Paul Lauter is an emeritus professor of literature at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He is general editor of the Heath Anthology of American Literature.
He followed the discussion of Eric Brandon’s post about close reading and wrote this response.
It’s fascinating to me to see reproduced in this discussion much of the argument about the New Criticism that took place during the 1960s and 70s. In the dim past, I studied with Cleanth Brooks, one of the main architects of the New Criticism, and co-editor of “Understanding Poetry,” perhaps THE most influential of New Critical texts. Mr. Brooks did indeed teach us to read closely. That meant, first, understanding what the words meant, and that often required looking them up so that we could appreciate the range of meanings, and ambiguities, embedded in them. The Oxford English Dictionary was our main tool, but any dictionary was useful. Just to take one example, the word “deferred,” as in “What happens to a dream deferred?” I can imagine, indeed have had, an extended discussion about the relevance of the various meanings of “defer” to the Langston Hughes poem.
But second, Mr. Brooks also wanted us to be aware of what the “music” of the poetry suggested or revealed. Take Countee Cullen’s poem “Incident” (which I won’t reproduce here—it’s on line). It is quite deliberately set in a sing-songy, children’s rhythm and rhyme pattern. But then the last line and a half of stanza two shatters that childish peace: “but he poked out/ His tongue, and called me, ‘Nigger.’” That is, from my point of view, apparently “simple,” but in fact one of the most brilliant pieces of modern poetry in terms both of its diction and its implications with respect to racial politics.
That said, New Criticism had serious limitations and biases, and the attack on it insisted that we needed to reintroduce contexts, historical and cultural detail, in order fully to appreciate or more richly to understand a poem or a story or a movie. The last two weeks of the course I took with Mr. Brooks were taught by the poet Delmore Schwartz, and he wanted us to write a very different kind of paper, one that made use of historical contexts to explore a text. I wrote on Marvell’s “The Mower Against Gardens,” and to do so I learned more than I ever wanted to know about English and French garden styles, the enclosure movement, and how these shaped the ways people from different classes perceived gardens and gardening. I don’t recommend this as an exercise for most of our students, but it’s an approach that would be helpful in looking at a poem like e.e. cummings’ “Buffalo Bill’s/ defunct” or a story like Jack London’s “Koolau the Leper,” just to select two of thousands.
My point in this overlong post is that close reading is a valuable skill, whether we’re talking about poetry, a story, a lease, an indictment, or a political speech. It does not, in fact, lend itself to filling in test-bubbles and anyone who thinks it does is simply missing the point. It is also just one kind of reading skill; there are others that draw upon a variety of contexts and theories. As teachers, we should not be excluding anything that is useful in the classroom and helpful to our pedagogy.

“…close reading is a valuable skill, whether we’re talking about poetry, a story, a lease, an indictment, or a political speech. It does not, in fact, lend itself to filling in test-bubbles and anyone who thinks it does is simply missing the point. It is also just one kind of reading skill; there are others that draw upon a variety of contexts and theories. As teachers, we should not be excluding anything that is useful in the classroom and helpful to our pedagogy.”
Thank you, Paul Lauter. Close reading was once introduced as a high school level skill, which has merit there. At the elementary and middle school level it is best used in moderation, which isn’t happening in many public schools. It has become an easy test prep skill to incorporate into way too many reading assignments and kills any love or potential love of reading. The middle and elementary grades are for developing positive experiences with reading so children do not shut down and learn to hate reading.
I think Billy Collins hits the nail on the head, especially in terms of the types of questions asked about literature and poetry on standardized tests. Here is an example from an 8th grade PSSA sample question:
A.1.6.1
10. Why did the author most likely write this passage?
A. to explain a boy’s goals in life
B. to describe a boy’s day
C. to tell about a boy getting a job
D. to show what kind of food a boy likes
We all know (and the test companies acknowledge) that there are multiple correct answers to each question on the new tests, so how will a student be able to guess which response is why the author most likely wrote the passage? I heard of one author who publicly stated the test question based on his writing did not even include the the correct response to the question asked. What a slippery slope the test writers create.
This discussion must be less scholarly and more rooted in the ethical conflicts of these ccss tests and developmental psychology of k-12 students. These are the malleable minds of our children and this discussion needs to be based on solid pedagogy and the psychology that supports it.
