This spring, I am once again assisting with an upper division English course. This time we’re tackling The Round House, by my new book love Louise Erdrich, and I know zip about Native American literature. So, for the first time in a long time, I had homework. Yesterday, I spent hours essentially binge reading literary criticism about Louise Erdrich’s work, Native American storytelling, and the concept of survivance. It felt good. Really good.
I’ve probably said it before on this blog (I know I have in conversations with people), but I miss studying literature. Reading books to review them scratches that itch somewhat, but it’s not a perfect replacement for discussing literature with people who’ve studied it. When I was reading articles yesterday, I felt like there were parts of my brain coming back on line. I know that after I finished those articles and went back to The Round House, I was seeing things in that I missed when I read it for fun.
When I read for fun or to review a book, I focus on character, plot, style, and setting. These elements are what attract readers and I need to pay attention to them so I can tempt them into checking out books from my library. But when I read as a literature scholar, I look beyond those things to puzzle out the subtext and how the book achieves its effects. It takes a bit of training to learn how to do that, to learn how to really talk about books. I know some English majors lament this type of reading. Being critically aware makes it hard to escape into a story the way we want to when we read for fun. But reading like an English major can reveal the magic of how story works on us and what it can teach us about the world.
I know literary criticism glow will fade—at least until I get my next batch of homework—but it makes me feel brilliant while it lasts.