Rating: 
Summary: Shakespeare was here.....
Review: I wish I had had access to HOW TO READ LITERATURE LIKE A PROFESSOR for my Freshman English classes. Thomas C. Foster provides the reader with insights into those amazing points college professors and advanced placement English teachers make concerning classical texts such as PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, THE SUN ALSO RISES, BELOVED, and the other standard works assigned to young students. The older reader will also appreciate his insights. You may even finally discover why certain works appeal to you while others don't, or why trashy novels don't fill the gap in your soul "good" books do. "It was a dark and stormy night..." So begins the never finished novel Snoopy has been developing on the top of his dog house for years. And so began (or similarly began) one of the great classics...WUTHERING HEIGHTS. Foster explains why the weather in a novel is a very important clue. Sunshine and clouds affect mood and the classical writers are adept at using atmospheric pressure to evoke mood. Foster explains that other literary devices have been used to effect mood, attitude, and feelings of commiseration ever since our forebears sat around the campfires and told each other entertaining tales. Shakespeare may have been original, but he was also a master of understanding what worked for other authors from whom he borrowed much. A number of great works written since Shakespeare use his devices including subtle references to the Bible and the Greek Classics. One wonders in an age not prone to studying the Bible as literature or Latin in high school, how much is lost. On the other hand, the study of Spanish (a Romance language) could prove quite important to speakers of English deprived of Latin classes. Don Quixote understood the importance of "the quest."
Rating: 
Summary: I'll have to be contrarian...
Review: In spite of others' praise, I have to say I don't think highly of the book. It seems rather obvious to point out that stories can't be entirely original and writers will write partly in response to what they have read, and create variations on themes, situations, and subjects -- but is it really enlightening to claim that there is only one story? This idea can only work if you reduce stories to "Somebody lived once. He or she did things and then died" -- which is not, of course, looking at a story on any meaningful level. Similarly, the discussions of symbolism, etc., seemed shallow to me. All meals are not communions, and claiming that they are will alienate many thinking readers who recognize that. Does the author really think so poorly of his students to oversimplify in this way? It would be far better to talk about the resonances and suggestiveness of meals and eating, and include communion as a symbol in that group of associations. There is a huge difference between "x = y" and "x suggests y." I can very readily believe that he gets disbelieving looks from his students. I found his cutesy writing to be very annoying -- such as "Guess what?" and "you-know-who" (meaning Shakespeare). Barf. But worse, does he have a good command of what he's talking about? He says Henry V has his old friend Falstaff hanged, but this does not happen in the play. (Where was a knowledgeable editor? And why didn't those other professors who provided the rave reviews on the back cover & inside front of the book point this out to him? Linda Wagner Martin of UNC says "What a knowledge of modern literature! What good stories!" Another is James Shapiro, who, it seems, has written a book about Shakespeare.) He claims "benighted" comes from Old English meaning "anyone darker than myself." This is flip and I think he believes that it's witty -- but it's also not even close to the meaning of the word, and therefore isn't particularly funny. The word has nothing to do with a person's color. "Benighted" actually meant "overtaken by darkness" (that is, as a traveler who has not reached his destination by nightfall) -- and, metaphorically by extension, being spiritually in the dark. [The "darker than myself" statement makes me wince to remember an English professor of mine who frequently just made things up as he went along; he apparently valued being entertaining more than he valued being accurate.] These last points are not critically important, maybe, but they sure undermine his credibility
Rating:
Summary: A Practical and Amusing Guide to Literature
Review: One thing's for certain: after finishing HOW TO READ LITERATURE LIKE A PROFESSOR, you will either praise the author for opening your eyes to the pleasures of literary analysis, or curse him for making you think too much. That's because Thomas C. Foster, a professor of English at the University of Michigan at Flint, gives his readers a lot to consider. The short answer one comes away with is that nothing is as it appears to be. Symbolism is key. Weather, for example, is not just weather. Rain can be cleansing, cold is harsh but clean, wet is earthy and animal. In case the reader doesn't quite get what Foster is saying, he succinctly states his meaning in a single, boldface sentence. "Myth is a body of the story that matters" reads one. "The real reason for a quest is always self-knowledge" is another. My favorite is, "There's no such thing as a wholly original work of literature," a theme that is repeated on several occasions. According to Foster, everything any author has ever read influences what he writes. Using the western film as an example, he suggests, "What's it about? A big showdown? High Noon. A gunslinger who retires? Shane. A lonely outpost during an uprising? Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon - the woods are full of them . . ." Not that he blames writers for lack of originality: "You can't avoid [repetition], since even avoidance is a form of interaction. It's simply impossible to write . . . in a vacuum." As previously mentioned, some chapters get slightly repetitive. "It's More Than Just Rain or Snow" has many features similar to "...And So Does Season," while "One Story" mirrors many aspects of "Now, Where Have I Seen Her Before." That's okay, though; some things bear repeating. There's also a great deal of religious symbolism in literature. "Whenever people eat or drink together, it's Communion," Foster declares (again ensuring the reader gets the point). There are also plenty of male and female "Christ figures" and chapters like "If She Comes Up, Its Baptism" (i.e., emerging from the water equals rebirth). "Don't Read With Your Eyes," a telling chapter in an age where certain people still seek to ban books, reminds us that present sensibilities might not always apply to the realities in which the story was written. Just look at all the uproar over THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN because some consider it politically incorrect. In Mark Twain's time, however, that was how people lived, spoke and felt. With the first novel I tackled after HOW TO READ LITERATURE LIKE A PROFESSOR, I found myself looking under the rug and in the corners for meanings that may or may not exist. As the saying goes, "Sometimes a cigar is just a smoke." One of the problems college students encounter is the spiel their professors weave. "A moment occurs in this exchange between professor and student when each of us adopts a look," Foster explains. "My look says, 'What, you don't get it?' Theirs says, 'We don't get it. And we think you're making it up.'" But the author maintains that writers do consciously render these symbols when plying their craft. "Memory. Symbol. Pattern. These are the three items that, more than any other, separate the professorial reader from the rest of the crowd," he offers. Just how can us regular-Joe readers recognize all these possibilities? "Same way you get to Carnegie Hall," Foster cracks. "Practice." --- Reviewed by Ron Kaplan
Rating: 
Summary: friendly introduction to a deeper understanding of books
Review: The author is an English professor at the University of Michigan and it becomes apparent quite quickly that he is one of those popular professors who is chatty and has lots of students signing up for his introductory courses on literature. The language is friendly and the examples are entertaining as well as informative. If I lived in Flint, I'd take his classes. There have been many times I've read a book and just *known* the author is trying to impart more than I am taking away from the prose, and I hear about symbolism in literature, yet I have very little success finding it on my own. One time in high school I had a very good English teacher who would point out the symbolism in stories and novels, but he never told us how to do it, as this book does. With chapters on a wide range of topics (journeys, meals, poetry, Shakespeare, the Bible, mythology, fairy tales, weather, geography, violence, politics, sex and illness, among others) and a wide variety of examples, I found myself learning A LOT. Certainly this would not be of much value to a literature graduate student or professor, but for the rest of us this is a great introduction to getting more out of our reading (or viewing, as the author also touches on film, though to a lesser extent). The book concludes with a test, in which you read a short story and interpret it using the principles put forth by Professor Foster, then interpretations by several students and Foster himself -- delightful and illuminating! Finally, the author gives a suggested reading/viewing list and an index. Two problems with the book: first, as I mentioned, the style of the author is conversational, but sometimes to the point of being distracting; secondly, the topics covered are quite idiosyncratic, leaving out as many as are included, though the author addresses this. Still, I give the book 5 out of 5 because it was entertaining, accessible and it has improved my understanding and appreciation of subsequent books I've read and even films I've seen.
Rating:
Summary: Negotiable
Review: The book could rate lower or higher, depending on how it is received by its intended audience--the avid but neophyte reader whose interest extends beyond the currently popular. Unlike similar discussions, Foster focuses not only on "how" literature means but "what" it means, which for the author has more to do with Jung, Joseph Campbell and Northrop Frye than Freud, Marx, or Roland Barthes. In other words, he's big on archetypal patterns, and he supplies them in accessible and economical terms that should encourage his readers to find out more on their own. The book seems quite loosely organized, a chatty collection of brief post-class meditations that must have numerous teachers wondering why they didn't come up with the same title and premise themselves. If there's a critical omission, it's the inadequate attention to the role of language. A central problem for many, if not most, beginning readers of literature is the assumption that words are of value only insofar as they refer to meanings "out there." Consequently, they read literary texts in "chunks," looking for broad paraphrases that will be sufficient to point to a connection between the literary work and its underlying archetype, or to a link between the "symbolic" text and "real" life. But an experienced reader of literature finds the "primary" pleasures and meanings of a text to lie in the individual word choices of the author as well as the syntactic structures that engage the reader's consciousness in the dynamic life of the text. Not to attend to these matters first is not merely to invite irresponsible readings but to imply that literature is somehow separate and secondary from its "meanings." "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" addresses some of the major responses of the literature teacher (one can only hope readers would ever want to read like him). But it never quite locates where, for the professorial reader, the real action takes place. Reaching that place, or nexus between the life in the text and the reader's consciousness, can be a highly demanding task, but for those who profess the rewards of literature there can be no short cuts or substitutes.
