Reviews

94 Links & Letters 2, 1995 Reviews then one single theorist is selected and JAMES ENGELL and DAVID PERKINS an account: is given of one central con- (eds) . Teaching Literature: What cept she has formulated, and finally that Is Needed Now. Boston: Harvard concept is applied to one or two plays. University Press, 1988. 198 pages. Thus, chapter two moves from a survey of the rich field of feminist literary criticism, to J. Fetterley's ((resisting reader», «In extending our invitation to contribute to this volurne, we did not seek to to an application of this concept to a readrepresent only a particular point of view ing 0f The Iceman Cometh cha~ter three and neither did we especially atternpt to follows suit with feminist anthropology, represent al1 that are now active within G. Rubin's ((trafic in women)), Death of the profession. The only criterion of this a Salesman and Hellman's Another Part kind was that the younger as well as the of the Forest (1946); in chapter 4 Austin older generations should be heard.~ (p. v) deals with feminist psychology and psychoanalysis, N. Chodorow's work on the Engell and Perkins make it clear enough mother-daughter bond, and Bowles's In at the very beginning of the preface: heterthe Summer Houce (1953); and in chapter ogeneity is going to be one of the most 5, the reader finds the tools of feminist recurrent features in this book, for it is film theory, particularly L. Mulvey's condescriptiveness -as opposed to prescripcept of ((woman as image, man as bearer tivenessthat lies at its very core. Maybe of the look» applied to Shepard's The the tittle might be said to be slightly overTooth of Crime and Childress's Wine in ambitious: Teaching Literature: What Is the Wihrness. Some of the analyses offer Neeáed Now seems to point at a thorough more insights than others, the use of film piece of work dealing with al1 the major theory being particularly illuminating. aspects in current Literature teaching, as Al1 in all, Feminist Theoriesfar Dramatic well as providing an exhaustive represenCriticism is a solid introductory guide to tation of the major figures in this profesthe field of feminist dramatic criticism, sional field. Neither one nor the other are and as such can be recommended to entirely true: what we do have in our anyone interested in feminism, dramatic hands is a collection of strikingly persontheory and Arnerican drama. To univeral essays which represent a wide range of sity teachers too: Austin not only brings often clearly opposed views on different to light the relationship between theory aspects of the Literature issue. What we and the real world of dramatic producdo not by any means have is a huge piece tions, but also between theory and teacof work in which al1 current views and hing by prompting the reader to use opinions are conscientiously represented. feminist theories in order to begin asking Nor is this the aim of the book. questions such as what are we teaching Even though heterogeneity is the most and why? What are the plays saying to outstanding aspect of the book, we should the students about wornen? Are there any not overlook the work's extremely coherother possible messages? The book conent organisation, which serves its purdudes with a comprehensive bibliography pose in allowing us to have access to an which will be of use to any reader who acceptable wide range of topics: we begin wants to delve more deeply into the issues by a brief, though at the sarne time serious raised in it. outline of the main difficulties experienced by freshmen students at the very Mireia Aragay i Sastre beginning of their academic life when Departament de Filologia Anglesa i encountering poetical texts and having to Alemanya. Universitat de Barcelona express their views about them. The Reviews Links & Letters 2, 1995 95 second section, ((Interpreting Interpreters)) deals with what is going to becorne one of the major issues in the book, even if in a sornewhat unprerneditated way: the question of Deconstructionisrn and Interpretation, and how they are to be reconciled with the needs and airns of a Literature class. This is followed by ((Wornen, Teaching, Historyn which, as the title clearly states, combines sudi dosely related aspects as Wornen's Studies and the historical evolution of views in this area. The fourth section, ((Retrospect and Prospect,)) concerns itself with the influence of the past heritage on the present teaching of Literature, focusing on the role played by Rhetoric in the Literature classroorn on the one hand and some of the identity problerns which have to be faced by University professors on the other. The fifth section, ((Practices and Theories,)) also engages itself with another of the rnain tenets of this work, that is, the role played by Critical Theory in the classroorn and how this theoretical approach is to be necessarily reconciled with the more practical one. The last section of the book, ((Reading and Writing: In the Acaderny and Beyond,)) goes over the writing question; to a great extent, it can be said to cornplernent the forrner, since it also concerns itself with the interrelationships that should exist between Critical Theory and written practice. Whilst organisational coherence is evident enough, 1 somehow feel more reluctant to apply this judgement to the suitability of some of the topics dealt with in the book. One rnisses. for instance. a more general, less overspecialized article dealing with the current situation of Wornen's Studies which contemplates not only their undoubtedly beneficia] influence on the renewal of Literature syllabi, but also what other aspects rnay need some improvement. By this, 1 am not implying that Barbara Johnson and Deborah Epstein Nord fail in their attempt to deal with this question; quite on the contrary: both of thern manage to write