What do you think?
Rate this book
English After the Fall: From Literature to Textuality
Robert Scholes’s now classic Rise and Fall of English was a stinging indictment of the discipline of English literature in the United States. In English after the Fall, Scholes moves from identifying where the discipline has failed to providing concrete solutions that will help restore vitality and relevance to the discipline.With the self-assurance of a master essayist, Scholes explores the reasons for the fallen status of English and suggests a way forward. Arguing that the fall of English as a field of study is due, at least in part, to the narrow view of “literature” that prevails in English departments, Scholes charts how the historical rise of English as a field of study during the early twentieth century led to the domination of modernist notions of verbal art, ultimately restricting English studies to a narrow cannon of approved texts.After tracing the various meanings attached to the word “literature” since the Renaissance, Scholes argues that the concept of it that currently shapes the work of English departments excludes both powerful sacred documents (from the Declaration of Independence to the Bible) and pleasurable, profane works that involve the performance of roles like those of clown and teacher in many media (including popular musicals, opera, and film)—and that both sorts of works should be studied in English courses. English after the Fall is a bold manifesto for the replacement of literature with what Scholes calls textuality—an expansive and ecumenical notion of what we read and write—as the primary object of English instruction. This concise and persuasive work is destined to become required reading for anyone who cares about the future of the humanities.
- GenresNonfiction
176 pages, Paperback
First published October 15, 2011
2 people are currently reading
24 people want to read
About the author
Robert Scholes
82 books17 followersRobert E. Scholes was an American literary critic and theorist. He is known for his ideas on fabulation and metafiction.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 8, 2021
Restore Diminished Appeal and Relevance - I happened on this book while reading "The Present State of Scholarship in the History of Rhetoric: A Twenty-First Century Guide"(see my review) and trying to understand what occurred with rhetoric during recent times. My hopes rose when I saw its author was Robert Scholes whose work was known to me to some degree (see my reviews of "Fabulation and Metafiction" and Moretti’s "Distant Reading").
As I proceeded, I was attracted to this work by Scholes and its predecessor, "The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a Discipline"(which deserves its own review). Both works seemed to address my interests to a degree in the way the study of English as a discipline emerged, and how it has declined. This title focuses on Scholes’ suggestions about how college English professors, like him, might proceed “from literature to textuality” ----to evolve the field and restore its diminished appeal and relevance.
Within this book, Scholes offers a Prologue where he briefly recaps the previous book and sets the stage for his 5 Chapters that deal with “English after the Fall.” More specifically, he proceeds through (1) Literature and Its Others, (2) The Limiting Concept of Literature, (3) Textuality and the Teaching of Reading, (4) Textual Power – Sacred Reading, and (5) Textual Pleasure – Profane Reading. Finally, the author provides an Epilogue including ‘A Sample Program in Textuality,’ then A Note on Sources, Works Consulted, and an Index.
As Scholes states early on (see Prologue, pg. xiv) “The Fall of English is actually part of the fall of all the humanities in a world that is driven by technological progress and the bottom line. In such a world the humanities must demonstrate their usefulness in order to survive as more than tokens of gentility . . .. “He continues (on pg. xv) that “The academic fields that are flourishing today are that offer training in marketable skills, like computer science, chemistry, biology and engineering. The humanities, in general, are having trouble competing in this world, not because they are useless but because they have been reluctant to define themselves in terms of use.” Moreover, the author suggests “What is needed . . . is a broader reconsideration of English studies . . . we need to see the main function . . . as helping students become . . . better readers and writers . . . [and] a shift in the field from privileging literature to studying a wide range of texts in a wide range of media. . . “
Scholes relates how those involved with the New Criticism such as F.R. Leavis put journalism and popular fiction in a lower category than literature. (pg. 10-11). He explains how the study of poetry, such as of Frost or Wordsworth pieces, can range across the whole trivium (i.e. grammar, dialectic and rhetoric) as part of Rhetoric and Composition (e.g. 21). However, the restricted view of literature is too tied to the book and keeps attention to ‘sacred’ as well as political texts and the audio-visual out of the classroom (see pg. 33). Whereas, digitization of periodicals since their emergence in the late 1800’s also permits the study of advertising and the context of the times in which they appeared along with stories (see pg. 44). English should teach the production, consumption, and history of texts in English (pg. 48). As described (on pg. 50), reading a text should entail (1) noting reactions, then (2) getting into interpretation (such as examining construction and intention), and finally (3) proceeding with criticism (including acceptance/rejection of argument, assessment or judgement of value).
As the book continues, Scholes examines “sacred texts” like religious ones including epistles by St. Paul’s noting treatment of women (see pg. 71) or like founding documents like the “Declaration of Independence” or the “US Constitution” and aspects like the 2nd amendment (see pg. 78). He also gives attention to different text translations into other forms such as films “Who Shot Liberty Valance,” “Othello” opera (with Placido Domingo), “Some Like It Hot,” “Porgy and Bess,” “Blue Angel,” and “Le Maître de Music” (“Master Teacher”), further mention of several operas such as Wagner’s “Cycle of the Ring.” The authors discussions led me to recall Levitin's "This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession" and Desai’s "The Wisdom of Finance: Discovering Humanity in the World of Risk and Return" which seem to represent similar explorations.
While this book deals with part of my concerns regarding modern rhetoric’s place in dealing with text, I have to look elsewhere for more on the ways study and refinement of oral presentation has proceeded. Nonetheless, Scholes’ final book (as a sequel to the early one, before his death in 2016), helps summarize his career and point a way forward for those in his field and the other humanities.
As I proceeded, I was attracted to this work by Scholes and its predecessor, "The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a Discipline"(which deserves its own review). Both works seemed to address my interests to a degree in the way the study of English as a discipline emerged, and how it has declined. This title focuses on Scholes’ suggestions about how college English professors, like him, might proceed “from literature to textuality” ----to evolve the field and restore its diminished appeal and relevance.
Within this book, Scholes offers a Prologue where he briefly recaps the previous book and sets the stage for his 5 Chapters that deal with “English after the Fall.” More specifically, he proceeds through (1) Literature and Its Others, (2) The Limiting Concept of Literature, (3) Textuality and the Teaching of Reading, (4) Textual Power – Sacred Reading, and (5) Textual Pleasure – Profane Reading. Finally, the author provides an Epilogue including ‘A Sample Program in Textuality,’ then A Note on Sources, Works Consulted, and an Index.
As Scholes states early on (see Prologue, pg. xiv) “The Fall of English is actually part of the fall of all the humanities in a world that is driven by technological progress and the bottom line. In such a world the humanities must demonstrate their usefulness in order to survive as more than tokens of gentility . . .. “He continues (on pg. xv) that “The academic fields that are flourishing today are that offer training in marketable skills, like computer science, chemistry, biology and engineering. The humanities, in general, are having trouble competing in this world, not because they are useless but because they have been reluctant to define themselves in terms of use.” Moreover, the author suggests “What is needed . . . is a broader reconsideration of English studies . . . we need to see the main function . . . as helping students become . . . better readers and writers . . . [and] a shift in the field from privileging literature to studying a wide range of texts in a wide range of media. . . “
Scholes relates how those involved with the New Criticism such as F.R. Leavis put journalism and popular fiction in a lower category than literature. (pg. 10-11). He explains how the study of poetry, such as of Frost or Wordsworth pieces, can range across the whole trivium (i.e. grammar, dialectic and rhetoric) as part of Rhetoric and Composition (e.g. 21). However, the restricted view of literature is too tied to the book and keeps attention to ‘sacred’ as well as political texts and the audio-visual out of the classroom (see pg. 33). Whereas, digitization of periodicals since their emergence in the late 1800’s also permits the study of advertising and the context of the times in which they appeared along with stories (see pg. 44). English should teach the production, consumption, and history of texts in English (pg. 48). As described (on pg. 50), reading a text should entail (1) noting reactions, then (2) getting into interpretation (such as examining construction and intention), and finally (3) proceeding with criticism (including acceptance/rejection of argument, assessment or judgement of value).
As the book continues, Scholes examines “sacred texts” like religious ones including epistles by St. Paul’s noting treatment of women (see pg. 71) or like founding documents like the “Declaration of Independence” or the “US Constitution” and aspects like the 2nd amendment (see pg. 78). He also gives attention to different text translations into other forms such as films “Who Shot Liberty Valance,” “Othello” opera (with Placido Domingo), “Some Like It Hot,” “Porgy and Bess,” “Blue Angel,” and “Le Maître de Music” (“Master Teacher”), further mention of several operas such as Wagner’s “Cycle of the Ring.” The authors discussions led me to recall Levitin's "This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession" and Desai’s "The Wisdom of Finance: Discovering Humanity in the World of Risk and Return" which seem to represent similar explorations.
While this book deals with part of my concerns regarding modern rhetoric’s place in dealing with text, I have to look elsewhere for more on the ways study and refinement of oral presentation has proceeded. Nonetheless, Scholes’ final book (as a sequel to the early one, before his death in 2016), helps summarize his career and point a way forward for those in his field and the other humanities.
December 21, 2011
Disclaimer: I received an uncorrected proof copy of this book as part of the Library Thing Early Reviewer Program.
I read this book from 23 Nov – 13 Dec 2011 and the bottom line is that I enjoyed it and recommend it.
Contents:
Prologue: English after the fall
Ch. 1: Literature and its others
Ch. 2: The limiting concept of literature
Ch. 3: Textuality and the teaching of reading
Ch. 4: Textual power—sacred reading
Ch. 5: Textual pleasure—profane reading
Epilogue: A sample program in textuality
A Note on Sources
Works Consulted
Index [missing in this uncorrected proof copy]
This book is a follow-on to his previous book, The Rise and Fall of English, which he claims “came about because of the alluring but ultimately fatal choice of literature as the central object of the English curriculum” (xiii). I have not read that book but will probably do so now; I will certainly be looking into other books and writings by Robert Scholes.
The Prologue gives us an overview of how the book came about, what the Fall of English is, provides a quick overview of the argument for “textuality,” provides Scholes’ qualifications and interests in this arena, and outlines the rest of the book.
“This book is simply a profession of faith in that fallen field of studies and an attempt to suggest a direction for its future” (xiii).
“The fall of English is actually part of the fall of all the humanities in a world that is driven by technological progress and the bottom line” (xiv-xv).
Outline:
history of ‘literature’
how a constricted notion of literature contributes to the fragmentation of the field
expanded field of textuality
illustration 1: the sacred
illustration 2: the profane
The prologue is quite understandable and provided me a bit of enthusiastic anticipation for what followed.
Ch. 1: Literature and Its Others
This chapter provides a rapid-fire intellectual/conceptual history of the concept of ‘literature.’ While it was interesting, it was not at all as clear as I had hoped it would be. This is definitely the weakest link in the book and its argument. Thankfully, it really isn’t required for the argument in any serious way; although it could certainly strengthen the argument if done well.
Intellectual history, and its close kin conceptual history (Begriffsgeschichte), are my favorite kinds of history and I was highly interested in learning about the concept and idea of ‘literature’ as it has developed. Sadly, I am still pretty much in the dark after reading this romp of a chapter. I do understand Scholes giving just under 10% of the text to this chapter, seeing as it isn’t really fundamental to his argument, but I am still disappointed. Thankfully, this is really my only disappointment with the book. [This chapter is why I only gave it 4 stars.]
Ch. 2: The Limiting Concept of Literature
Discusses the limits put on the concept of ‘literature’ within English departments and how that constrains what is taught.
“At the simplest level, as we have seen, this literary designation may rule excellent written texts out of consideration in our basic courses in reading, writing, and thinking. And that is one reason why we need to free ourselves from a restricted notion of literature” (23).
“We would not deny that certain kinds of texts, like instructions, are usually very low on the literary scale, but we all believe that there is a scale, and that there are poems, plays, stories, and expository texts all along that scale. This scale is a measure of a quality we may call “literariness” (which I would define as a combination of textual pleasure and power), but it is neither easy nor right to draw a line across the scale at some point and call everything on one side of the line literature” (24-5).
Provides a couple examples of the literary used for other forms of teaching and of the ‘nonliterary’ as examples of the literary.
Ch. 3: Textuality and the Teaching of Reading
(Some) problems with the restricted notion of reading:
“you can read it but you can’t write it”
“led to the separation of the study of reading/literature … from the study of writing/composition”
led to hierarchical structure of faculty
“further split between those kinds of writing that can be designated as ‘creative’ and those that cannot.”
“now have programs claiming creative status for certain sorts of writing not included in the restricted notion of literature, like the personal essay.”
“tied too tightly to the book”
“tied to a narrow view of what makes a text creative or literary”
“prevents us from demonstrating in our classrooms the relevance of the texts we cherish to the actual lives of our students” (33-34)
“To solve these problems we need to redefine English as the study of textuality rather than literature. Such a redefinition has a number of aspects, but it begins with the recognition that English is all about teaching—not research—and that this teaching has two main branches: reading and writing. That is, the business of English departments is to help students improve as readers and writers, to become better producers and consumers of texts” (34, emphasis mine).
Scholes claims that “textuality has two aspects:”
“broadening of the objects we study and teach to include all of the media and modes of expression.”
“changing the way we look at texts to combine the perspectives of creator and consumer, writer and reader” (35).
“The basic purpose of humanistic education is to give students perspectives on their own cultural situation, opening the past so that they can connect it to the present” (35-6).
Ch. 4: Textual Power—Sacred Reading
“… we should treat all texts held to be sacred with interpretational respect. That is, we must see them as attempts to present a true version of events or a valid way of life, even if they seem to contradict our own views. Which does not mean that we need to believe any of them—even our own. Respect is different from belief” (53, emphasis mine).
Sacred reading includes both main sources of sacred texts: religions and governments.
“To simply make sense of it [notion of 'sacredness'] in a basic way, however, we must perform an imaginative act, which tells us, I believe, that no text can be perfectly sacred in actuality—precisely because it is a text” (57)
US political sacred documents are “ideal for the study of interpretation” because we do know a lot about who wrote them and how they were composed (59).
“The textualist reader, then, must acknowledge the seriousness of fundamentalist readings, while resisting and criticizing the zeal that often results in interpretive leaps to an unearned certainty of meaning, achieved by turning a deaf ear to the complexity of the texts themselves, their histories, and their present situations” (63).
“them, there, then” ==> “us, here, now” “… “we must try to determine the text’s proper bearing on our own values and our conduct in the world” (71).
Ch. 5: Textual Pleasure—Profane Reading
“All texts that are not accorded sacred status may be considered profane—especially if we can do away with the semi-sacred category of literature” (89).
Focuses on musical drama and, in particular, opera in this chapter.
“Because performative works depend on audiences, the question of what they mean to “us, here, now” gains in importance. We live in a performative world, which is another reason why we should pay special attention to enacted stories in our classrooms” (92).
This chapter focused a lot on performance and roles.
Epilogue: A Sample Program in Textuality
He ends with a “suggestion for a core of courses to be followed by advanced work drawn from whatever curriculum is already in a given institution” (142).
Most of these courses probably already exist, at least in title and with some applicable content. They would need to be restructured to focus on the textuality of the, hopefully, broadened range of texts used to comprise the content. I do see this as a totally doable venture, though.
Recommended! In particular, I feel that, at a minimum, the following folks could benefit from reading and thinking about this text: Lit majors [all languages], writing majors, and humanists of all stripes including digital humanists. This includes everyone from undergrads and their parents, through grad students on up to professors, department chairs and anyone else involved with or concerned with curriculum of literature(s) and writing.
This is a short but, nonetheless, important book. It is a quick read but supplies plenty to think about and act on.
For my full review with more sample quotes, see: http://marklindner.info/blog/2011/12/...
I read this book from 23 Nov – 13 Dec 2011 and the bottom line is that I enjoyed it and recommend it.