Rating:
Summary: An Aptly Named but Disappointing Book
Review: There is a well-known scene in the film "Dead Poets Society" where an English professor instructs his students to rip a bland scholarly essay on poetry from their textbooks. This book is the spiritual heir to those ripped out and discarded pages... what makes this all the more depressing is that the author clearly had the opposite intent in mind. The book is an acceptable introduction to literary themes and symbolic thinking, well-suited to budding writers and English majors; despite the publisher's claims, however, I find it neither "lively" nor "engaging" enough to gain wide appeal outside those circles. Indeed, Professor Foster seems to have written the book precisely for that audience, as he assumes a broad literary knowledge on the part of the reader, but insists on repeatedly hammering home trivial concepts (like submersion in water being symbolic of baptism) that anyone "well-read" enough to follow him should already know. This tone, and the frequent return to themes and topics already covered in great detail - oh, look, another Toni Morrison reference - make reading this book feel like an assigned task. Since there will be no quiz later, I can not recommend the book. I really wanted to like this book. Professor Foster seems a charming and intelligent fellow, and I would probably enjoy taking his classes. Nonetheless, I find this dry and repetitive contribution to "the ur-story" lacking... the reader that would benefit the most from it would likely enjoy it least. The praise of the book by English professors shows that the converse is also true.
Rating:
Summary: All literature should be taught this way
Review: This book asks of literature, "What's going on here?" and of authors, "How did you do that?" Then it supplies clear, understandable answers that surprise and enlighten and delight. I picked up the book less than five hours ago and couldn't put it down until I finished it. I am going to buy it for all three of my kids, who range from 21 to 26 years of age. If I had a kingdom, my subjects wouldn't be allowed to graduate from high school without reading this book. Even so, it would be required reading in every "Survey of Literature" course at my Royal University. Foster is to literary analysis and enjoyment what E. B. White is to usage and style. Yes, I mean that on every conceivable level.
Rating:
Summary: Lucid intro to reading fiction more deeply
Review: This book is an unpretentious introduction to various aspects of reading literature deeply, and on more than just a superficial level. I used to read stories mainly for the surface events, but since reading this book I am seeing symbolism everywhere in what I read. If you love fiction, it only enhances reading pleasure to see more levels of meaning in a story. The book can also help writers add more depth to their own works.
I also appreciated the down to earth and unpretentious voice Foster uses; he never speaks down to his audience. I only hope he goes on to write a sequel.
Rating:
Summary: Informative and Memorable
Review: This is a super introduction to reading literature critically. Foster writes in a relaxed, conversational manner so the reader feels like a participant in the classroom. His book is geared for beginners, so don't look for a huge vocabulary or philosophical overtones. A fun and quick read even for literary masters, because we sometimes lose sight of the basics. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: So-So
Review: Who in their right mind wants to read a book like a professor? It is said that a bumblebee only flies because he doesn't know that he can't (aerodynamically speaking). Likewise, professors are notorious for destroying good reads in what I would call a paralysis by analysis. That said, this book plays a role in educating those who choose to analyze literature, but spare me the superlatives. The book is not "engaging" or overtly "humorous," as the publishers would have you believe.
I must admit however, that the book did open my eyes to some fairly obvious elements of literature that I knew intuitively, but had never consciously applied or analyzed. For example, literature is full of symbolism, motifs, archetypes, heroism, etc. Most avid readers are aware of this, but reading about it and learning how to recognize it in some of its more subtle forms was enlightening. Foster also postulates that a writer is impacted by everything he/she reads or learns, as it is "impossible to write in a vacuum." I thought that was fairly obvious, but I suppose it was good to hear.
On the more negative side of things, I disliked Foster's attempts to be conversational. For some reason it just didn't come off. This book is about learning how to analyze and interpret literature, not trying to become my friend, or convince me that the author is a nice guy. I was also bothered by some of the repetition of examples. In a world replete with outstanding literature, Foster seems to be fixated on Toni Morrison. Call it personal, but I can't stand her writing. Also, if one more jokester tells me to practice to get to Carnegie Hall, I think I'll puke.
|