LikeLike
“It has become an easy test prep skill…” Exactly.
LikeLike
“That said, New Criticism had serious limitations and biases, and the attack on it insisted that we needed to reintroduce contexts, historical and cultural detail, in order fully to appreciate or more richly to understand a poem or a story or a movie.” I agree with this as described but what I see in practice is closer to what Danielle is saying in her comment. One observation is my niece’s step-daughter who left a parochial school in Albany NY and entered the public school. Her assignment was to take a very important speech by Elie Wiesel and write a critical analysis of it and I call it “cold ” reading because that is how it was presented and the teacher’s statement “I can’t give you any assistance on this.” In discussing it with the student and the parents we came up with the fact that it would be neat to have some “context” and to have read NIGHT or other literature before receiving the assignment in the high school. The historical information and the useful background information — neither were presented by the teacher and she was given an assignment that could be described as an AP assignment (beyond the developmental level of 9th grade). So if “close” means (a) provide something that is two or three levels above the current grade placement then you are drawing on experiences and information the student does not have; furthermore, if the teacher is told the conditions are (b) you cannot help the student with this assignment — then it is just a “test”… So we are giving practice tests to make sure they will complete the test from PARCC or whatever. This has been a fallacious method in schools where it is merely “assign and test”.
For decades teachers have developed strategies to build background knowledge and to further discussion and conversation in a classroom yet these are not honored teaching activities when it is “COLD” reading — “just do it because I need to test and grade you.” What the professor experienced in a qualitative environment is what I see distorted in the particular assignment the way it was carried out for this student.
LikeLike
I give my students multiple choice tests in which all the choices are correct (there are five correct answers and I have added a 6th “Other” so that students can propose answers different from the ones I provide). They then have to defend the choice they have made and identify details from the reading that supports the answer they have chosen. In essence I provide a number of assertions and students supply the evidence to support the assertion of their choise. I use this as an opportunity to suggest to students that there are often in life many right answers to the problems we face but perhaps only few that are “best for us.” They need to learn to not only identify the solutions to their problems, but to assess those solutions so that they can select the one that works best for them and best answers their unique situation. I think this is one of the benefits of reading closely. It helps us to weigh what we read and assess not just the wisdom found in what we read, but to identify that “wisdom” that is best suited to our personalities, temperament, and convictions.
In today’s “Boston Globe Sherry Turkle was interviewed for the “Bibliophiles” column in “The Arts” section. She was asked what she thought the future of reading is in our cell phone age. She responded, “I’m optimistic. I think that people are realizing that we have overstepped. If you don’t read you lose the capacity for sustained concentration. We need to read long, complicated books so we can make the kind of arguments that take place in those books. I think people are on the cusp of losing something really important.?” I think there is something to this. We are becoming more and more a culture that is content with simplistic thinking, with what H. L. Mencken had in mind when he said, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong,” or along similar lines, “There is always an easy solution to every problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.” We want these solutions to be true because they do not demand much from us and it is usually for this reason that these solutions are inadequate. Most of the academic disciplines ask us to look at the world in all its complexity and, if we learn the lessons our education teaches us we are less likely to be seduced by the overly simplistic. In my experience, the less I read the more foolish I become.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
LikeLike
this is the assigned speech for the 9th grade student (near Albany New York)…Great Speeches Collection: Elie Wiesel Speech
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/wiesel.htm
Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate, Elie Wiesel, gave this impassioned speech in the East Room of the White House on April 12, 1999, as part of the …
LikeLike
addendum: certainly a valuable lesson if done appropriately with guidance from the teacher in a thoughtful manner in a scope and sequence . Unfortunately, the way the assignment was handled it reminds me that every year or so a teacher gets fired because the Civil War is being taught and the teacher has the students auction off the black student to learn about civil rights issues. Sensitivity, judgment, lacking in the approach . Curriculum cannot be written one class at a time, one teacher at a time, and we need more school district involvement in what gets written into Curriculum Frameworks at what developmental/instructional levels. A lot of good teachers will tell me they would not have handled the assignment the way this student experienced it near Albany but I know these things happen and with the push to “pass the test’ it is going to happen more frequently.
