobs will be in the industry of computers, finance, technical/medical support staff, or some type of science related industry. But will these individuals be opting out to get a good dose of learned wisdom as Edmundson implied? (10-11) Drawing on personal experience, there is not a guarantee with any educational training that a student will be the wiser for having taken it even if they happen to excel to become degreed. For example, just because a doctor is a learned person, doesn’t make them a good doctor or a wise doctor. The same interpretation can be made about nurses, lawyers, judges, teachers, social workers, anthropologists, or police officers. Edmundson did not make any relative point about what is the difference between a liberal arts student reading a Jane Austen novel in a freshman collegiate literature class compared to a nurse reading Jane Austen when they are middle aged? The student may be prompted to compare the characteristic fiber with her own self-discovery for a paper grade. The nurse may approach the characters with her own self-discovery in an imaginary sense. I am assuming that it would be highly unlikely that either reader would spend any quality time to research the actual author since she has become a Hollywood iconic type figure. Both readers would learn that this Jane Austen book was written during a period of romanticism about the English entitled and a slight mixing of the social classes generally in a country side setting. The overall balance obtained would be equal – both being the better for having read it. It doesn’t necessarily mean that either of them is wiser than the other because of the reader’s ages. There also will be people who just do not want to choose a liberal arts program for whatever reason—that are perfectly suited for the profession they have entered into—with the utmost wisdom. Another area of this book that was attractive and a bit comical was pertaining to instructional methods. In a class last summer (that I took), the instructor wrote something along the lines in his syllabus that he will not debate creationism in any sense with any student because this is an anthropology class. “In other words, we teachers strike an unspoken agreement with religion and its dispenser. They do their work, we do ours.” (23) This basically begins the passage “The World According to Jerry Falwell.” Edmundson is correct in his summation, however, someone (from personal memory) forget to tell that to the late Brother Falwell that religion, education, and politics does not make for a happy camper! One word that I feel that Edmundson should have used in addressing religion is objectivity. This should have been enforced with the argument that it is okay to feel the way you do whether other people agree with you or not. I personally do not think this is stressed in educational literature enough. This type of humanities cultivation is imperative regardless of the degree path---something that Edmundson doesn’t stress at all in Why Read? I concur with Edmundson about “Religion is the right place to start a humanities course, for a number of reasons….” (25) One thing that I learned from a Religion 101 class and a class called Mysticism in America (both humanity type classes) is to question our own beliefs and how we came to feel about the way we did. It doesn’t mean that you doubt the word of God. These types of classes without the assistance of people like Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart, or Joel Osteen can encourage a person (regardless of their age) to research their spirituality, to re-examine ideals, and question about historically religious physical findings with the written Biblical word. It can enhance a person’s (like it did me) understanding of why they are a Christian. It helped me to understand that there are underlying Biblical messages that God really wants us to question our faith with every decision we make in life and how we live our lives. Being well read in philosophies of religions can also help us gain a greater respect for other cultures as well. Edmundson covered a lot of this in his book. The “Final Narratives” section is appealing because of the “what if’s” type question that Edmundson suggests to his students. This section is like the great age of exploration. “I ask about how they image the good life. I ask, sometimes, how they picture their lives in ten years if all turns out for the best. I want to know what they hope to achieve in politics, in their professions, in family life, in love.” (27) The instructional method for reading at this point is vitally important because it details the student’s imagination and gets them to formulate specific feeling of where they are now and tend to be within a specific time period. For each time an instructor questions a student (unless the student has cauliflower for brains) the “brain” is thinking, which enhances the leads to a prompt for writing in a literary type method. “The objective is to help students place their ultimate narratives in the foregrounds and open themselves up to influence.” (137) There is so much that can be related when combining religion and spirituality with sociology, history, psychology, ethics, economics, and sciences that many scholars just do not actuality understand in their collegiate academics. However, Edmundson did not state this evidently; he stated repetitious examples of great authors and the meaning of how they felt on how reading would improve (empower) the average student; the examples do not necessarily connect these areas as a whole. Just because Edmundson gives us an academic explanation, doesn’t mean we are going to understand it. “So far Emerson has made the process of human expansion seem almost automatic, as though it were a matter of natural evolutionary force.” (29) Really! I always thought that we are born, grow, and grow older, return close to helplessness like we were at birth and die. Is that not evolutionary? I, like so many, learn that in literature but 5th or 6th grade science. The soul has nothing to do with this. I am sure that in the 1800s when Emerson wrote it might have been a discovery but in 2011 – oh woo! A student studying Emerson (with this natural evolutionary force) would possibly have the tendency to yawn and fall asleep.

Students who fell asleep in a basic literature class at a North Carolina Technical College. Emerson would have good use to teach future educators to instruct their students the elements for comprehension of historical literature. It is really nice of Edmundson to mention all the great poets and philosophical writers, but is it wise to loan so much to the historical expression and less to the current manner of literature. I am not referring to the word “Pop” or even “pop-culture.” (128) (Pop is not literature but a soda that goes right through you!) One of the considerable awakenings for me in liberal arts or Why Read? is the now compared to then. 20th Century literature “which is more and more taught at universities, usually cannot offer such prospects.” (130) Is the author telling us that Toni Morrison cannot be as effective as Emerson? Does a literary writer need to have written more than 100 years ago to be great? I feel as if on pages 128 to 136 is short changing the intellect of many. Yes it is true that “unlike Faulkner, King did not write ‘works of universal human significance.’” King sure did make a lot of money as a writer and there are several of his books worth looking at in a literary sense. Examples such as Delores Claiborne or Coffey on the mile had a tremendous amount of self discovery as well as being just well written books. Delores Claiborne offered the question of “how far would a mother go to protect her child?” Coffey on the mile is about consequences and actions in a series of books. It eventually became incorporated in the movie Green Mile. If a student walked away “unsatisfied” after reading King then the teacher must have lacked the “universal” insight of “human significance” to be able to teach the valuable form of that author. (133) Teachers should be attentive more so to the current century of literature that would catch the attention of their students. After all what is the purpose of this book? It is to get students to read, to be able to write about their reading experiences, to get them to study and question about themselves, and to learn. The most prepared instructor (or school system) should be able to compromise on their choice of good reading material. For example: if students are going to read a Shakespearian play then they also need to read Steve Martin’s Picasso at the Lapin Agile and other Plays. I agree with Edmundson that students “need to know what’s worth taking seriously, and what’s a noisy diverson.” (134) Television made movies also shouldn’t by any means intimidate educators but enhance their methods. A great example of this is Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion, William Faulkner’s Long Hot Summer, Tennessee Williams’s Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Homer’s Troy, Sir Thomas Malory’s Lancelot of the Lake, or Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre. This is where Edmundson on page 135 should have had an imagination and said “hey look at this method of teaching” which he failed to do. I have actually sat down and read Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell. I am so glad that I did because it gave me a chance to discuss it with my friends, certain family members, and my children who were all buffs of the movie. Since then many of my friends have read the book to get a greater understanding and are glad they read it. Edmundson doesn’t realize or may not want to cover the subject of “spoon feeding literature” to students. The most insights that I gained from this book is when Edmundson included Orwell (a great literary genius in my opinion) and his essay about Charles Dickens in this book. (96) I like Orwell because he is “dark” in his styles of literature. I have to admit, I have never read Charles Dickens (until recently) and I hope to never read him again after completing Hard Times in another class. I have to say, I now loathe Dickens. I have to agree with Edmundson’s interpretation of Orwell that Dickens really lacked imagination. (97) My point is not every student, reader, or literary critic is going to get the same appreciation of a book as another. If Edmundson thinks that the proper teaching method to awaken the inner self of all students, then this is a great pep-talk book for humanity teachers but far from being 100% realistic. Why read? should have basically stuck to the 4 variables (principles) as to why people do or should read: 1. Academic, 2. Entertainment, 3. Academic Entertainment, and 4. Personal appeal. (8) Instead he elaborated on those principles and stretched the information into 146 pages of useless banter. An instructor in tune with teaching their students and the subject matter objectively – should be about obtaining the knowledge from the students after reading any work—regardless of the matter. Students who obtain a liberal arts degree may very well in fact be more content with themselves for having done so, but not all students are wiser for it. Not all students can handle this type of course load for the reading requirements (as I have stated earlier.) Not all students are cut the same and this is why I disagree with some of the subject matter that he is trying to convey. If teachers would like to learn how students feel about the material that they read, then let them read, let them discuss, let them write about their experiences with the material. Previous opinions of a subject matter are important, but not necessarily that of the student reader who may see things differently than Orwell or Edmundson and for that matter even me. Freud, in my opinion, should be kept out of literature interpretation, because he is a skeleton, an outdated father of psycho analysis. Finally let us not make our literature a thing of the “deep dark psyche” that everyone should have an epitamy of self discover, because humanly speaking why should we. From personal experience in my BLS (Bachelor of Liberal Arts Studies) the easiest was to get a student to read is to present the material and a series of questions. If a student has a problem with this, then maybe the student shouldn’t be in those types of classes. My son is one of those students who would be totally lost in a Liberal Arts program, but my daughter would thrive on it. Does this stop my son from reading? No it does not. He gains extreme personal insight from technical reading and or audio books. If Edmundson would have really thought about all of this, the ultimate introduction for literature is in the earlier grades (as I have stated.) It should be spoon fed slowly to build up an appreciation. By the time these students reach collegiate level, they will be thoroughly trained and read. They will have obtained variant degrees of wisdom and knowledge. Then they can make better choices about what types of careers to choose from and how their character was formed by this type of method. Edmundson’s ideas were similar to mine but with the overwhelming amount of information in his book (Why read?). It was hard to differentiate and absorb. It was geared mainly toward the college levels only which is why I did not totally agree with him. Works Cited Edmundson, Mark. Why Read? Bloomsburg: New York. 2004. Salem College, Liberal Arts Program Study. Hardwick Day: North Carolina. 2002, 2011. Web 23rd November 2011. http://www.salem.edu/news/study-reveals-graduates-of-salem-and- other -liberal-arts-colleges-feel-better-prepared-for-lifes-challenges