Contents:
Prologue: English after the fall
Ch. 1: Literature and its others
Ch. 2: The limiting concept of literature
Ch. 3: Textuality and the teaching of reading
Ch. 4: Textual power—sacred reading
Ch. 5: Textual pleasure—profane reading
Epilogue: A sample program in textuality
A Note on Sources
Works Consulted
Index [missing in this uncorrected proof copy]
This book is a follow-on to his previous book, The Rise and Fall of English, which he claims “came about because of the alluring but ultimately fatal choice of literature as the central object of the English curriculum” (xiii). I have not read that book but will probably do so now; I will certainly be looking into other books and writings by Robert Scholes.
The Prologue gives us an overview of how the book came about, what the Fall of English is, provides a quick overview of the argument for “textuality,” provides Scholes’ qualifications and interests in this arena, and outlines the rest of the book.
“This book is simply a profession of faith in that fallen field of studies and an attempt to suggest a direction for its future” (xiii).
“The fall of English is actually part of the fall of all the humanities in a world that is driven by technological progress and the bottom line” (xiv-xv).
Outline:
history of ‘literature’
how a constricted notion of literature contributes to the fragmentation of the field
expanded field of textuality
illustration 1: the sacred
illustration 2: the profane
The prologue is quite understandable and provided me a bit of enthusiastic anticipation for what followed.
Ch. 1: Literature and Its Others
This chapter provides a rapid-fire intellectual/conceptual history of the concept of ‘literature.’ While it was interesting, it was not at all as clear as I had hoped it would be. This is definitely the weakest link in the book and its argument. Thankfully, it really isn’t required for the argument in any serious way; although it could certainly strengthen the argument if done well.
Intellectual history, and its close kin conceptual history (Begriffsgeschichte), are my favorite kinds of history and I was highly interested in learning about the concept and idea of ‘literature’ as it has developed. Sadly, I am still pretty much in the dark after reading this romp of a chapter. I do understand Scholes giving just under 10% of the text to this chapter, seeing as it isn’t really fundamental to his argument, but I am still disappointed. Thankfully, this is really my only disappointment with the book. [This chapter is why I only gave it 4 stars.]
Ch. 2: The Limiting Concept of Literature
Discusses the limits put on the concept of ‘literature’ within English departments and how that constrains what is taught.
“At the simplest level, as we have seen, this literary designation may rule excellent written texts out of consideration in our basic courses in reading, writing, and thinking. And that is one reason why we need to free ourselves from a restricted notion of literature” (23).
“We would not deny that certain kinds of texts, like instructions, are usually very low on the literary scale, but we all believe that there is a scale, and that there are poems, plays, stories, and expository texts all along that scale. This scale is a measure of a quality we may call “literariness” (which I would define as a combination of textual pleasure and power), but it is neither easy nor right to draw a line across the scale at some point and call everything on one side of the line literature” (24-5).
Provides a couple examples of the literary used for other forms of teaching and of the ‘nonliterary’ as examples of the literary.
Ch. 3: Textuality and the Teaching of Reading
(Some) problems with the restricted notion of reading:
“you can read it but you can’t write it”
“led to the separation of the study of reading/literature … from the study of writing/composition”
led to hierarchical structure of faculty
“further split between those kinds of writing that can be designated as ‘creative’ and those that cannot.”
“now have programs claiming creative status for certain sorts of writing not included in the restricted notion of literature, like the personal essay.”
“tied too tightly to the book”
“tied to a narrow view of what makes a text creative or literary”
“prevents us from demonstrating in our classrooms the relevance of the texts we cherish to the actual lives of our students” (33-34)
“To solve these problems we need to redefine English as the study of textuality rather than literature. Such a redefinition has a number of aspects, but it begins with the recognition that English is all about teaching—not research—and that this teaching has two main branches: reading and writing. That is, the business of English departments is to help students improve as readers and writers, to become better producers and consumers of texts” (34, emphasis mine).
Scholes claims that “textuality has two aspects:”
“broadening of the objects we study and teach to include all of the media and modes of expression.”
