How To Read Literature Like a Professor by Thomas C. Foster

It is possible I have some serious imposter syndrome re: leading a book club. I have absolutely no qualifications for doing so except for the fact that I read a lot. But am I reading correctly? I feel this way about doing a lot of things "correctly," to be fair. Is this how one successfully exercises? Is this how you make a bed? Is this how you do laundry? But there are legitimate experts on reading, I thought to myself. Instead of wishing I'd taken more literature classes in college, how about I consult some of the experts who I work with every day?

So I marched myself down to the chair of the literature department's office and laid my plight bare. Blog. Book club. Imposter. Hats. He was a bit shocked by the blog (which is okay because I recently learned he TEACHES YOGA and he had never told me that), but eventually suggested How To Read Literature Like a Professor: A Lively and Entertaining Guide to Understanding Literature, From The Great Gatsby to The Hate U Give by Thomas C. Foster. It was originally published in 2003, but I got a copy of the most recent, third edition, which was published in 2024. 

Foster is an actual professor at the University of Michigan - Flint. In this book he sets forth a list of dictums, things that you should look out for, when you are reading. Here are a handful:

The real reason for a quest is always self-knowledge. (page 3)
Whenever people eat or drink together, it's communion. (page 10)
Ghosts and vampires are hardly ever only about ghosts and vampires. (page 20)
There's no such thing as a wholly original work of literature. (page 27)
There's only one story. (page 30)
It's never just rain. (page 72)
Characters are not people. (page 89)
Writers do not create fantasy worlds in order for us to criticize or long for worlds that have never existed. (page 114)
Flight is freedom. (page 134)

"The Indiana Jones Principle" - If you want your audience to know something important about your character (or the work at large), introduce it early, before you need it. (page 201-202)

There were lots of helpful hints in this book and if I were teaching a literature class to students in high school (or maybe even college), I could think of any number of assignments based on these dictums. But I liked his little pep talks, too. 

If we don't see the reference, it means nothing, right? So the worst thing that occurs is we're still reading the same story as if the literary precursors weren't there. (page 31)

Every reader's experience of every work is unique, largely because each person will emphasize various elements to differing degrees, and those differences will cause certain features of the text to become more or less pronounced. We bring an individual history to our reading, a mix of previous readings, to be sure, but also a history that includes, but is not limited to, educational attainment, gender, race, class, faith, social involvement, and philosophical inclination. These factors will inevitably influence what we understand in our reading, and nowhere is this individuality clearer than in the matter of symbolism. (page 113)

This, of course, is the great and troubling question of literary analysis: How do we ever know that we're right, that we're accurate, that we're justified? (page 266)

Often, too often, I find students apologizing for the way they see a work: "It's only my opinion, but" or "I'm probably wrong, but" or some other iteration of this weak act of contrition. Stop apologizing!...Be intelligent, be bold, be assertive, be self-confident in your reading. It is your opinion (but not "just") and you might be wrong, although that's less likely than more students think. So here's my final piece of advice: Own the books you read. (page 269-270)

I feel better after reading these words of encouragement. There isn't a right way to understand or think about a story. Even if you're just reading a story at the most superficial level (the cat in The Cat in the Hat is a terrible role model, no?), that's a fair reading. But if you want to delve in more deeply (the cat character as a representation of a lot of chaos characters in children's literature and is in sharp contrast to the parental figures represented by the fish; maybe the cat character is a bit of minstrelsy?), you can and you're probably not wrong. I'm probably not harming anyone by consistently talking about hats in my reading or by asking questions like "which character represents what you are like the most?" even if they might be ridiculous to some of you. That's okay. We each get our own reading. 

Lines of note:

That's how it is with minor characters. Just because they don't get the full treatment of main characters doesn't mean they don't suffer and die on their behalf. Not really fair, is it?

You see, literary works are not democracies. We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal. We may, but the country of Novels, Etc., doesn't. In that faraway place, no character is created equal. One or two get all the breaks; the rest exist to get them to finish line. (page 92-93)

Poor Neville in Harry Potter, right? Imagine Neville Longbottom and the Goblet of Fire? 

Here's the problem with symbols: people expect them to mean something. Not just any something, but one something in particular. Exactly. Maximum. You know what? It doesn't work like that. Oh, sure, there are some symbols that work straightforwardly: a white flag means "I give up, don't shoot." Or it means, "We come in peace." See? Even in a fairly clear-cut case we can't pin down a single meaning, although they're pretty close. So some symbols do have a relatively limited range of meanings, but in general a symbol can't be reduced to standing for only one thing. (page 109)

Whew. I guess I should start to pay attention to some of these symbols more, though. 

It's simply impossible to write or direct in a vacuum. (page 180)

Context always matters. 

We all read through our own filters, biases, and expectations, and that's normal. We expect a certain amount of verisimilitude, of faithfulness to the world we know, in what we watch and what we read. (page 206)

I find myself feeling bolstered by having read this right before I start up a new CBBC. We will all be coming at this book with our own background and ideas and all of us can look at this new book with our own lens. And that's the best thing about stories.

4.5/5 stars - Definitely a recommend if you run a book club that you're not sure you should be running.

****************

Things I looked up:

Judith Guest's Ordinary People - Guest's 1976 debut novel.  It tells the story of a year in the life of the Jarretts, an affluent suburban family trying to cope with the aftermath of two traumatic events. Lake Michigan plays an important role in this book, which is one reason I had to look it up.

Hat mentions (why hats?):

Towards the end of the book, Foster includes the short story "The Garden Party" by Katherine Mansfield as a way for the readers to apply what they have learned while reading his book. All of the hat mentions are from this story and analyses of the story and a hat plays an integral symbolic role, so there are quite a few.

brushing their hats (page 336)

sweet hat (x2) (page 237)

new hat (page 244)

big hat (page 244)

carrying the hat (page 245)

"My child!" said her mother, "the hat is yours." (page 245)

her black hat trimmed with gold daisies (page 245)

"What an absolute topping hat!" (page 246)

And the big hat with the velvet streamers - if only it was another hat! (page 249)

"Forgive my hat," she said. (page 251)

a gift of a new hat (page 255)

I'm not done with that hat. (page 259)

It's a black hat with black velvet ribbons and gold daisies...(page 259)

accept the hat (page 259)

a mother's hat (page 259)

Because the hat has come from...(page 259)

...gold daisies on her hat. (page 261)

****************

Is there anything that you choose to do on a regular basis that you're not sure you're actually qualified to do? I actually feel this way about so many things in my life. Please tell me I'm not alone.