Dissecting Literature

I really dislike the term "dissect" when students apply it to literature. A short story is composed of many parts: plot, characters, setting, etc. We can look at each element and appreciate how the author creates, manipulates, or portrays each part. We don't leave each part lying exposed on a table in a lab, though. What I want students to understand is that reading critically may require them to look at the parts, but the ultimate goal is to pull the parts of a story together to make the best sense of it. What good is it to discuss the characterization of Faulkner's Emily Grierson if we ignore the various settings that influence her character and our understanding of her situation?


A few weeks ago, a colleague who was preparing a "why do we need to read lit" sort of presentation for her own class asked me why I read. My immediate summary was "because it reaffirms what I already believe and it challenges me to explore new beliefs." I value both sides of that relationship. I don't want to be merely pat on the head and told I'm right all the time. I want to be challenged to think about issues in new, interesting ways. I'm dumbstruck whenever I'm confronted by others who are only interested in the head patting. Honestly, I often don't know what to do with these types.

Oh, and I don't have all the answers nor do I love all the literature we read in class. That's why I chose some of them!