After our class discussions of Rukeyser's "St. Roach" and Darwish's "Jerusalem" last week, I wondered: what's the value of what we do when we sit down and read poetry together?
For instance, I really enjoyed our conversation of "St. Roach," but being one of the teachers in the classroom, and the one who had chosen the poem, I began to wonder: where is this conversation going? When do I know it's over? Do I have certain objectives in mind (I didn't--except seeing what would happen when we discuss the poem). And as much as I enjoyed the free-wheeling conversation, I became almost (not quite) uncomfortable with the nagging thought that it should go somewhere...but where, and why?
So where do, or should, our conversations of poetry go and why?
This is a question about context, purposes, and value.
It seems to me that as teachers of literature we take the value of literature, and reading it, for granted. After all, it's what we do (talk about literature, getting students to "read" it) and so the question of its inherent value and the value(s) of reading, responding to it, talking and writing about it, is not on our minds in the way it should, perhaps, be--and is for many of our students, especially those who have not chosen "literature" as a field of study and who are not convinced--or pay lip service to the idea-- that the encounter with Literature, as with all great art, is somehow inherently good for us, inherently edifying.
I'd like to know: what are your thoughts on the value of reading and responding to poetry?
All of us read "St. Roach" and "Jerusalem" together: what's the value of doing so? What do you remember of our class discussion, for instance? What do you remember of your thoughts and feelings while we talked about the poems and read them aloud? Were there things you would have liked to have said and didn't? Were they points when you "checked out" and decided that the conversation was no longer of interest to you--why?
