I went off on a bit of tangent typing out a reply to an email from back home; we're in the middle of looking for a new school for my sibling(s), and my Mom wanted a quick summary of what my high school Brit Lit class was like, so we could compare curricula.
Correspondence back and forth included this line:
As far as the writing goes, the students write a substantial number of papers, essays, some research work on various issues in the works, authors, and developments of British Literature itself. Most of the papers have some sort of "Christian life application" element to them, from the topics and themes we discussed in the literature.
Now. One thing I appreciated about Dr. Klucking, my 12th grade teacher, was that she didn't make us tack on a Christian Life Application to our papers, or sum everything up in some grand conclusion about how this book illustrated a profound scriptural truth. Lots of people did do that, but it wasn't mandatory. I could usually get away with talking about how certain beliefs the author had explained the actions/views taken by various characters in the work. Which is honestly still about all I'm comfortable doing -- if the author isn't making some grand point about the Christian life, I'd rather just say "look at the incredible, utterly believable character development! The interior monologues illustrate a progression from sanity to crippling skepticism -- and one that is as relentlessly inescapable as it is chilling." Or maybe, "doh -- this other book has an awesome use of the Faustian archetype. And that is one of the main reasons that this character and his dilemma resonates with us. This tension of "forbidden knowledge" has been a staple of Western literature since the beginning. Literally -- just look at Genesis. And Prometheus too, while you're at it. And Pandora. And of course Faust... :-)."
They're literature papers -- CS Lewis didn't go off giving gospel-summary life-application-messages in his introduction to Paradise Lost.
Last year, we had some speaker come in and give a talk about literature...though I didn't agree with his conclusion (along the lines of "we shouldn't analyze the 'lessons' of literature at all; we should rather experience it as we do music -- for its form and beauty"), I think he did have more than half a point. And I especially liked how he described literature as a window into the human soul, into human creativity -- sometimes right, sometimes wrong, sometimes inspired, sometimes confused, sometimes misguided, but either way telling us something about people and the author and part of life. And a lot of the time, when I'm reading something, I just want to say, "Wow. That's incredible language, incredible imagery, incredible effect, incredible characterization, and an incredibly fundamental human tension and dilemma ... Look at it. It's a masterpiece. It's beautiful." Or as Donahough (or whatever his name was) put it -- "Dear God! To live in a world where such perceptions are possible!"
And I do not want to say -- (picking the first thing off the top of my head) -- "Hester Pryne was a bad person, according to Bible passages A, B, C, D, E, F, and G."
DIEDIEDIEDIEDIE!!!! What sort of literature paper is that? Context (for starters)! Why are you abstracting the thing from its context? Who was Hawthorne? What sort of audience and culture was he writing to? What was he trying to say with this story? What, precisely, was Puritanism? What would have been 1600-Massachusetts-Puritain-people's verdict on Hester? Then, what parts of this worldview if Hawthorne criticizing? What parts does he appear to be supporting? What does the symbolism, etc. of this story imply? Does Hawthorne show inconsistency in how he portrays these things? And forget Puritanism for a second -- what sorts of literary characters have prefigured the Hester-character?
I CAN write a paper on how Hester Pryne was a bad and unrepentant person according to Bible passages A, B, C, and D -- but I could pretty much only do it by discussing Hawthorne, Puritan culture, and Christian theology, Christian tradition, and what Hawthorne was saying about all of it -- how he was consistent/inconsistent, or giving a valid criticism/giving an invalid criticism, or hitting close to the mark/missing the point. And maybe throw philosophy and Victorian culture into the mix as well. If Hester's Pryne's a bad person, there'll be more to show for it than Bible passages A, B, C, and D -- we should be able to find a good bit of universal human experience on this side, and plenty of archetypes, and a rooted and consistent ethical system, and lots of other cool stuff like that.
Plus, the Scarlet letter isn't a (just) biography or moral proposition -- it's a work of literature, a piece of art, a glimpse into a creator's mind and thoughts and imagination. And any good literature essay will treat it like that, and not like a dead and cold moral essay, and not like a candidate for theological vivisection.
//...and she descends from her soapbox. ;-)//
Though I still want to write my "There is no fear in love, for perfect love casteth out fear" paper on 1984 someday.
No comments:
Post a Comment