“No Symbols Where None Intended”
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
130.3 ] theories and methodologies “No Symbols Where None Intended” WHAT DOES THE AVERAGE MIDDLE SCHOOLER KNOW ABOUT CLOSE READING? joshua gang Launched in 2010 and adopted by forty- three states and the Dis- trict of Columbia,1 the Common Core State Standards read like a Well Wrought Urn for kids—a New Critical primer for a new gen- eration. From kindergarten through grade 12, close reading is the backbone of literary curricula. With each passing year, students per- form close readings of increasing complexity—and with what feels like increasing adherence to New Critical doctrine. According to the Common Core reading standards, ffh graders must be able to “determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including fgurative language such as metaphors and similes.” Tey must also be able to explain “how a series of chapters, scenes, or stanzas fts together to provide the overall structure of a particular story, drama, or poem” (12). By eighth grade, students must be able to “provide an objective summary of the text” and “compare and con- trast the structure of two or more texts and analyze how the difering structure of each text contributes to its meaning and style” (36). And by eleventh or twelfh grade, they must “cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain” (38). Students meeting these stan- dards, we are told, can “readily undertake the close, attentive reading that is at the heart of understanding and enjoying complex literature” (3). In their textbook Understanding Poetry (1938), which popularized close reading across North American universities, Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren announced a similar goal: “to present to the student, in proper context and afer proper preparation, some of the JOSHUA GANG , an assistant professor of basic critical problems—with the aim, not of making technical crit- En glish at the University of California, Berkeley, is working on his manuscript ics, but merely of making competent readers of poetry” (xiv). “Word and Mind: Behaviorism and Liter- But the Common Core standards aren’t entirely faithful to the ary Modernity, 1913 to the Present.” His New Critics—particularly when it comes to authorial intention. In work has appeared in journals such as Principles of Literary Criticism (1924), I. A. Richards warned that ELH and Novel: A Forum on Fiction. © 2015 joshua gang PMLA 130.3 (2015), published by the Modern Language Association of America 679 “No Symbols Where None Intended” [ PMLA “whatever psycho-analysts may aver, the men- discussions of surface reading, readers have tal processes of the poet are not a very proft- been asked to think about the texts in front of able feld for investigation. Te difculty them instead of the minds behind those texts. is that nearly all speculations as to what went “Tough we would not endorse Paul de Man’s on in the artist’s mind are unverifable” (24). insistence on the ‘void that separates’ poetic This argument became infamous through intent from reality,” Stephen Best and Sharon W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley’s “Te Marcus write in “Surface Reading: An Intro- Intentional Fallacy” (1946), which argued that duction” (2009), “we remain intrigued by his authorial mental states couldn’t be inferred observation that poetry is the ‘foreknowledge’ from literary texts—and didn’t need to be: of criticism, and that the interpreter therefore “Tere is a gross body of life, of sensory and ‘discloses poetry for what it is’ and articulates theories and methodologies mental experience, which lies behind and in ‘what was already there in full light’” (12).2 some sense causes every poem, but can never In “Close Reading and Thin Description” be and need not be known in the verbal and (2013), Heather Love makes a parallel claim: hence intellectual composition which is the literary studies, she explains, “might forge an poem” (12). But in the Common Core stan- expanded defense of reading by considering dards it is precisely this “gross body of life, of practices of exhaustive, thin description . sensory and mental experience” that students forms of analysis that describe patterns of be- must learn to incorporate into their analy- havior and visible activity but do not trafc ses. By tenth grade, students are expected to in speculation about interiority, meaning, or “analyze how an author’s choices concerning depth” (404). At the same time, recent discus- how to structure a text, order events within sions of afect have asked the degree to which it (e.g., parallel plots), and manipulate time intentional actions are predicated on involun- (e.g., pacing, flashbacks) create such effects tary processes. In “Te Turn to Afect” (2011), as mystery, tension, or surprise.” By twelfh Ruth Leys claims that contemporary theories grade, the requirement is that students under- of afect are staunchly “anti- intentionalist”: stand how “an author’s choices . contribute they believe that “action and behavior” are to [a text’s] overall structure and meaning as “determined by afective dispositions that are well as its aesthetic impact” (38). In defance independent of consciousness and the mind’s of the New Critics of old, the Common Core control” (443). Responding to Leys, Jona- wants students and teachers to reconstruct than Flatley argues that “afects and moods the “author’s choices”—his or her decisions, may not be directly subject to intentions . voluntary actions—from the text. In efect, it but this does not mean that there is no way asks them to infer the author’s intentions—to to exert agency in relation to our afects and infer from literature the same sorts of things afective experiences, only that such agency they infer from conversation and texting. is mediated, variable, and situated” (505). In Te Common Core is deeply fawed in many this framework, intentions are only knowable ways—particularly in the idea that close read- or accessible insofar as they are mediated or ing is the only way to understand a work of lit- mitigated by affects. And these affects, in erature. On this point of the author’s choices, turn, are not necessarily knowable by or ac- however, it’s moving in the right direction. cessible to the conscious mind. But while the Common Core invokes in- Surface reading and afect theory may be tention readily, contemporary literary criti- new to literary study, but the concerns we have cism doesn’t. We’re not as dogmatic about about intention today are largely the same as it as the New Critics were. Nonetheless, those expressed by Richards and the New concerns about intention remain. In recent Critics. Te reasoning is as follows: As a reader 130.3 ] Joshua Gang I only have empirical knowledge of the texts in obstacles, as if there were any form of com- theories and methodologies front of me. Much in the way I don’t have ac- munication that didn’t struggle with other cess to other minds, I don’t have access to the minds or mediated agencies.4 As critical read- author’s intentions. At the same time, I also ers of literature, we hold ourselves to a stan- know that many of my own intentional actions dard that would paralyze understanding in are predicated on unintentional processes— most other contexts. whether physiological, cognitive, or afective. For example, a man tells you the road Terefore, even if I could access an author’s in- is closed ahead. You’re unable to confrm or tentions, I’d have no guarantee that they were deny this statement. His cadence, facial ex- fully intentional or fully realized. pressions, and body language give you no Nonetheless, my claim here is that in- sense of his state of mind. You can’t tell if he’s tention is an essential concept for literary lying or telling the truth. All you have is his study. I am not the first person to attempt utterance; you can’t infer his intentions or this argument—nor will I be the last.3 To be even be sure that the utterance was intended clear, this is not a case for strong intentional- at all. Does this mean that the category of ism: I’m not saying that we have perfect ac- intention is irrelevant here? Should you pro- cess to authorial intentions. Nor am I saying ceed as if his intentions weren’t an issue? A that authors have complete control over, or more literary example: “no symbols where knowledge of, their own works of literature. none intended,” which is the maddening fnal Instead, I’m suggesting that readers know sentence of Samuel Beckett’s novel Watt (1953 more about intention than they think—and [214]) and which returns us to Anscombe’s that the perceived inaccessibility or mitiga- definition of intentional actions. Why end tion of intention doesn’t make it any less cru- the novel this way? As the fnal words in the cial to language use or critical understanding. novel, it dangles Beckett’s intentions in front In her book Intention (1957), the philosopher of us—but never gives us access to them. We G. E. M. Anscombe defned intentional actions end up in a position like Watt himself, who as “the ones to which the question ‘Why?’ is looks at an abstract painting and tries to cal- given application” (24). What matters most for culate all the possible intentions the artist literary critics is not whether we answer that might have had: “he wondered what the artist question correctly (though we hope we do) but had intended to represent (Watt knew noth- whether we are permitted to ask it at all.