Although I wrote that I agreed with many points in Larry Cebula’s “How to Read a Book in One Hour” post, I must admit that I did so with some regret. I truly do enjoy good history writing when I find it. And graduate school would be a waste if one only took books apart rather than relishing, at times, in an author’s prose. Indeed, maybe graduate programs are turning out substandard writers, in part, because seminar reading programs are too heavy with 15-books-in-15-weeks type syllabi? Perhaps it is less that programs are not teaching historians how to write, and more that programs are not letting students learn to appreciate good prose?
I am in this reflective mood about slow reading courtesy of Christopher Shea at the Boston Globe‘s Brainiac blog. There I ran across the reflections of Columbia University literature professor Jenny Davidson. Davidson recently won Columbia University’s Mark Van Doren Award for undergraduate teaching excellence, and she posted the remarks she planned to give at the award ceremony. Here’s a passage that struck me (bolds mine):
It is tempting to rush to broad thematic generalizations about a work or an author, but how can you answer a big question about what something means if you can’t parse the meanings of the words in one enigmatic sentence? It takes a willingness to puzzle over small things – and often to admit that one doesn’t understand some particular turn of phrase or twist of argument – to earn the right to answer the bigger and more glamorous questions.
I repeat: To earn the right to answer the bigger and more glamorous questions. Well said. I wonder how many historians bother to earn that right? And why bother if we’re not consistently trained to admire good prose?
One of the reasons I enjoy intellectual history is precisely because it forces a slower reading. The prose isn’t always great, but the topics are complex enough that one has to read more deliberately. I think that, by and large, intellectual historians do earn the right to ask bigger questions because, in part, they are forced to read slower. The nature of intellectual history demands it.
So having the practical skill of knowing “how to read a book in one hour” might get you through graduate school—perhaps even with flying colors—but it won’t give you the appreciation needed to produce good prose for a profession that will hopefully last one’s lifetime. And what is the use of making it through, or what is the use of a program credentialing people, if the apprenticeship does does not provide the master skills? – TL
3 Thoughts on this Post
S-USIH Comment Policy
We ask that those who participate in the discussions generated in the Comments section do so with the same decorum as they would in any other academic setting or context. Since the USIH bloggers write under our real names, we would prefer that our commenters also identify themselves by their real name. As our primary goal is to stimulate and engage in fruitful and productive discussion, ad hominem attacks (personal or professional), unnecessary insults, and/or mean-spiritedness have no place in the USIH Blog’s Comments section. Therefore, we reserve the right to remove any comments that contain any of the above and/or are not intended to further the discussion of the topic of the post. We welcome suggestions for corrections to any of our posts. As the official blog of the Society of US Intellectual History, we hope to foster a diverse community of scholars and readers who engage with one another in discussions of US intellectual history, broadly understood.
Thanks for the notes and links!
Good stuff.
Hmmm, perfect post to complement my thoughts on historiography….My tendency to read things slowly and carefully does necessarily limit my breadth of reading. When I try to land somewhere in between, I still end up taking way too many notes. Trying to keep myself to pencil helps b/c I can type so much faster than write by hand. But sometimes my super lengthy type-written notes do end up being helpful. Humph. And then I try to improve my historiography, and end up writing massive footnotes like I’m doing right now, because I try to achieve breadth all at once.
As a current graduate student, I felt pulled to this topic. I am currently in a course where we have read 12 texts in the semester. I personally do not feel that this is too much reading and I am grateful that we were given this volume of texts to read. While I do admit that some weeks I felt rushed trying to finish and digest the text, I overall have appreciated the reading. I had not read Michel Foucault’s Discipline & Punish until this course and I am eternally grateful for having read it. These texts, along with several others from this semester, have allowed me to expand my knowledge as well as introducing me to new thoughts on historical topics. I am grateful for the reading as the texts assigned were new to me and something that I had not been introduced to as an undergraduate. I agree with Tim Lacy that intellectual history requires you to read at a slower pace and allows for you to appreciate the material that much more, but I am still grateful for the course to have allowed me to read (even if at a quicker pace) texts that I may not have come in contact with without this course. Thanks for a great post that allowed me to explain how I have felt on this course load for this semester.
–Sarah J.