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?
I agree that we as teachers often take for granted the value of reading and discussing literature. Yet, we have often selected the text for our own purposes as teachers, or even as readers who want to share with students, or less experienced readers. The discussion of "St. Roach" provided many proposed interpretations; yet, I wondered what to do with them. A very interesting part of the discussion appeared just when we all seemed ready to move on to the next poem. Mitra asked about Rukeyser's nationality. Once you described Rukeyer as Jewish, Verrinda commented on implications of that and how Rukeyser's experience as a Jew might have informed her composition of "St. Roach." Suddenly, the discussion was injected with more possibilities for the value of the poem or for further interpretations. Similar to what we would experience with the Darwish poem, the more we uncovered about Rukeyser, the more people wanted to know about her and the poem.
ReplyDeleteSo interest in the author, the one telling the story or composing the poem, is crucial for "injecting" a conversation about literature and giving it direction?
ReplyDeleteWould it work equally well if we started out talking about the author? What is the place for personal responses that lead us to become curious about the author? Do personal responses develop a
curiosity? Especially if personal responses differ? Do personal responses, especially if they differ within a group, provide the ground for purposeful inquiry?
Lots of questions.
Elisabeth, it's interesting that you felt uncomfortable at where the conversation was going because as a student listening to my classmates, I felt like I was learning a great deal from the thoughts they were sharing.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I think discussing poetry can help us to see is how reading something more than once is important to help us in making meaning, and that group discussions can help us "work through" a difficult text. There is no way I would have come up with any sort of interpretation of St. Roach on my own or from having read it only once. But after listening to everyone else's thoughts, I felt enlightened.
our class discussion of St. Roach reminded me of the work Ghandi did to free the untouchables of India. The poem St. Roach was profound and I related to it. It also reminded me of a Jewel in the mud; sometimes we have to wipe the dust and mud off people to really appreciate what we find under the covers of external appearance. Thank God for telling us that He looks deeper than people do and that He evaluates our hearts and not our appearances. I didn't feel uncomfortable in the conversation because it showed me how my classmates and teachers related to the idea and how much we as diverse people have in common.
ReplyDelete