touchingly personal essays which successfülly relate Deconstructionisrn and Historv to Feminism. Barbara Johnson's succinct -yet at the same time intense and revealingarticle, expresses her deep concern with the negative influence that current Deconstructionist irnpersonalization rnay have on future Ferninist discourse, basing the whole topic on her own experience with sorne specific texts. Deborah Epstein Nord also makes use of two texts, in this case Victorian, to point at the influence that the positioning of texts within their respective literary and historical contexts rnay have on the students' subseauent inter1 pretation of thern. It is possibly because of the fact that she is referring to a more distant ooint in time that Nord's article achieves an even higher degree of personalization by corning to acknowledge students as part of an ever-changing process of interpretation which is strongly dependent on the socio-historical background. Side by side with such currently poignant controversies, we can also find articles directed at far more traditional rnatters like the teaching of Shakespeare, for instance. Robert N. Watson's extensive article provides, if not a radically innovative, at least a reasonably updated approach to the whole question, an approach which advocates a ((humanizationn of the Shakespearean figure and which clearly goes against the tide in contradicting such currently acknowledged staternents as (cthe death of the authorn. But there is also another asoect which makes Watson's article quite an innovative one; even after admitting that Shakespeare was unique among the rest of us, he also points at the necessity of seeing the rnan existing beyond the words written on the paper, which in turn leads him to advocate the establishment of a sort of cornplicity between the students and the rnanlplaywright by identifying the feelings and situations which appear in 96 Links & Letters 2, 1995 Reviews . . ... his plays with the vicissitudes that have to be facecl bv current students. This irinovative quality can be appreciated not onlv in Shakes~eare. but also I' in severa1 other, rather distant areas of teaching; such is the case, for example, with T. Hillis Miller's article which. among other aspects, deals with the need to break with the strict and traditional pigeonholing of Literature into arbitrary, excessively clear-cut periods and genres. By pointing at the problems of interpretation which different texts mav orovide, d 1 Miller draws quite a convincing picture in favor of new svllabi which focus on these problems rather than on a certain historical period or genre. At the same time, he also points at the need to design courses which include new literary forms in their source languages in order to highlight the importante of these hermeneutical problems. Miller's article is also interesting in that it points at one obvious and widely acknowledged source of conflict within the field of Literature teaching, namely that of the growing interest in such disciplines as Rhetoric or composition to the detriment of the traditional teaching of the subject. Miller is clearly in favour of expository writing as an essential part of Literature, but he advocates the need to teach these skills in close connection with theory, in what he calls ((integrally-developed programs)). This is also the case with Helen Vendler's article, «What We Have Loved» which, among other things, proposes to focus syllabi on the thematical andlor stylistic links between different texts and authors, claiming that this will give students the possibility to have access to a much wider range of authors and that this «personalization» will in turn encourage them to express their own views. This view is going to be further reinforced by Richard Marius' article, which pinpoints exactly the same problem; after lucidly depicting current students of literature as a group which has not developed an ability to recognize arguments within literarv texts, he also admits that the current teaching system does not help much to solve the problem, since it places an unfeasible demand on students, namely that of producing a critical essay on a primary literary text without being trained to do so. It is this contradiction which leads him to propose the teaching of Literature and expository writing in fully integrated syllabi, thus coming to agree with Miller, even if this is done by placing a stronger emphasis on the question of writing. Mariw' article is probably one of the most illustrative ones in the whole book, for it points at a problem that we, teachers, have often been concerned with, yet at the same time a question which we have not always been able to solve properly. The question of personal interpretation is also dealt with by Gregory Nagy's ({Teaching the Ordeal of Reading,» a charmingly personal article which successfully relates Greek literary terminology (Nagy is Professor of Classical Greek and of Comparative Literature) to the question of reading, which he conceives as an active and personal process of interpretation, in which both the teacher and the student are involved. rather than as a DaL ssive process of material absorption. Even if somewhat critical at some stages, the article is really interesting in that it manages to relate the ancient Greek concept of the ((ideal audience~ to current Literature classrooms, apart from highlighting one of the main problems that is likely to affect these groups: that of the concentration of materials which threatens to turn Literature into a ((high-priced commodity that some dare to represent as "education"» (p. 167). But not only do we encounter these general wide topics. Some of the authors of these articles definitely engage themselves with what is or has been their Dersonal experience in the field of teaching and try to apply it to the