• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Include Needful Words

December 14, 2011, 12:01 am

A close friend told me a few months ago that her 14-year-old son was reading Infinite Jest for fun. “He comes into the kitchen and says, ‘Listen to this, Mom!’ and then he quotes a passage from page 546 or something.” She sighed. “I never made it past page 200.”

We think of ourselves as living in the age of the excerpt. When pressed, most professors I know admit that they assign fewer pages of reading now than they did, say, 20 years ago. We share these statistics and sigh. Pressed further, we admit to skimming more ourselves, to reading short online articles rather than the lengthier printed versions, to choosing our leisure reading based in part on the lean word count of the book.

The odd paradox of this impression of the dumbed-down reading world is that young people seem to be gravitating toward doorstoppers. And reading them. The New York Times best-seller list for children’s chapter books has at least as many books with a 500-plus page count as its adult list. Witness the Harry Potter phenomenon. Not to mention the recent run on novels by Brian Selznick (around 600 pages each) and Rick Riordan (around 500 pages each). I don’t hear the kids complaining. One might even suspect that they, like generations before them, find nothing to which to object when they are lost in a vast landscape of the imagination.

Whether the adults are reading their doorstoppers is another question. Certainly the critics take issue with what they consider excessive verbiage. Although Haruki Murakami’s latest, IQ84, weighs in at a whopping 944 pages, most reviews take time out from their general adulation to note the need for serious slashing of text. Likewise the late David Foster Wallace, whose particularly vernacular prose has come in for tut-tutting from those in the “omit needless words” camp, like Maud Newton’s recent New York Times excoriation of Wallace’s “mannered and limited” style, which has been “adopted and further slackerized by a legion of opinion-mongers who not only lack his quick mind but seem not to have mastered the idea that to make an argument, you must, amid all the tap-dancing and hedging, actually lodge an argument.” Newton prefers “directness, which precludes neither nuance nor irony.”

No needless words there. But I wonder—as the holidays, with their combined frenzy and down time, approach—if directness and verbal economy are as universally desired as we assume them to be. Thus far I have been talking about fiction, where masterpieces are often far longer than the word-count of 80,000-100,000 recommended to novice writers. Moby-Dick clocks in at 214,000 words, Crime and Punishment at 203,000, the delectable Clarissa at 969,000. (An aside: The rules for women are different. Pride & Prejudice has 122,000 words. Last time I was fretting about the need to edit a novel draft, a plucky male feminist advised me to make it even longer because “women should write big books.”) But even in informational writing, the notion that readers seek economy and have no patience for verbal detail doesn’t always hold water. The average Wikipedia entry is 590 words. The average Encyclopedia Americana entry from two decades ago is 556 words.

Even as we multitask and tweet, then, it seems we retain a conflicted love for the verbal surfeit, a love that younger people feel unadulterated. As we enter the holidays, the break between semesters, the time to reflect and the time to tweak syllabi, I have two suggestions for those who secretly want that extra dollop of whipped cream—or that extra satiric riff, or character description, or McGuffin in the plot—with their slice of book reading.

First, go ahead. Burrow into Dostoevsky, or Murakami, or Bolaño. Or if you were one of the unfortunate who were assigned only the juicy excerpts, dive right into The Critique of Pure Reason, with Kant’s intricate cognitive architecture. Let the snow pile up on the sidewalk while you wend your way through thick drifts of needless words. Let them do a little tap dancing, a little hedging; it’s the holidays.

Second, give your students something to sink their teeth into next term. Yes, their vocabulary may not be what student vocabulary was in 1955. Yes, they may check out SparkNotes. But they might also find the material irresistible and want more, more, more. After all, they all read all seven volumes of Harry Potter. And that 14-year-old finished Infinite Jest, every word of it.

This entry was posted in Editing, Varia, Writing. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1317591141 David Cantor

    A nit:  There are seven volumes of Harry Potter.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lucy-Ferriss/100002511225623 Lucy Ferriss

      Wow, so right you are! Corrected, and thanks.

  • MarjoryMunson

    I like to read the entire book or article although assigned only a chapter or two or certain pages. I even follow other books and articles cited when possible. The context gives a fuller – or even a different – perspective to the ideas presented within the assigned reading.

  • dank48

    Let him at Gravity’s Rainbow, which is a thousand pages shorter and no less coherent. He’ll thank you later, even if he gets hung up awhile in The Great Banana Breakfast.

