Turning the Light Back On

In “The professionalism of the field is turning students off” Bruce Fleming argues that the way some students are being taught is turning them off and not teaching them anything and it needs to stop. Students who are turned on by a subject are more apt to learn and I tend to agree with what he is arguing. Fleming is saying in his essay that the way literature is being taught today is not only hindering the students learning, but turning them off from reading on their own, just for the love of it; which Fleming argues is the reason we first started teaching literature in the first place. Professors teach a book much like dissecting a frog, or in Fleming’s example: giving a tour of a grocery store to Martians. Students not only don’t understand what the literature really is, but now are viewing it as a dead frog and couldn’t be more turned off.
Fleming starts his argument by saying how literature is being taught helps no one. Many students are not going to be teachers or professors so the way literature is being presented cannot help them in their own lives or futures. He feels teachers owe their students something that they can use in their lives outside the classroom. It shouldn’t be here is the literature and this is what I want you to get out of it. It’s better to let students read a book and get their own reaction instead of leading them to their conclusion; however there is a difference in how Fleming chose to lead his herd. He had his students, mostly male, read Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovery. The student’s immediate reaction was that Emma was a slut. Fleming stepped in and instead of telling the students what to think he asked them to view the story from Emma’s side. Fleming lead his students a certain way but let them come up with their own interpretation instead of telling them what to think, and in turn the students were more open to the story and better for it. I feel as teachers you should guide not force, and you should be open not condensed. If students can relate to a story by relating to something that they are familiar with to better understand a piece of literature I say let me. That could help them more in the long run then telling them what exactly the book is trying to convey and let the students get their own ideas out of it.
Fleming goes on to argue that now instead of reading literature we study the “texts” and indeed I feel as though we do. We rip apart and section off a piece of great literature that is from the “canon” into something that is a far greater mess and harder to understand than simply reading and enjoying the work for what it is. Dissecting a piece of literature can help you understand certain aspects but the consequence of that action is that the book may lose its appeal and perhaps the simple message that was intended. I feel we sometimes go way too far diving into a work that we come up with crazy symbolism that is far fetched and confusing and it turns the book off. Our internal light for literature is turned off. It suddenly becomes a chore to grasp only one interpretation of a book that was once a fun and exciting read. It seems those two cannot go together in a “learning environment”. Learning can no longer be fun, for if it was fun then we got nothing out of it.
Fleming said
“We're not teaching literature, we're teaching the professional study of literature: What we do is its own subject. Nowadays the academic study of literature has almost nothing to do with the living, breathing world outside. The further along you go in the degree ladder, and the more rarified a college you attend, the less literary studies relates to the world of the reader. The academic study of literature nowadays isn't, by and large, about how literature can help students come to terms with love, and life, and death, and mistakes, and victories, and pettiness, and nobility of spirit, and the million other things that make us human and fill our lives. It's, well, academic, about syllabi and hiring decisions, how works relate to each other, and how the author is oppressing whomever through the work”

and I feel in so many words that this is true. This sums up Fleming’s argument and it infuriates me. With the way literature is being taught no wonder many people nowadays have a negative attitude towards it.
When I was in high school Shakespeare was shoved down our throats. We knew nothing of him; how cleaver he was, sassy he was, or what his works really were. We were too busy being told what to think about this play or that that we never really understood them and in turn wound up disliking them. Now that I’m in college and have taken classes about Shakespeare I have a better appreciation for him. I remember the first day of class being told the majority of the course was going to be about Shakespeare, I cringed. I hated Shakespeare! He was boring and long and hard to understand. By the end of that course I had a whole new understanding of him; who he was, what he did, how he was. Now I get excited when I know we’ll be talking about Shakespeare in a class, he rocks!
There are those who disagree with Fleming’s approach. They feel by letting the students come up with their own conclusion may be leading them astray. One of these “theys” would be a critic of Fleming named David Bartholomae, who is a teacher himself also. Bartholomae has a more hands on approach and feels if you let students not be lead by a teacher they will be misguided. Bartholomae says “there is a great importance of academic reading and writing in the classroom”. He wants to focus his and his student’s energy into that, and not so much into reading and letting them come up with their own interpretations and writing whatever they feel. I agree with Bartholomae that reading and writing are important; the academic route isn’t always the best road to take. Sometimes it’s best to let your students roam free then softly lead them back. That way they will be more open and willing to be taught and to learn.
Fleming would be the kind of professor I’d like to take. His approach is dead on to me. He gets it: teachers are there to teach. To show doorways but let you choose what door. I didn’t have to like Shakespeare but because I understood him and his work better I did. I wasn’t told to I came to that decision on my own. In high school I was told to read it and like it, so my reaction was the total opposite. If I didn’t agree with the teacher my grade would reflect that decision and it should never be that way. I like how Fleming understands students are not Martians; they are human and just want to learn. They want to make their own decisions and teachers/professors need to respect that and want to help students get excited about reading again! “We professors just have to remember that the books are the point, not us. We need, in short, to get beyond literary studies. We're not scientists, we're coaches. We're not transmitting information, at least not in the sense of teaching a discipline. But we do get to see our students react, question, develop, and grow. If you like life, that's satisfaction enough.”