Literature area. Reviews Links & Letters 2, 1995 97 Such is the case, for example, with Judith Shklar's «Why Teach Political Theory?)) This article is interesting for a number of reasons; first, it highlights the advantages of teaching this subject in combination with Literature, for it increases the students' eagerness to express their views and encourages controversy and discussion. Secondly, it focuses on the highly current issue of research vs. teaching. " After pointing out the need for flexible teachers who, instead of becoming gurus, have access to a wide range of political views, she goes on to emphasize that certain University professionals tend to despise teaching in favour of research, something which, 1 would dare say, is not onlv a~~licable to the U.S.A. but worldwide. Silst her statement that «there is no proof (...) that (...) these people actuallv ~roduce better work or even ,l publish more than those who quietly teach in classes and in writing)) (p. 160) mav hardlv be subiect to refutation, it is no íess trde that the whole portrait she paints might appear to be slightly characturesque and one-sided on some other occasions, as when she says that «teaching is openly looked down upon and despised in a manner not unlike the disdain that the hereditarv nobilitv of Euro~e used to feel for manual labor and trade.)) (D. 159). -1 - , Feminism, Shakespeare, newly-focused svllabi. the combination of Political , , Theory and Literature and the integrated teaching of Literature and expository writing are, no doubt, major issues which recur throughout the book. But it is probably the problem of interpretation, most often related to Deconstructionism, that seems to lie at the core of most of these articles, no matter whether this is done in a more or less ex~licit wav. Let us start by pointing out that the Deconstructionist controversv as DresentI I ed in the book is both poignant and illustrative, for it clearly reflects what Engell and Perkins refer to as (cthe intellectual character of our agd» (p. viii). This should be enough to maje it clear that we are not likely to end up with a more precise idea of what the advantages and drawbacks of Deconstructionism are by the time we finish ,reading this book. However, since eve single author makes iy use of the term in totally personal way, we might conclu+ that the manifold nature of Deconstructionism allows room for a wide range Jf applications, whilst showing its self-u~dermining nature in being regarded as Lnsuitable for certain teaching situations. The second scction of the book, ((Interpreting Interpreters)) presents the seed of this controversy in two articles which, as we are gojng to see, are opposed only to a certain extent. Harry Levin's «The Crisis of lntLrpretation» provides quite an exhaustivk analysis of what the current situation is. He admits that Derrida's Deconstructionist's Theorv will t draw more attenti 1 n to the meaningfulness of the reader's viewpoint, something which he himself acknowledges as intrinsically positive. However, he definitely opposes the ideas of «the death of the novel» and «the d 1 ath of the author)) by pointing out that biographical interpretation is gaining ground at present, which shows how the aulor's role is once again coming to be regarded as an essential one. As a conclusion, Levin finishes off by admitting that interpretation should undergo a certain process of renewal, yet he also sees the need for it to remain in a reasonably stable position. New critical interpretations wi 1 always be welcome, / for they will enlarge the perspectives of criticism without displacing previous critical trends. On the whole Levin's article presents a rather remarkably one-sided perspective at some stages, yet at the same time it is capable of acknowledging some of the Dositive asDects of current critical theories. It is beiause of this that it becomes auite a lucid and reliable account I of the whole question. 98 Links & Letters 2, 1995 Reviews Nathan A. Scott, Jr.'s article, «On the Teaching of Literature in an Age of Carnival,)) cannot be said to contradict bluntly what Levin has previously stated. It is well true that Scott primarily focuses on «the irreducible plurality of discourse)) and sees the need to make students realize that ~nothingis accorded a privileged status and eveything is relativized)) (p. 53). However, it is no less true that Levin also sees the meaning of the text as being heavily dependent on the reader's personal interpretation of it (provided this reader seeks a didactic model of interpretation, of course). As for Scott, he does' not dismiss tradiiional approal ches to Literature; quite on the contrary, he points out that Deconstructionism might be unsuitable on certain occasions. At the same time, he ~in~oints some of - II the potential advantages of traditional approaches to Literature, admitting that they may be usehl in the initial stages of study because they encourage the develo~ment of a number of analvtical techniques. But Scott goes one step further in regarding this only as the beginning of a long and complex process which is to enable students to «read the words on the page» (p. 61) whilst consenting to be «read by» (p. 62) at the same time. David Perkins displays a similar position in his article «Takin~ Stock after U Thirty Years,)) in which he assesses his own ~ersonal ex~erience as a teacher. ' Perkins' article is interesting particularly because it looks at the question from the professional's viewpoint, thus adding some perspective to other essays which concern themselves primarily with the problems that have to be faced by students. Whilst pointing at the need for the presence of systematic and exhaustive procedures in che analvsis of literarv texts. he also admits that an emotive response on the Dart of the teacher is essential