Sheridan Blau’s The Literature Workshop is a two-pronged approach to address the various issues encountered in a literature course.  The author begins by analyzing the various challenges that arise when students and teachers interact with a given text.  Having explored those difficulties, the author moves on to provide concrete examples of assignments and activities for teachers and learners.  However, I found the discussion in Chapter 3 to be particularly interesting and insightful.  Blau brings up some of the difficulties with asserting that a single meaning is “correct” when dealing with a specific text.

Blau uses Roethke’s My Papa’s Waltz to illustrate the cultural effects on literary interpretation.  Before the 1980s, most students tended to view the poem as an expression of warmth and a fond recollection of the past.  Students growing up in the 1980s and today generally read the poem as symbolizing abuse.  This is a compelling argument against the idea of a single meaning within a text.  To a large extent, the reader is a result of his or her cultural background.  I remember reading this poem in the 1980s.  At the time, I thought it was clearly about the author’s love for his father.  Predictably, half of the class brought up issues of abuse or the idea of a strained relationship.  Even more frustrating was the teacher’s decision to move on to another text without any discussion. These clashes in interpretation are at the heart of literature.  Discussions are vital whenever a text is explored; otherwise, students tend to file the poem away as simply “something else they had to read”.  In my case, the potential for learning was never realized.

Blau’s comparison of the literary field to other disciplines is also enlightening.  This is the first time I’ve seen this particular argument made, and it mirrors my own views on learning.  Blau implies a number of interesting parallels between literature and other fields, such as law.  Courts are considered the final word on a particular issue, usually an interpretation of a piece of law.  However, these courts often have split decisions with nearly half of the judges voting against the majority.  It should come as no surprise that the idea of finding a universal and singular meaning from any text is problematic.  Yet many instructors fail to recognize this parallel and continue to teach the “correct interpretation” of a particular text.  This argument strikes me as especially powerful because it broadens the definition of a text.  Most students view literature as a specific field, but the reality is that every piece of writing can be considered a text.

My view on the matter of a “single interpretation” is close to Blau’s argument.  When I was an undergraduate, many of my literature courses were straightforward lecture-and-repeat classes.  The meaning of the text was explained, and my task was to recite this meaning on the test using textual examples as support.  I didn’t see a problem with this approach because I simply used the so-called “single meaning” provided by the instructor as a springboard to arrive at my own personal interpretation.  On the tests, I simply repeated what was expected.  Internally, my views on a specific text were often different than the accepted “single meaning”.

As a teacher, I realize that students have different learning styles and may not be able to use the “single meaning” to internally create their ideas.  Interpretations should be weighed and discussed during class, and the emphasis on any one reading of a text should be debated.  It seems to me that the goal of the literature classroom is similar to the goal of courts: an interpretation must be made based on textual evidence.  One of the overarching aims of college is to encourage students to think critically, and the multiple meanings derived from text serve as a perfect opportunity.

–Francois Guidry