One of my poetry professors had an inimitable way of teaching poetry. He would seize upon certain lines or phrases and then tell long stories about them and what they could mean. Somehow, no matter how far he went off, he would find his way back to the poem in question. I would leave class with little memory of what he said. But I would see the poem in a profoundly different way, and parts of his lecture would come back over time.

Once we were reading the villanelle “One Art” by Elizabeth Bishop. I remember that he suggested that the villanelle form itself might (traditionally and inherently) have to do with loss. Bishop, being aware of this, was not only writing about loss but responding to others’ treatment of loss through the villanelle. Thus she was responding to Dylan Thomas, Edwin Arlington Robinson, and others, breaking the rules of the form slightly to show something about it.

But that was only part of what came through in that class. I remember how he read the last stanza, pronouncing “Write it!” with a kind of ferocity. He pointed to her restraint and the heartbreak that comes through it. But more than anything, he read it in a memorable way.

—Even losing you (the joking voice, a gesture
I love) I shan’t have lied. It’s evident
the art of losing’s not too hard to master
though it may look like (Write it!) like disaster.

I have come back to that poem many, many times. I wish that I could remember everything that my professor said about it. But I am sure that it is in part thanks to him that I have returned to it; whatever I learned or didn’t learn from that class, I knew there would be more to find when I returned.

Now, are these “levels” or “angles”? That’s another question. I would say a “level” includes a previous understanding and more. An “angle” could bring out an aspect of a work without necessarily touching upon other “angles.” Thanks for asking the question, Tracy; I like to define my terms, but sometimes I forget to do so!

Can you please let me know where I was arguing that less is more?
I did say that there was a fundamental tradeoff in English literature, and in history, between depth and breadth, and I didn’t know what position on that trade-off was right, and I didn’t even know what units you could use to work out what the right position was.

And, yes, I do passionately believe that theme is important; this is how literature engages us in the contemplation of the human condition across time and place.

I find more sources for contemplating the human condition across time and place than just in the theme of the novel. My attention gets caught as much by the little bits, eg Elinor Dashwood, when her mother is wondering how she would spend a hypothetical large fortune, jokes that her mother just needs to start on her renovation plans for the house and the problem will take care of yourself. Home renovation is not the theme of Sense and Sensibility, but the joke rings true today. Plus of course, professional critics often find multiple themes to a piece of work, indeed that’s a measure of a great piece of work, that it will bear multiple readings. While I am on the Jane Austen line, her novels can be read as comic romances, as explorations of the moral choice of spouse, as proto-feminist works, and in the case of Emma, as a mystery novel. Just because someone missed the theme doesn’t mean they missed every theme.

And of course, if you study a novel in class, the teacher can just tell the class “the theme” if the class doesn’t have the historical knowledge to reconstruct the allusions. Just as in history class, the teacher can tell the class about the Treaty of Versailles before getting down to the history of WWII. It’s not necessary to learn literature starting with the Greek myths and legends and Biblical stories, and history starting with the bones of Lucy, which I think makes it different to mathematics where arithmetic appears fundamental.

Diana: I didn’t propose that students return to a work of literature multiple times, emphasizing a different skill each time. That may have been Tracy’s idea, but I don’t want to misrepresent her.

Sorry, it was me misunderstanding what you were talking about. When you talked about knowing that there was more to a poem, story or play than may appear at the first reading, I translated that in my head to the various different ways I can look at a poem, story, or play. My apologies for misinterpreting you. What do you mean when you talk about different levels?

I said that “a teacher can convey in various ways that the poem does not end with the class reading of it.” A teacher can help students see that there’s more to a poem, story, or play than may appear at first reading. And yes, memorization is very important.

My main point was that literature cannot be reduced to skills, though skills come into play. There is good reason for whole-class instruction and discussion: that is how one hears the work and start to consider it at different levels.

From kindergarten on, I was an advanced reader for my age. As far as skills go, I could have learned on my own, with teacher conferences, some good books, and not much else. But I have not forgotten how my teachers and professors read literature aloud, and how they helped us see meanings and levels we hadn’t seen before (sometimes just through their manner of reading). I don’t know what my life would have been like without that.