  • pchoffer

    Folks: a fine thought-piece by a teacher who cares about her students and about her impact on them. But is it gendered? Do male and female teachers and male and female students teach and learn differently? I know that the notion of gendered upbringing leading to different ways of responding to others remains controversial, but as the posts above, particularly by Ann Little, hint to me (or maybe I’m just reading into them) there may be some truth to these ideas.
       I know that I was most impressed as a graduate student by the “great man” in front of the lecture hall–erudite, flawless in delivery, a true master of the material. He was my model–though in reality he might be nasty, indifferent, or simply oblivious to my own sense of inadequacy. I did not need that professor to nuture me. I had parents who did a fine job of that. I did not need him to bolster my sense of self-confidence. I knew the road was long and hard, and I had to earn every step along it. I knew that I was competing against every other student in my very first colloquium. They were Rhodes Scholars and Woodrow Wilson fellows, and had attended better schools. They did not stumble over the language requirements, having studied abroad. I barely survived those years. I still have the letters from Oscar Handlin and Donald Fleming threatening all manner of “humiliations galore” if I did not improve my performance. 
       Reading Claire’s and Ann’s words makes me realize that my approach to graduate learning was in the competitive male mode, a mode that was very different from what they appreciated in their own experiences and what they brought to their own classrooms. Now, near the end of my career, I wonder if I have gotten it wrong all along. All best, Peter 

  • 5768

    Indeed, the correlation between teacher and therapist is far from exact but this article admirably points out the commonality as being one of the limits of interpretation in the effect on the student/client, something with which I couldn’t agree more. As someone in the exact sciences (if we oppose them to, say, the conjectural sciences) I have tried to think of my class as languaged beings (who just happen to be labelled by us  as “students”) who are trying to enter into a new language, who work to use the unique dialect of the course language amongst themselves to learn that language in the context of a collaborative, non-lecture classroom. This is a radical break from how I approached my class when I began teaching 30 years ago and myself naively thought the world depicted by the exact sciences as in exact correspondence with the precise terminology of science, and tried to get the class to also believe this. The terminology may be precise but may also be regarded as an impasse in the symbolization of the Real, the best science can do at the current time.

    With lecture I greatly overvalued my ability to “reach” the students and make–that is, presume and assume to make–meaning for them by the brilliance of my own language interpretations. And while they identified with me and loved it, that in itself was an obstacle to the majority for making meaning on their own by the use and discovery of how to use language. In no longer interpreting the world for my students by lecture I now see them develop as languaged beings who are in the process of becoming (for it is more than “learning” I hope), working with the text of their textbooks to extract and make meaning on their own by using the language of that text. They do it admirably, and language transfer occurs, howbeit much better than by lecture. I hope they are finding a way to exist which was not there for them before they took the class.

  • cmorpork

    Impressive analysis, in the grand tradition of Socrates and Paulo Freire. I especially like the acknowledgement that “students are intellectuals.” Of course! Everyone is an intellectual. The realization is so simple, and yet so pregnant with implications.

    But I’m uncomfortable with the conclusion. Teaching should not be about finding “a self into which to retreat for relaxation.” Teaching should be about challenging – upsetting and uprooting – taking students out of their comfort zone. Comfort is not the goal – it is the problem.

    In my experience, most undergraduates do not have an innate knowledge of say, history, that needs to be nurtured and encouraged. They usually have very little life experience at all – and they enter the classroom with all sorts of unexamined habits and ideological baggage. Nurturing creativity and curiosity about a subject are crucial – and can be done in a way that is personally empowering to the student – but not at the expense of abdicating all authority.

  • captain_chronicle

    This brings back memories of the Almighty Foucault for me. I studied Foucault in France (in French, bien sur), so I definitely felt like everyone was better prepared than I was – and they were! Michel F. is one of those of those scholars that you need to read a book written by someone else about him as a “run-up” to the experience of reading his one books. Later, when I started inserting bits of pieces of Foucault in my instruction to students, I was very mindful to ensure that “everyone was in the same place”.

    The only other thing that comes close is to read Kant’s critique on pure reason. Kant himself sent his half-written manuscript to a friend for an opinion, only to have it returned by the friend who told him, “Returning your manuscript with an unfinished critique for fear that I shall go mad!”

  • captain_chronicle

    Oh, remember too that iconic prof from the sixties, Dr. Ivan Illich – wrote his famous “Deschooling Society” in 1971, arguing that “school makes people dumb”, Hah!

  • seekeroftruth

    “Putting student creativity at the center of our pedagogy …” can also transform their lives. I am teaching a freshman composition class currently with a creativity theme. Students, unguarded, say things like they “will have to wait till they graduate to become creative.” Or they “were creative once on a project but that was play, not work.” This is at a selective institution and I am an adjunct elsewhere also. The next generation has a load of problems to solve. Really — they need to be able to both memorize and theorize, invent and take inventory. Too many people through the doctorate put subject in front of process, paradoxically, even as they engage in complex processes. Know your students — even if knowing their limits and viewpoints jars your expectation.

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037