LikeLike
thought I did a poor job explaining with one incident so I copied this from an earlier blog page at Diane Ravitch.net written by Bob Shepherd. ” “Reading comprehension instruction became mostly about teaching reading strategies as the vast, complex field of reading comprehension was narrowed to a few precepts…….Where before a student might do a lesson on reading Robert Frost’s “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening,” he or she would now do a lesson on Making Predictions, and any text that contained some examples of predictions would be a worthy object of study. Now, the problem with working at such a high level of abstraction—of having our lessons be about, say, “making inferences,” is that the abstraction reifies, it hypostasizes. It combines apples and shoelaces and football teams under a single term and creates a false belief that some particular thing—not an enormous range of disparate phenomena—is referred to by the abstraction….Educational publishers produced hundreds of thousands of lessons on “Making Inferences,” and one can look through all of them, in vain, for any sign of awareness on the part of the lesson’s creators that inference is enormously varied and that “making proper inferences” involves an enormous amount of learning that is specific to inferences of different kinds. There are, in fact, whole sciences devoted to the different types of inference—deduction, induction, and abduction—and whole sciences devoted to specific problems within each. ……. it’s difficult [lessonplans/teaching], and so, when they write their papers and create their lessons about “making inferences,” they are doing this in blissful ignorance of what making inferences really means and, importantly, of the key concepts that would be useful for students to know about making inferences that are reasonable. This is but one example of how, over the past few decades, a façade, a veneer of scientific respectability has been erected in the field of ‘English language arts’ that has precious little real value.” … [teaching] English language arts and reading instruction, has retreated into dealing in poorly conceived generalization and abstraction. Reading comprehension instruction, in particular, has devolved into the teaching of reading strategies; …[no student ] walks away from Making Inferences lesson with any substantive learning, with any world knowledge or concept or set of procedures that can actually be applied in order to determine what kind of inference a particular one is and whether that inference is reasonable. Why? Because one has to learn and teach a lot of complex material in order to do these things at all….” quotes from Bob Shepherd
LikeLike
Close reading, as originally conceived, is a superb exercise for the mind.
But what matters is what happens in practice with close reading activities in our schools today. Following mandates from their districts and states, hundreds of thousands of English teachers in the U.S. are doing “close reading” activities in a vacuum, treating one isolated text after another, in keeping with the format of the new exams. I call this the “Monty Python ‘And now for something completely different'” approach to education. And it’s insane. It’s extraordinarily mind-numbing, useless, and counterproductive, and it flies in the face of everything we know about how the mind works and how kids learn.
This is what the “New Criticism for Dummies” approach hath wrought.
Yes, we should attend closely to texts. But texts do not exist in isolation. Texts exist in context. “We need to tie up the loose ends ” means one thing when spoken by a macrame instructor and another when spoken by Tony Soprano. Texts must be presented in meaningful contexts. Good English teachers know this, and so they struggle against the mandates to do all test prep all the time.
The New Criticism was a corrective to an approach to literary texts that dominated instruction in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in which too many instructors spent the entire class period dealing with the genre, the historical period, the author’s biography, and everything else BUT the text. But it was an overcorrection based on an absurd theoretical foundation. Almost all serious literary criticism of the second half of the twentieth century was a commentary on the absurdity of the underlying theory of the New Criticism.
How ridiculous it is that our new “standards” should have been based on an almost wholly discredited approach to literary criticism. It’s as though we had new standards for physics that insisted that we teach students about phlogiston; aether; absolute, Euclidian time and space; and about how objects in motion stop when they use up their motive force.
Education Reformers: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You really should not dictate standards in an area that you know so little about.
Texts exist in context. And every English teacher worth the name knows this. If only their superiors did.
LikeLike
What troubles me most about the Standardized tests is that skills are tested without being put in a context. We read a wee passage from “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” no to learn something about conscience and how to live in an unjust society, but to find rhetorical devices and features that are used to convey an argument that one does not need to pay much attention to or may not even be clear from that one “wee passage.” Living a purposeful, conscientious life is not about skills, it is about thoughtful engagement with the world in which we live, which involves making judgments about the context in which we live. We need the skills the tests teach in order to do this, perhaps, but it is in order to make judgments that we master these skills, not for the skills themselves. To have skills without the wisdom to put those skills into practice is sort of like being able to read, but choosing not to, it is a sign of illiteracy.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
LikeLike
Context is essential in most learning situations. Context helps students learn, rather than just memorize material. Context is way to help students make connections that will allow them to do a lot of the higher order thinking skills we want them to do.