Tracy: I don’t have a piece of literature in mind for Diana’s proposal because I don’t agree with the approach. First of all, students balk at reading anything twice (if you can get them to read it the first time). Secondly, I don’t see the point in making a cursory pass at something. I don’t think the proficiency model will work particularly well past 9th grade for English. A 9th grader can have the technical skills, but not the sophistication he will need to go on to college study. And believe it or not, colleges do want students to have read widely before they get there.

I’m glad to see you are still arguing that less is more. I think there is a difference between how a novel is taught in a literature class and reading for pleasure. That’s the value added of having a teacher in the room to point out the theme. And, yes, I do passionately believe that theme is important; this is how literature engages us in the contemplation of the human condition across time and place. Sure, it’s fun to do the TTC tour of Paris, but there is so much more to that novel.

I think tracking at the high school level is clearly appropriate as long as it is implemented flexibly and is data driven. I teach a remedial class, advanced placement, and a highly differentiated gen ed course. It is much easier to teach the two extremes than to accomodate everything all the time and the students benefit from being served on their level. This isn’t a popular philosophy, however.

The Shakespeare treat that we were provided in 9th grade (despite the release in theaters of the Olivia Hussey version of Romeo and Juliet) was Julius Ceasar. Ugh. Didn’t get it then and it’s never interested me since. Maybe it’s because I didn’t get Greek Mythology early enough (we were reading novels about growing up in early jr high, as I recall, but this somehow also included Alice in Wonderland–chock full of double entendre and social satire).

This is entirely probable, since I’ve never done it. However, if I am wrong in any of the things I have said, please tell me precisely how.

Why would you introduce Hamlet as plot only? Hamlet is a senior level (generally) play because the concepts are more sophisticated and aren’t very accessible to less mature learners.

I was using Hamlet as a concrete example of how one could return to a piece of literature multiple times from different angles, as this was what Diana was talking about earlier. As you think Hamlet is inappropriate for such a role, please do me the kindness of reading my comments substituting in another work that does meet with your approval for such a role.

Allusion is an important part of literature.

Indeed. Allusion is not however the only part of literature. It is possible to read a piece of literature, not get the allusions, and still enjoy the book/poem/play itself. I have done it multiple times. I get more out of a work the more I know, but not every work actually requires understanding all the allusions.

And if you don’t understand the theme of redemption after revolution, then you have missed the point of the novel entirely; I don’t care what you know about the plot and Sidney Carlton.

Thank you for the information about what you don’t care about. I found having read The Tale of Two Cities added considerable depth to my first visit to Paris. I may have missed “the point” of the novel entirely, but that doesn’t mean that I wasted my time entirely. I found it worthwhile reading even without getting the main theme.

And, btw, if you read Jane Eyre, you have read a gothic novel that Austen was mocking in Northanger Abby. Sheesh.

First publication date of Jane Eyre was 1847. First publication date of Northanger Abbey was 1817. I do not believe that Jane Austen was mocking Jane Eyre in Northanger Abbey.

Best I can tell you are suggesting what I was, that literature has a natural ordering similar to mathematics. However I’m willing to work with the idea that I’m mistaken, so I suggested other less ordered approaches would work with proficiency promotion as well.

I’m still interested on your views on tracking. I’m not sure if you saw my previous comment where I posed some questions.

Allusion is an important part of literature. Those who wrote for money — ie. Dickens — still expected their audience to understand these allusions without a PhD. His audience, for example, was extremely familiar with the bible and BCP, so those were slam dunks. He did not have to explain the idea of redemption and its symbolism in A Tale of Two Cities to his audience like I have to do with mine. And if you don’t understand the theme of redemption after revolution, then you have missed the point of the novel entirely; I don’t care what you know about the plot and Sidney Carlton.

Are you really asking us to restructure literature instruction so that students know less? Are you really arguing “because I don’t understand this, nobody else has to either”?

And, btw, if you read Jane Eyre, you have read a gothic novel that Austen was mocking in Northanger Abby. Sheesh.

BTW, I do not have a PhD in English Literature.