as well. thus seeking to reconcile both the traditional and the more personal, non-dogmatic approaches. Richard Marius also makes use of the question of interpretation in his article, connecting it with the suitability of literary criticism. Even though this issue is but briefly dealt with in the essay, Marius' position is plain enough; some forms of extreme Structuralist Criticism are simply unsuitable for freshmen English courses because of the cryptographical nature of their texts. According to Marius, cmany of these critics have composed a jargon that (. . .) imposes on its users the illusion of clarity and precision while in fact leading them to conhsion and opacityp (p. 184). It would hardly be fair to say that his indictment is directed towards every single manifestation of Structuralism. Rather, he seems to seize his opportunity to point at the degenerative process that some of Derrida's American disciples seem to have fallen into. But the question of Deconstructionism can be said to lie at the core of almost al1 of the remaining articles as well. We have already seen how Helen Veldler and T. Hillis Miller advocate freedom of interpretation and the abandonment of pigeonholed Literature syliabi in their respective articles. Keats' ~negative capability,)) entailing arnbiguity and uncertainty, is also an issue in severa1 of them (take, for instance, Nathan A. Scott). Deconstructionism is, therefore, much more than a controversia1 issue here. James Engell's article, ~Eroding the Conditions for Literary Study)) serves as a lucid wnclusion pding together most of the major topics raised throughout the book. Even if it is true that his account is largely based on the problems faced by current Arnerican University students, it is no less me that we will not find it dficult to connect most of these situations to our own teaching system, for most of them are intrinsically related to contemporary, massively bureaucratized societies. In this way, Engell points at the need for privacy to enjoy Literature and to plunge into it, just in the sarne way as Hugh Kenner and Reviews Links & Lerters 2, 1995 99 Helen Vendler had advocated in their respective articles; he also stands for a more rational scheduling which does not turn students into passive Literature-devourers, but, rather, a systern which allows their rninds to form thernselves (precisely what Gregory Nagy claims in his article). At the same time. he strives to rnake it clear that these conditions should by no means involve a disconnection between University and the real world, thus echoing Judith Shklar's article on the need to teach Political Theory to allow students to be able to think in an intelligent and constructive way. Heterogeneity, controversy and denseness are, then, the most outstanding features which we will encounter in this book. But, even if this is true, we can also see how the articles coincide in oresenting exceedingly personal, non-patronising views and approaches of teachers and lecturers who have also enjoyed a remarkable experience in the field of research. Even though we might argue that their views must be necessarily biased by what they have gone through in their classroorns, it is no less true that this book should be acknowledged as nothing more (and nothing less) than a colleague's weilrneant explanations of his or her own rnethods and their degree of success or " failure. In this sense, any professional, no rnatter whether he or she is experienced or still young, will be able to find a reflection of some of hislher questions and difficulties and, hopefüily, an answer to some of thern by rneans of an active process of readinp: which will also have a rernarkablv " strong component of self-introspection. After all, as T.S. Eliot once said, «It is Drobable that we can never be right; and if we can never be right, it is better that we frorn time to time change our way of being wrong». Núria Augé Departament de Filologia Anglesa i Gerrnanística Universitat Autbnoma de Barcelona ITALO CALVINO. Por qué Leer los Clásicos. Translated by Aurora Bernárdez. Barcelona: Tusquets, 1992. 278 pages. At first sight, it may seem strange to review the Soanish translation of an Italian book in an knglish Departrnent journal. This book, however, deserves inclusion here, not onlv because of the cornrnents on English autbors it contains, but because its therne is interesting to those interested in literature in general. As the " title rnakes clear, it focuses on literary classics, a concept that has played an irnportant role in literary theory and teaching and that is now being questioned. The fact that the author is a well-known writer of fiction, and one that has thought a lot about literatureand experirnented with it in his work, gives a special interest to his point of view and ideas about the topic. Por qué Leer los Chicos consists of more than thirty short essays written rnostly in the 70s and early 80s, although a few come frornl the 50s and GOs, first published in book forrn in 1991, after Calvino's death. This book puts together uieces on writers and books considered «classics», preceded by the title essay, an attempt to define yhat a classic is. It also includes an indexand a list of the books cornmented that are available in Spanish. Calvino does not offer one definition of a classic but fourteen. He explores the different asDects that determine our ascription of a work to this category. These definitions do not come frorn literary history, but frorn a direct relationship between reader dnd text: «Tu clásico es aquel que no puedk serte ind@rente y que te siwepara definirte a ti mismo en relación y quizár en contraste con éh (p.17). So classics are books -ancient and modernnot only read but re-read, that always offer something dew to the reader and at the same time are related -one way or