Readability and the Novel
Background to the Task
Since Alexander Bain adopted the four-part division of written discourse in his influential composition textbook in the 19th century, description, narration, exposition, and argumentation as modes have had a shaping effect on a shared model on writing and reading pedagogy in American classrooms. Exposition and argumentation have become the jewels of the curriculum while narration with its sidekick, description, are “techniques” to polish the jewels.
Composition researchers term Bain’s scheme the “current traditional” model to distinguish it from more complex, innovative approaches. For example, the original “workshop” model from the 1980s privileging student ownership and choice upended Bain’s five-paragraph essay template for a brief moment, at least in the elementary and middle school grades. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
While this Bainian pedagogical relic from the cauldron of the 19th century Industrial Revolution embedded itself ever more deeply in the hidden curriculum for the masses, the 20th century saw a stirring of interest in breaking its stranglehold. Thinkers like Mikhail Bakhtin and Louise Rosenblatt perceived flaws in relegating literary writing (and reading) to a category called “narration,” and they set about explaining the many ways in which literary texts are both written and read in unique ways.
Literary texts, for example, have no thesis statement. Coherence and order are not the most highly valued assets. Prior knowledge plays less of a role in literary texts while prior social experience takes center stage. The “voice” speaking behind the words of the text should not call attention to itself in expository texts even though readers by default attribute the sentiments to the author; the “voice” in a literary text speaks in front of the author, rendering the text “double voiced” in Bahktinian terms.
Creating textual problems from semantic and syntactic cues deliberately planted, often hidden, is the norm in literature. Ambiguity in literature creates beauty. Personal responses of the imaginative variety are not to be ignored but to be prized. Literature evokes empathy, sensation, complexity, subjectivity.
Notions of readability grounded in syntax and vocabulary are particularly problematic when applied to literature. Indeed, literature holds a distinctly human rather than academic “meaning potential” in Halliday’s sense, a potential unrealized if it is written and read as another form of exposition.
Survey Instructions
Keeping in mind a definition of “readability” as “the quantity and quality of problems readers and writers must solve” in order to realize the “meaning potential” of a text, read each of the following paragraphs. They are introductory paragraphs to three novels. The meaning potential of literary introductions (novels) is imaginary, not factual.
Consider that writers compose expository introductions to prepare readers for navigating a unified, coherent, well-lit pathway to a convergence mapped by the author, an epistemological meeting of the minds. Writers compose introductions to novels to situate readers in an imaginary world readers create and to a story of (im)possible human experiences told by a fictional agent who serves as a ventriloquist for the author.
Introductions in literature are forward facing, raising more questions than answers. The formula “tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them” using hamburger paragraphs doesn’t apply. Readers grasp what they can as a railing to hold onto as they move into the imaginary world. That’s the task. Forming a sense of narrator, the tale teller, is an immediate task. Readers expect ambiguity and incompleteness, but they seek guideposts.
Read each section and examine its “readability,” that is, its level of challenge and demand for readers in terms of getting to a handrail into the textworld. Identify any textual traces or cues that evoke problem-solving behaviors. If you have read the novel and bring prior experience to the task, comment on how this background influences your analysis of readability and why “rereading” is an important strategy to master in literature. Finally, reflect on any implications for literacy pedagogy that come to mind. Caution: Attend to the cautions and avert your eyes to avoid spoilers.
Here is the gist of the question which is repeated once for each passage in the survey. Please respond on the survey if you prefer anonymity or comment in an open-ended manner in the comment bubble. I’m really not sure if you have to complete the survey in one sitting or if you can respond to an item and come back to the survey with a stored response. Let me know if you learn the answer. We are all learning here (I hope!).
Consider the readability of [the passage] as a “cold read,” i.e., bracket and set aside any prior experience you may have had with it if any. Make a summary judgment of its difficulty (1=easy—5=challenging) and point to moments during your reading process that evoked problem solving cognition.
Passage 1 The Fence
“Through the fence, between the curling flower spaces, I could see them hitting. They were coming toward where the flag was and I went along the fence. Luster was hunting in the grass by the flower tree. They took the flag out, and they were hitting. Then they put the flag back and they went to the table, and he hit and the other hit. Then they went on, and I went along the fence. Luster came away from the flower tree and we went along the fence and they stopped and I looked through the fence while Luster was hunting in the grass.”