LikeLike
Close reading versus guided reading reminds me of the whole language versus phonics debate. Which is better? Probably a combination of the two is best. Neither works well by itself. Unfortunately, there is no grey area in reformers’ grey matter.
LikeLike
The inverse also works: there is no grey matter in reformers’ grey area
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone is saying that close reading is a bad thing. The problem is overemphasis on close reading. There are many ways to look at text and close reading is just one. However, if we rely too much on close reading, we lose context, we lose readers response, we lose feminist and economic criticism, we lose deconstruction, we lose the whole meaning of the text. THAT is what is happening in our public schools. We should never give up close reading. It just needs to be put in its proper place as one of many equally valuable ways of understanding text.
LikeLike
During training we had to do some sample close reading passages – and they were so boring I had difficulty reading them through once. I just pretended to read them a second and third time. How many kids do the same thing? We are simply teaching them to fudge the answers.
Honestly – how many texts do you actually need to read three times? Perhaps the instructions for assembling one of the Christmas presents you bought for your child, but definitely not something you are reading for pleasure.
What a waste of time!
LikeLike
“Closed Reading”
Close reading is closed minded
Cuz when you get too close
To trees you’re simply blinded
To forest that means most
LikeLike
I think this has been a very interesting and productive discussion, and I wanted to thank people for participating in it–even those with whom I really disagree. I think students need to be ENGAGED with a text for close reading to be useful–that’s one lesson from Paulo Freire. For some that comes about because the text speaks to something in their lives (like a biased account of events in Ferguson or Baltimore). For others, that happens because the language or imagery of a poem grabs hold of you:
Success is counted sweetest
By those who ne’er succeed.
To comprehend a nectar
Requires sorest need.
Not one of all the purple Host
Who took the Flag today
Can tell the definition
So clear of victory
As he defeated – dying –
On whose forbidden ear
The distant strains of triumph
Burst agonized and clear!
“forbidden ear” always seemed to me incredibly powerful and resonant.
But I doubt that any single written text, or even movie, exists that will take hold of every student. So we try and try again.
The problem with the exams seems to be that their texts don’t much interest anyone–except maybe the people who wrote the exam–and I wonder about them. Maybe they should use texts that have to do with why such exams are given, and in the form they take, and what students and parents and teachers can do about it.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comments.
Part of the problem is that the “test makers” who are choosing the reading passages for children don’t have a clue of what the kids might find interesting (not to mention a total lack of knowledge about the appropriate reading level for a particular grade). This is obvious even to a layperson when you hear about articles focusing on ethereal clouds and impressed sailors, let alone the word plinth.
While it is impossible to please everybody, why make ludicrous choices which will please no one at all. If the proctor is bored by the contents of the assessment (and is secretly happy they don’t have to take the test), then how do we expect the students to react? I am sure there are better selections out there, but it seems (the way close reading is currently taught) that the best assessment is one which provides a text so cumbersome that the child is forced to read closely to get any meaning out of the content (and even then the results are problematic).
LikeLike
It’s amusing that anyone would think that the injunction to do “close reading” is necessary or new. Does anyone actually think that in the past we tried to do superficial “reading from a distance”? LOL.
Attending to texts is what we’ve always done, and telling English teachers that they should have their students read closely is like reminding Michelangelo that the ceiling of that chapel needs a coat of paint. It’s a crude observation, obviously, and unnecessary.
What’s altogether new in this latest edufad is the insistence that we do endless test prep activities that treat texts in isolation–that students practice applying skill y from standard x with this snippet of text about invasive species and then with that snippet of text about Susan B. Anthony and with that snippet of text by Plato.
The current insistence on “close reading,” in practice, often becomes a continuation of the devolution of reading instruction into having students practice isolated, incredibly vaguely conceived “skills” (e.g., “inferencing, recognizing cause and effect relationships”) as though command of those were the whole of reading. Reading is far more complex than that. The most extreme of the New Critics viewed texts as creating their own little worlds and insisted that texts be treated in isolation from their historical moment, from other texts, from the genres that they instantiated, from the general body of thought and work of their author, and so on. But texts do not exist in isolation. Texts exist in various contexts. Blake’s Songs of Innocence exist in the contexts of the genre of pastoral, of the entire work of which they are a part, of Christian symbolism and iconography, of the industrial revolution, of Romanticism, of the interpretive approaches and communities in which they are read, and much, much more, and how they are framed determines a lot about the shape that the reading experience is going to take. Isolating texts from their significant contexts impoverishes them and so impoverishes the reader.
