Most college level English instructors would agree that the literary analysis essay is both one of the most important and one of the most difficult assignments for their students to deal with. Literary analysis is a complex activity. It assumes mastery of an argumentative format (thesis and support), and demands that this format be used in such a way that the argument does not appear forced or overly reductive, so as not to misrepresent the complexity of the work(s) being analyzed. It depends as well on students' skill at employing various writing patterns such as comparison-contrast, cause-effect, and division-classification, and at using descriptive writing for detail work and narrative writing for plot summary and structural analysis. All of this writing is to be produced in a reasonably assured and graceful style.
More often than not, these writing tasks are assigned to a largely non-major student clientele. In many cases, these students are taking our courses to fulfill a core humanities requirement and are likely to question the necessity and utility of a literary analysis assignment. Why can't the instructor administer a true-false or multiple choice test on Hamlet rather than essay assignments, these students may ask.
Given the demands of literary analysis and the make-up of the typical student population that is asked to undertake it, is it any wonder that the assignment is sometimes challenged, almost always dreaded, and often done badly? Indeed, the demands of literary analysis are such that even highly motivated students may become intimidated and lose their enthusiasm for literary study. And if the literature itself is perceived as being difficult or uninteresting, an assignment analyzing this literature becomes all the more difficult to confront. Given the problematic status of the literary analysis essay, it is worth examining the places in the college English curriculum where it is likely to be taught, or at least assigned. Students may encounter a literary analysis assignment toward the end of a one-semester freshman composition course, or the essay may provide a focal point for the second course in a two course composition sequence. Or literary analysis may be the sole or dominant writing mode taught in a required freshman "Lit.-comp" course--no less a rhetorician than Wayne Booth appears to take for granted that such a course forms the natural starting point for college writing.¹ Other options, either required or elected, include the freshman Great Books course (or two course sequence) and the freshman level "Introduction to Literary Genres" (Fiction, Poetry, Drama). These courses are supposed to prepare students for further, more advanced work in whatever upper-level survey, period, author, or topic courses they may want or need to undertake.
As we consider the range of possibilities just outlined, two competing generalities emerge: 1) college English departments must choose from among the varied, overlapping, and rather confusing range of course options for teaching literary analysis those that would be of optimum benefit to themselves and their students; and 2) the optimum situation is often unattainable and in some cases may even be less than totally desirable. The English department at Yankton College is obligated to teach a required one semester composition course to all entering freshmen. Due to the "real world" writing needs of our students, we cannot in good conscience offer our captive audiences a "Litcomp" or Great Books course in fulfillment of this requirement. Rather, we must teach the modes of discourse so as to prepare our students for future writing assignments from across the college curriculum. At most, we can offer our students one or two literary analysis assignments toward the end of the term and hope for the best. This "best," however, is seldom good enough to convince us that literary analysis can be effectively taught or mastered as one segment of a broadly conceived writing course.
In addition to their required composition course, our students must complete one literature course, and may elect a second, to satisfy their core humanities requirement. Logically, we should insist on an Introduction to Literature course to satisfy the basic literature requirement, and make entrance into all other literature courses dependent on its successful completion. In this manner we could guarantee that all students gain at least a nodding acquaintance with the basics of literary analysis: plot, character, theme, point of view, image/symbol, diction, and prosody. At present, however, this goal is beyond reach unless we would be willing to enroll in the one yearly section we are able to offer. Given the small-college environment we teach in, even 50 students per-section in two sections would make "Introduction to Literature" the most heavily enrolled single class at the college. Nor would we as instructors wish to take on such large groups of students in a class where attention to individual writing problems is often mandatory, as it is in any comp[o]sition course.
Even if we could guarantee a reasonable class size, a required "Intro. to Lit." course might not provide the best means of fulfilling our pedagogical aims. We need to remember that many students, although inexperienced in the area of literary analysis, are capable writers who have become fairly proficient at applying the modes of discourse learned in freshman composition. Such students often do not need extended exposure to techniques of plot, character, and theme analysis, but can absorb and demonstrate these skills as a result of "on the job" training in a wide variety of literature courses. Of course, this means that we must be prepared to provide such training in our survey and upper-division courses. And there will always be students who, regardless of the amount of time spent on literary analysis assignments at the freshman level, will continue to struggle in subsequent literature courses.
For these reasons both of expediency and pedagogical preference, then, we have decided to limit our single spring section of "Intro. to Lit." to 20 students, thus obligating other students needing or wanting literature to enroll in one of our survey of special topic courses. This in turn means that in any literature course we teach we may expect to find students who have seldom, if ever, written a successful college-level literary analysis paper. Given this situation, the recognition becomes inescapable that we cannot teach literature without committing ourselves to an ongoing effort to teach our students how to write about literature. In fact, we have come to question and all but reject the notion that we can teach students all they need to know about literary analysis in a "Litcomp" course and expect automatic, effortless application of this knowledge in higher level courses. Naturally, some students may master the basics of literary analysis on the freshman level and apply them very successfully in other, more advanced courses. But we have trained ourselves not to assume this as normal behavior in our students, and we are pleasantly surprised when it occurs but not dispirited when it doesn't.
Because any student passing our freshman composition course becomes eligible for the entire range of our literature offerings has encouraged us to relate assignments in those courses as closely as possible to the modes of discourse with which our students are presumably familiar. In effect, we attempt to use our literary analysis assignments as problem-solving exercises. For example, in discussing a take-home essay exam question on the roles of Falstaff as a preparatory pre-writing activity, I will try to get students to realize that the question may be addressed in either a comparison-contrast or a division-classification format. Our situation also dictates that we give students maximum flexibility while still focusing their attention on a clearly defined topic. For instance, students assigned a paper on Hamlet's soliloquies might be invited to select one of the following options: 1) close analysis of one soliloquy; 2) comparison-contrast of two soliloquies; or 3) analysis of unifying and/or contrasting features of the soliloquies in general. An approach such as this obviously accom[m]odates both the summary-overview writer and the line-by-line close analysis specialist, as well as a range of students who feel more comfortable between the two extremes.
Finally, a realistic appraisal of our student writers has led to some adjustments in the literature curriculum itself. Despite our best efforts, it may be very difficult indeed for non-majors to respond in writing to authors like Chaucer (whom they must read in Middle English), Shakespeare, and Milton, not to mention a host of more recent poets, romantic to modern. At the same time, we cannot eliminate or "water down" the courses in which such authors must be taught, since these courses form the backbone of our English major. We have sought to alleviate this impasse by offering students a series of special topic courses in areas that are both accessible and challenging to our students, both majors and non-majors. Recent and forthcoming examples of such topics are "Modern American Novel," "Literature of the Great Plains," and "Minority and Third World Literature."
I have outlined some strategies for relating literary analysis to
the college English curriculum. Most of these strategies have been forced upon us by our students' backgrounds, interests, and ability
levels, as well as by our staffing limitations and our commitment to a small-college approach to class size.
However, we feel that our very limitations have aided us in devising an approach that is not
without advantages. By committing ourselves to teaching the techniques of literary analysis in each and every literature class, we
are becoming better teachers of the literature itself. We would like to think that we
are also making our students better writers.
Note
¹ For Booth's reflections on "Litcomp," see his
["]Presidential Address: Arts and Scandals 1982," PMLA 98 (1983),
312-22.