Last week’s Think Aloud, paired with the written analysis of the exercise, helped me better understand how my students must feel when I urge them to master the uncertain skill of interpreting literature. I chose to analyze the Think Aloud that I participated in, and in my analysis, I realized that acquiring knowledge truly is a process. I was surprised that our group analysis during the Think Aloud fluctuated from literal to figurative meaning and then back to literal understanding; the cyclical nature of our analysis did not produce a concrete understanding of Williams’ poem.
As a lifelong reader of poetry, I feel uneasy when I cannot unearth poetic meaning. In my secondary and undergraduate education (even many graduate classes), I have assumed that a close reading and analysis of poetry will uncover the poet’s intended meaning. After the Think Aloud, I am left questioning the certainty of knowing. If knowledge is indeed a process, and the poem a living organism that changes with time, what can the reader conclude about the permanence of poetic meaning? Perhaps poetic meaning isn’t permanent. A poem, by nature, seems to riddle the reader with metaphorical and figurative imagery, while giving away little more than the literal words on the page. Williams’ intended meaning in “Between Walls” could live in the world of the Imagist movement, where the essence of the thing described creates the central focus of the poem. The image represented in the poem could hold the meaning of the poem. How could a reader unarmed with knowledge of the Imagist movement, or the Modernist movement that followed it, truly understand Williams’ poetry? How can I expect my young students to correctly analyze poetry when I doubt the certainty of poetic knowledge? Should this uncertainty and difficulty pinning down meaning pervade the analysis of literature? Should I teach uncertainty?
After struggling through the Think Aloud exercise, writing the analysis, and reading this week’s poetry selections, I feel comfortable advocating uncertainty. The Norton Introduction to Literature offers some suggestions (pg. 407) that I found helpful when analyzing poetry, though I think these suggestions could apply to all literature as well. The most comforting suggest was “assume there is a reason for everything.” When I analyze a poem, trusting the artistic vision of the poet becomes paramount. As a teacher, I hope advocating this authorial trust will transfer patience and understanding to my students.
Watching and analyzing last week’s Think Aloud also led me to those questions about how to approach poetry to a student audience that may not have the mastery skills that teachers do. While I was watching the video about “Gretel in Darkness,” I noticed that JJ said that Gretel is in the title for a reason and that seemed true to me. In our reading, Reader-Response Theory from Hopkins, scholar Steven Mailloux said, “authors communicate meanings to readers and in this way teach readers how to read.” I completely agree with this concept, but I couldn’t help but think if my students would get the imagery and literary devices that we (English grad students) can identify much easier. Even then with our knowledge of poetic devices, there was some discussion and doubt in the Think Aloud videos. My students don’t like doubt. They want answers. I couldn’t help but wonder as well, should I teach my students uncertainty? Would they understand when poetic devices are clear and intended by the author and when the devices are left to make the reader create his or her own interpretations that may have nothing to do with the original meaning of the poem.
When I bring up these subjects with my students they always suggest I email or call the author to ask-as well all know, it can be difficult, if not impossible to conjure up the dead. Watching expert readers think and try to untangle the meaning in these Think Alouds really made me more aware of the reading processes and I think now I feel more teaching poetry.
On Monday I handed my students a poem and asked them to highlight any poetic devices they noticed. Most could do that-when asked to interpret their meanings and the author’s purpose for using that particular metaphor proved more difficult. They wanted so badly for me to tell them, “ok here’s what the blurred image in the mirror means,” and I wouldn’t. Watching them think and synthesize was interesting because I realized they didn’t feel as comfortable with these poetic devices as I did. That reaction made me think of Laura’s post about hyperlinks. My students would have loved a hyperlink that gave three or four possible meanings for the blurred image in the mirror. I personally think a hyperlink would not have helped them. Perhaps if we read “Gretel in Darkness” and they didn’t know the full story of Hansel and Gretel that would help. Forcing my students to try to create their own meaning or even try to figure out why the author chose that particular word or phrase over another was daunting for them. Now I feel comfortable telling them, “assume there is reason for everything” and perhaps simply try your best to make sense of that reasoning. Watching my students discuss possible meanings for the poem was helpful because in the end individual student suggestions ended up facilitating a better understanding and more perspectives for other students that were struggling more with the content.
That was a bit convoluted, but I had a lot going through my head, trying to make sense of my students learning.
This question of uncertainty is a good one. On the one hand, we want to encourage a certain acceptance of uncertainty. On the other hand, the evaluative demands of teaching (tests, scores, school rankings) really limit the wiggle room for uncertainty. This speaks to a larger cultural battle between certainty and ambiguity, between “Truth” and relativism.