And, of course, people learn by placing what they’ve recently encountered into associative contexts, and so, treating texts in isolation is a TERRIBLE approach, pedagogically.
LikeLike
In essence, there is a different between the close reading we were taught in the past and the Common Core concept of close reading which has turned reading into a drudgery instead of the joy which reading should be (whether we read to stimulate the imagination or learn a new concept).
LikeLike
I think the way an artist approaches a painting or sculpture is a very good analogy for how readers should approach a literary work.
Though Michelangelo was obviously very careful about details, I’m pretty sure he came off the scaffolding periodically to view his work from the floor of the Sistine Chapel.
Though the work is done “up close”, it is only from a distance that one gets the full effect — and ironically, normally from a distance that one sees any mistakes in composition.
LikeLike
“Close Painting ”
Though artist does his work “up close”
He must step back to see the most
For context is the reference frame
Which consecrates the work for fame
LikeLike
Perfect analogy.
LikeLike
here are some good poems to share from Russ http://russonreading.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-holiday-gift-of-poetry-2015_22.htmlhttp://russonreading.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-holiday-gift-of-poetry-2015_22.html
LikeLike
As a former high school English teacher and a current attorney, I absolutely agree with teaching students to use close reading as *a* tool in the high school literature classroom. Indeed, in grad school I remember arguing with one of my ELA methods professors over precisely this point. He thought that our only approach should be reader response theory, and didn’t credit the idea that there was a time and a place for teaching high school students to read a text, especially a poem, closely and carefully. (Ironically, I looked him up recently and saw that he is now out there shilling for Common Core and various ed reforms, so presumably his ideas about the merits of close reading versus reader response theory have evolved since my grad school days.)
But while close reading is — of course — an important tool and skill for students to learn as one tool in their arsenal, my biggest critique, by far, of the CCSS is the ELA standards’ untoward privileging of close reading over — and often to the exclusion of — other methods of creating meaning out of texts. I wrote about this most recently when I presented public comment to Governor Christie’s farce of a Common Core “review” commission. http://parentingthecore.com/2015/09/18/the-common-cores-scalia-esque-originalism/ Indeed, I believe that this is not just an education policy issue: it’s also a political issue, and we progressives and liberals would be well served if more of us would pay attention and challenge the CCSS ELA approach head-on.
When I made my comment to the Christie study commission, I tried to demonstrate the limitations of close reading by pointing out that close reading without context is not how we make meaning of key texts in the real world. As I wrote, if we did privilege “author’s intent” or “originalism” over all else, we would never have been able to move from Plessy v. Ferugson to Brown v. Board of Education, because we’d be stuck with the idea that the original framers’ (or the 1898 court’s interpretation thereof) understanding of the text of the Constitution was the end of the line in determining how to construct the Constitution again when Brown was decided in 1954.
As I see it, the fundamental problem with the CCSS ELA standards is that they privilege a Scalia-esque originalist approach to all texts over the idea of, for example, a living and breathing Constitution that derives meaning anew in response to contemporary issues (e.g., compare the Brennan court to the Rehnquist or Roberts courts). As a result, buying into the CCSS ELA approach to literature is not just an education policy statement: it is also a statement of political philosophy, as it privileges an originalist approach to governing and policy making as well.
How can students understand that social, political, and historical context matters if they’re taught that the author’s intent is more important than the meaning they themselves make of texts? Texts are not static for all times, and in this day and age, it is more important than ever for our students to understand that a reader who grows up on Park Avenue will make very different meaning of The Great Gatsby than one, like my former students, who grows up in a largely impoverished area of rural Maine. Failure to learn that a reader’s context matters ultimately leads to citizens (and voters) who cannot see that policy decisions are larger than simply the situations of themselves or their own families. I do believe that learning to read thoughtfully, broadly, effectively, critically, and from a variety of different perspectives is key to ensuring the health of our democracy.
LikeLike