***** SKIP THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IF YOU WANT AN UNBIASED READ. READING THE NEXT PARAGRAPH PROVIDES EXTRATEXTUAL BACKGROUND. IT MAY OR MAY NOT IMPACT HOW YOU READ BUT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON HOW YOU JUDGE.******
From ChatGPT4.5:
This passage is from "The Sound and the Fury" by William Faulkner. It's an American novel published in 1929 that utilizes a variety of narrative styles, including stream of consciousness. Faulkner's intricate prose and the novel's structure reflect the complexities of time, perception, and the deep-seated issues of the American South. This particular excerpt showcases Faulkner's unique style and the way he captures the perspective of his characters, contributing to the novel's standing as a monumental piece of literature in the 20th century.
*****
Passage 2 The Sun
“When we were new, Rosa and I were mid-store, on the magazines table side, and could see through more than half of the window. So we were able to watch the outside—the office workers hurrying by, the taxis, the runners, the tourists. Beggar Man and his dog, the lower part of the RPO Building. Once we were more settled, Manager allowed us to walk up to the front until we were right behind the window display, and then we could see how tall the RPO Building was. And if we were there at just the right time, we would see the Sun on his journey, crossing between the building tops from our side over to the RPO Building side.”
**** THIS PASSAGE IS HEAVILY IMPACTED BY INFORMATION IN THE NEXT TWO PARAGRAPHS. SKIP IF YOU WANT AN UNBIASED READ. THE NEXT TWO PARAGRAPHS GIVE AWAY THE STORE*****
From ChatGPT4.5: This passage does not immediately correspond to a widely recognized or classic piece of literature in the same way that quotes from canonical works such as those by William Faulkner or other renowned authors might. It could potentially be from a contemporary novel or a piece of short fiction, possibly focusing on themes of observation, change, or the experiences of inanimate characters (suggested by the perspective of observing "when we were new" and being "allowed to walk up to the front"). The mention of the "RPO Building" doesn't provide a clear clue to the work's identity without more context, as it doesn't refer to a famously iconic building commonly known in literature or history.
In the absence of recognizable elements that tie it directly to a specific author or title, this passage might come from a lesser-known modern work or could be part of a specific genre piece, perhaps exploring life from an unconventional viewpoint (the perspective seems to be that of non-human entities, given the phrasing). Without more specific details or additional context about the story or its characters, pinpointing the exact source is challenging.
*****
Passage 3 The Liver
“I’m a sick man…I’m a spiteful man. I’m an unattractive man. I think there’s something wrong with my liver. But I understand damn all about my illness and can’t say for certain which part of me is affected. I’m not receiving treatment for it and never have, though I do respect medicine and doctors. What’s more, I’m still extremely superstitious—well, sufficiently to respect medicine. (I’m educated enough not to be superstitious, but I am superstitious.) That’s probably something you can’t bring yourself to understand. Well, I understand it. Of course, in this case I can’t explain exactly to you whom I’m trying to harm by my spite. I realize perfectly well that I cannot ‘besmirch’ the doctors by not consulting them. I know better than anyone that by all this I’m harming no one but myself. All the same, if I refuse treatment it’s out of spite. So, if my liver hurts, let it hurt even more!”
**** THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH ALSO HEAVILY IMPACTS THE READING. SKIP IF YOU WANT AN UNBIASED READ. READING THE NEXT PARAGRAPH PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND****
From ChatGPT4.5: This passage is from "Notes from Underground" by Fyodor Dostoevsky, first published in 1864. The book is a landmark in existential literature, presenting the inner turmoil and reflections of the unnamed narrator, often referred to as the Underground Man. The novel delves deep into themes of free will, suffering, and the nature of human consciousness, with the protagonist's introspective monologues exploring his complex feelings towards society and himself. This opening passage establishes the contradictory nature of the Underground Man, characterized by his self-awareness and self-destructive tendencies, setting the tone for the philosophical inquiries that follow.