Volume 6
Number 1
[Return to Index]

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 12:40:59 -0400
Subject: JRNL: Close Reading

***JRNL: T-AMLIT JOURNAL***

Below is a posting that was sent in recently in response to a query about the close reading courses-- like the one known as Humanities 6 -- at Amherst and elsewhere. This posting is one response to that query.

However, in this posting, Mark makes the additional observation that it would be fruitful to have a discussion on this list about "close reading" and theories of "close reading" in different contexts. Naturally, "close reading" has changed its meaning in certain really important ways over recent decades in light of theoretical and canonical revolutions in our field. On the other hand, certain salient aspects of "close reading" have survived, perhaps evolved, in light of changing practices of teaching and reading American literatures. Since we haven't had an extended discussion on the T-AMLIT JOURNAL thread for a while, I thought the topic of close reading theory and practice, and what that might still mean to our field, would be an excellent topic.

For those who are new: T-AMLIT JOURNAL is one of the threads on this list that allows a place for posting longer more reflective dialogue on broad, conceptual and theoretical issues.

I hope we can get a good JOURNAL disucssion going on this topic.
RBass

From: IN%"mlong@u.washington.edu" "Mark Long"
Subj: RE: QUERY: Humanities 6 & Amherst

Dan: I think Poirier also talks about his experiences in the collection of essays/interviews, "Wild Orchids and Trotsky." The question you ask is quite interesting and I'd like to suggest we explore on this list some of the theories of close reading that have been shaped withing different departments over the course of century.

Is it possible that we all begin with same assumption when we study literature (texts) that attention to form (however we define this term) is the ground of any responsible critical practice? And if so, is it a common denominator of critical work? If so, who would say so? If not, who would say not? And how (to get back to Dan's query) does the theoretical interest of these questions find its way down the river and into our classrooms?

Finally, Dan, it would be interesting to hear what you find out. Well rested in Seattle,

Mark
mlong@u.washington.edu

Volume 6
Number 2
[Return to Index]

Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 07:47:01 -0400
Subject: JRNL: Close Reading

***JRNL: T-AMLIT JOURNAL***

Below is one short response to my recent JRNL starter topic on "Close Reading." Let me pose the question again: Does "close reading" have currency among American Literature teachers anymore? Naturally, "close reading" has a burdened history, associated as it is with new criticism and an ahistorical formalism. But "close reading" is not the same thing as "closed reading" despite that history. Especially with a newly expanded canon and a wide range of theoretical and socio-historical approaches to the literatures of the US, surely there is still an ethic of "close reading."

But what are the strategies and theories for teaching such a thing in the mid 1990's?

Can we discuss these or Adolph Soens' question below?
RBass

From: IN%"Adolph.L.Soens.1@nd.edu"
Subj: RE: JRNL: Close Reading

Does not any theory of "close reading" that emphasizes or demands primary attention to form obviate any study of literature in translation?


CEPACS