“changing the way we look at texts to combine the perspectives of creator and consumer, writer and reader” (35).
“The basic purpose of humanistic education is to give students perspectives on their own cultural situation, opening the past so that they can connect it to the present” (35-6).
Ch. 4: Textual Power—Sacred Reading
“… we should treat all texts held to be sacred with interpretational respect. That is, we must see them as attempts to present a true version of events or a valid way of life, even if they seem to contradict our own views. Which does not mean that we need to believe any of them—even our own. Respect is different from belief” (53, emphasis mine).
Sacred reading includes both main sources of sacred texts: religions and governments.
“To simply make sense of it [notion of 'sacredness'] in a basic way, however, we must perform an imaginative act, which tells us, I believe, that no text can be perfectly sacred in actuality—precisely because it is a text” (57)
US political sacred documents are “ideal for the study of interpretation” because we do know a lot about who wrote them and how they were composed (59).
“The textualist reader, then, must acknowledge the seriousness of fundamentalist readings, while resisting and criticizing the zeal that often results in interpretive leaps to an unearned certainty of meaning, achieved by turning a deaf ear to the complexity of the texts themselves, their histories, and their present situations” (63).
“them, there, then” ==> “us, here, now” “… “we must try to determine the text’s proper bearing on our own values and our conduct in the world” (71).
Ch. 5: Textual Pleasure—Profane Reading
“All texts that are not accorded sacred status may be considered profane—especially if we can do away with the semi-sacred category of literature” (89).
Focuses on musical drama and, in particular, opera in this chapter.
“Because performative works depend on audiences, the question of what they mean to “us, here, now” gains in importance. We live in a performative world, which is another reason why we should pay special attention to enacted stories in our classrooms” (92).
This chapter focused a lot on performance and roles.
Epilogue: A Sample Program in Textuality
He ends with a “suggestion for a core of courses to be followed by advanced work drawn from whatever curriculum is already in a given institution” (142).
Most of these courses probably already exist, at least in title and with some applicable content. They would need to be restructured to focus on the textuality of the, hopefully, broadened range of texts used to comprise the content. I do see this as a totally doable venture, though.
Recommended! In particular, I feel that, at a minimum, the following folks could benefit from reading and thinking about this text: Lit majors [all languages], writing majors, and humanists of all stripes including digital humanists. This includes everyone from undergrads and their parents, through grad students on up to professors, department chairs and anyone else involved with or concerned with curriculum of literature(s) and writing.
This is a short but, nonetheless, important book. It is a quick read but supplies plenty to think about and act on.
For my full review with more sample quotes, see: http://marklindner.info/blog/2011/12/...
Read
June 13, 2012I really appreciated Scholes's consideration of the place of the English Department in an academic world that's increasingly about students studying the practical, the career-oriented. On the one hand, I agree with him that the teaching of reading and the teaching of writing retain a significant importance, even if we become more and more a "service" department. I agree that the modernist privileging of difficult works (at least exclusively) needs to be dethroned, and that cultural studies should become one important aspect of what English departments do. On the other, many of his examples struck me as quixotic in the extreme, to the point of derailing his argument.
I received an advance copy of this book from the LibraryThing Early Reviewers Program.
I received an advance copy of this book from the LibraryThing Early Reviewers Program.
October 5, 2015
It was okay. Has a lot of valid arguments on why students should be taught in English degrees differently than they are today. That students should learn to be critical to all sorts of "texts" - also the sacred ones of our culture (e.g the bible, Declaration of Independence, shakespeare etc). He repeats the same arguments throughout the whole book and there are some long sections of describing movies, plays (and operas) which he sees as must-reads/sees. In this way he glorifies some texts, while ditching others completely, and he seem to forget his own argument : that we should read all sorts of texts critically. He has a lot of good anecdotes though, but also uses a lot of namedropping - which is tiresome. Written in a very light language, which makes it a quick read.
October 26, 2014
great, interesting read that gave me a lot of food for thought. great suggestions about what could (and should ) be taught in English studies and also How this can be done.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews