Monday, September 5, 2011

A Fumbling Grappling with Ideas Resulting in Loquaciousness

 I sat down on a Friday afternoon and wrote the following. I present it to you now with little editing:

An imaginary letter to Robert Scholes ( I would never dream of actually taking up his time and attention with such a thing. Why? Because I am painfully aware of it's shortcomings. While it may be of some use to you and me, I don't expect it would be of any use to anyone so completely unconnected to me as he is at present. The indirect quotation of Pride and Prejudice just now was intentional):

Sir, I am a fan of your work. I'm not saying I understand all of it. Or that I've read all of it, or that I can summarize any of your works I have read in 250 sentences or less. But I have developed an affection for you that started way back in 2004, or was it in 2005, when I read an excerpt or yours published as A Fortunate Fall? in the book Falling into Theory by David H. Richter. I liked that selection so much that I read it aloud to my husband on a car trip one Saturday afternoon. Years later I used the book that the selection was from, The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a Discipline, as a source in a graduate school essay on the role of literature in teaching composition. I don't remember the title that was given to the essay as it was largely unremarkable.

Even later, I read The Rise and Fall of English in it's entirety and attempted to praise it to a rhet-comp. professor who is my friend, but I realized in so doing that I had not engaged your text thoroughly. I was inarticulate and unable to defend your specific ideas as they had been so thoroughly filtered through my unpracticed and disappointingly inattentive consciousness. A couple of months ago I finished reading your book Protocols of Reading. I find again, to my chagrin, that while I heavily underlined the text, I am powerless to write down much of anything about it.

It didn't help that the first essay included the history of two authors with whom I was unfamiliar, and that the third was largely taken up by a critique of Derrida that somehow exposed the inconsistencies in the possibility of a feminist deconstructionist reading.

The point of this letter is to lament the fact that I am a very poor student indeed, that while my heart is willing, my intellect is terribly weak, but that I want to do better. That is a lamentable revision to scripture, but the grammatical balance was appropriate and not to be resisted. I want to learn, to grow, to begin to understand these things that lie just beyond my grasp (an ugly statement, though it describes what is in my heart this afternoon), and I have committed myself to do a certain amount of work in order to get there. I have to put a limit on that “certain amount of work” because I confess that I do not exactly know what I am getting into, and I haven't yet figured out who my teachers will be. There is a certain amount of cost-counting that is yet to be done. I see hope for some measure of future understanding as I read what other people have to say about reading, and understanding, and the art of argument. I see hope as I remember that one very valuable result of engagement is the expansion of understanding, that as Adler and Van Doren claim in How to Read a Book, the only way to expand understanding is to read books that are a step beyond your reach. I begin to wonder if I am yet conversant in anything as I realize that every thought must be examined, as I realize that I could not possibly, on my own, do a fraction of the work that has yet to be done.

It is a beginning. I doubt there can ever be an end.

In skimming through The Rise and Fall of English I realize that the time has come for me to read it once again. There is so much there in the way of those things that interest me, such richness. Only moments ago I read something lovely on the role of quotes in composition. If we are unable to work them, they have no place in our critical endeavors. Quotations should be used, not showcased. One of the things I like about your writing is the way in which you humanize it for your readers. Often it is confessional in tone by which you communicate that writers share many of the same sets of problems, no matter their experience in the task of writing.

I wish that I could get a list of recommendations from you, books to read, modes of careful reading, ways of entering sympathetically into the text before criticism begins. Then I realize that I could have some of those things if only I read your texts. In many ways the desire for communication that is actual and direct, unmediated by print that was edited and published years ago, is a symptom of a certain lack of imagination on my part.

No comments: