Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T23:09:06.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

“No Symbols Where None Intended”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Extract

What does the average middle schooler know about close reading?

Launched in 2010 and adopted by forty-three states and the District of Columbia, the Common Core State Standards read like a Well Wrought Urn for kids—a New Critical primer for a new generation. From kindergarten through grade 12, close reading is the backbone of literary curricula. With each passing year, students perform close readings of increasing complexity—and with what feels like increasing adherence to New Critical doctrine. According to the Common Core reading standards, fifth graders must be able to “determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative language such as metaphors and similes.” They must also be able to explain “how a series of chapters, scenes, or stanzas fits together to provide the overall structure of a particular story, drama, or poem” (12). By eighth grade, students must be able to “provide an objective summary of the text” and “compare and contrast the structure of two or more texts and analyze how the differing structure of each text contributes to its meaning and style” (36). And by eleventh or twelfth grade, they must “cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain” (38). Students meeting these standards, we are told, can “readily undertake the close, attentive reading that is at the heart of understanding and enjoying complex literature” (3). In their textbook Understanding Poetry (1938), which popularized close reading across North American universities, Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren announced a similar goal: “to present to the student, in proper context and after proper preparation, some of the basic critical problems—with the aim, not of making technical critics, but merely of making competent readers of poetry” (xiv).

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Anscombe, G. E. M. Intention. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2000. Print.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Image, Music, Text. Trans. Heath, Stephen. New York: Hill, 1977. 142–48. Print.Google Scholar
Beckett, Samuel. Watt. New York: Grove, 2013. Print.Google Scholar
Best, Stephen, and Marcus, Sharon. “Surface Reading: An Introduction.” Representations 108.1 (2009): 121. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Cleanth, and Warren, Robert Penn. Understanding Poetry: An Anthology for College Students. New York: Holt, 1938. Print.Google Scholar
Cavell, Stanley. Must We Mean What We Say? A Book of Essays. London: Cambridge UP, 1976. Print.Google Scholar
Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Common Core State Standards Initiative. Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2 June 2010. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “Limited Inc.” Limited Inc. Trans. Mehlman, Jeffrey. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1988. 29110. Print.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “Signature Event Context.” Limited Inc. Trans. Mehlman, Jeffrey. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1988. 124. Print.Google Scholar
Flatley, Jonathan. “How a Revolutionary Counter-mood Is Made.” New Literary History 43.3 (2012): 503–25. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.Google Scholar
Herman, David. Storytelling and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge: MIT P, 2013. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, Steven, and Michaels, Walter Benn. “Against Theory.” Critical Inquiry 8.4 (1982): 723–42. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.Google Scholar
Leys, Ruth. “The Turn to Affect: A Critique.” Critical Inquiry 37.3 (2011): 434–72. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.Google Scholar
Lindstrom, Eric. “Sense and Sensibility and Suffering; or, Wittgenstein's Marianne?ELH 80.4 (2013): 1067–91.Google Scholar
Love, Heather. “Close Reading and Thin Description.” Public Culture 25.3 (2013): 401–34. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.Google Scholar
McKenzie, D. F. Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts. London: British Lib., 1986. Print.Google Scholar
Moi, Toril. “‘They Practice Their Trades in Different Worlds’: Concepts in Ordinary Language Philosophy and Poststructuralism.” New Literary History 40.4 (2009): 801–24.Google Scholar
Quigley, Megan. Modernist Fiction and Vagueness: Philosophy, Form, and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2015. Print.Google Scholar
Richards, I. A. Principles of Literary Criticism. New York: Harcourt, 1961. Print.Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. The Concept of Mind. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2002. Print.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William K., and Beardsley, Monroe C.The Intentional Fallacy.” The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry. By Wimsatt. Lexington: U of Kentucky P, 1954. 318. Print.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. Anscombe, Gertrude E. M., Hacker, Peter M. S., and Schulte, Joachim. Ed. Hacker and Schulte. Chichester: Wiley, 2009. Print.Google Scholar
Wright, Daniel. “George Eliot's Vagueness.” Victorian Studies 56.4 (2014): 625–48.Google Scholar