CI: 5410 Reading Response #1

When I read I often lost myself in texts. I become so involved in the actions of the characters that I squeal out loud in anxiety, clench my fists in anticipation, and often have to skim over parts of the books that are embarrassing. I tend to feel many emotions of the characters or respond to the plot in ways that evoke deep responses in me. Needless to say, I am a very sympathetic and empathetic read. I read for pleasure, yes, but I also read in order to travel with a character into their world. I like being challenged to think in new ways, but I know that not everyone has the same desire to be provoked or experience visceral responses to the texts they are reading. Like Smagorinsky, I too sometimes assume that “we all not only benefit from exposure to a variety or ideas, but want to see the world from as many perspectives as possible in order to get the clearest sense of our own personal beliefs” (295). When I have been reminded of this by my students asking, “Why do we have to read this?” I realized that it is important to pull them into the texts more deeply in order to help them see the characters and their stories as more than just words on a page.

I agree with Erick Gordon that often students oversimplify their understanding of a story and the actions/motivations of characters within that story. Having just completed a course on gender construction in children’s literature, the concept of forever examining the world through a set of binaries that have little true meaning suggests a lack of reality. There are very few things in the world that are clear cut “black and white.” The hero is rarely completely without some sort of vice or hubris that they struggle to overcome in some way, shape, or form. What about the anti-hero? I think it is important to illustrate this point to students and ask them to think more carefully about the actions, events, and momentum behind a story. For Gordon, the Mockingbird Monologues provided him with an excellent opportunity to push students beyond their comfort zone and think in new terms. I loved the scene in which Atticus is struggling with his self-confidence in tying his tie. As illustrated in the class discussion, this was a side of Atticus that surprised many of the students who resisted any sign of weakness. One student points out though that Atticus is not a superhero; he is an everyday man who has his own inner turmoil to face on a day-to-day basis. Or the scene with Calpurnia in which she points out some of the hypocrisy that arises from her position in the Finch household and her relationship to Atticus.

While I don’t imagine myself doing something that ambitious anytime in the near future, I think the premise is excellent. Allowing students a chance to spend some time diving into the psyche of a character is a great way for them to think beyond and/or in association with their experiences. In doing so, students can learn to experience sympathy and empathy for characters rather than pity—important distinctions made by Gordon. In supporting this kind of interaction with a text, the “other” becomes familiar. Multicultural experiences remain unique, but through an understanding of human motivations, emotions, and experiences, they also become more accessible—and meaningful—to the reader.

I’m sure there are many different ways in which to facilitate a deeper understanding of a text that teaches students how to “talk back” to a text rather than simply “talkinabout” it. Making the invisible visible is an important part of working with students and literature. By using these methods of deeper understanding and awareness with students, I think it is possible, as Ruth Vinz says, to accomplish one of the main goals of multicultural literature education: helping students “acquire the attitudes and knowledge needed to take part in cross-cultural relationships and to encourage their participation in social and civic/democratic action” (2).