"English professors now study everything except English," argues Professor Andrew Elfenbein in his 2009 book Romanticism and the Rise of English (2009). By "English" he means the history of the English language--and how its particular forms at any one time influence how writers write. That volume, which won Outstanding Academic Book Award from Choice, sets out to brush off contemporary literary criticism's blind spot, specifically looking at how literary authors responded to new usage rules in the 18th century. In the book's afterward, Elfenbein confesses that his examinations of Romantic English are leading him into psychology "as a means of investigating language production, reading comprehension, and writing strategies." Sure enough, this spring he won an American Council of Leaned Societies Fellowship for 2013-14 to work on a project that brings together cognitive science and literary criticism. (Elfenbein also received a Grant-in-Aid of Research, Artistry & Scholarship this spring from the U's Office of the Vice President for Research.) How did he get interested in that topic? Where does he see literary criticism going? What does he love about teaching large survey courses? Read on. . . .1. Your ACLS Fellowship project, entitled "The Gist of Reading," combines science and literary criticism "to provide scholars for the first time with models and vocabulary for describing the reading strategies and mental processes of nineteenth-century readers." How did you become interested in this interdisciplinary work?
My journey into cognitive science began after reading a book on reading written by two literary critics. It provided an overview of reader response theories, and it made me feel that the field had become stuck. Wolfgang Iser, Stanley Fish, Janice Radway, and others had done important work on reading, but the terms of the debate had stagnated. At the same time, Alan Richardson had pioneered the field of cognitive literary studies. Although I had mixed feelings about the results of such studies, they raised the profile of cognitive science as a possible resource for literary critics. I took the simple step of looking in the online course guide for courses on reading at the U that were offered outside of English. I found a course by Paul van den Broek (now at the University of Leiden) on reading comprehension, offered by the Department of Educational Psychology. I wrote to Paul and asked him for the syllabus; he kindly invited me to consider auditing the course, and I did. I was lucky to find in Paul a brilliant scientist, teacher, and colleague. His course encouraged me to start a long and continuing process of re-educating myself in the theories and methodologies of a new discipline. Along the way, I have worked with a series of extraordinary scientists, many of whom participate in the Textgroup sponsored by the Center for Cognitive Sciences here at the university. Although cognitive literary study has flourished since I began my work, my particular area, the psychological study of reading, has received little to no attention. As a result, my work does not look like much of the other work in the field, because I am asking fundamentally different questions.
2. The Department of English this year hired two 18-19th century English literature professors, Elaine Auyoung and Amit Yahav. You chaired the search committee last fall. Reading the applications must have been like getting a wide angle view of your field: what surprised or energized you? What do the two selected bring to the table?
The quality and the volume of the applications were overwhelming: we found ourselves turning down even applicants with books from prestigious presses. In general, I felt that some of the historicist paradigms that have energized the fields in the past several decades are beginning to give way to new alternatives. I was particularly impressed by candidates asking new questions about realism and the novel that depended less on unmasking its ideological underpinnings and more on understanding realism as a technique. Auyoung and Yahav are two exceptional, very different critics who will bring an incredible wealth of knowledge and creativity to our department. Both combine intense engagement with literary texts with unusual and unexpected approaches to familiar questions: I am thrilled that they will be joining us.
3. I witnessed you teaching the large survey class Brit Lit II with a fascinating lecture on Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse. Even when you randomly selected people to answer your questions, they had articulate and thoughtful responses. Do your students just know they have to come prepared, or are there sometimes moments of "I don't know; I didn't read it"? What do you enjoy about teaching a large class, as opposed to a seminar?
Lecturing at the U is one of the huge privileges of my job. I work with students to create an atmosphere of mutual trust, so that they know that when they speak in class, I will treat them with respect and interest. I really care about what they have to say. That particular lecture class is a historical introduction to British literature (it even carries CLE credit in history), so it differs from a seminar because I spend a large amount of time discussing British history. I also enjoy the chance to model for students what a sustained literary interpretation looks like, though I stress that my reading is not the best or the only possible reading.
4. You are the current Chair of the James Russell Lowell Prize Committee, which is charged with selecting the best book of literary criticism of 2012 by a current member of the Modern Language Association (the main U.S. professional association for literary scholars). Chairing and serving on the committee seems like both an honor and a lot of work! What's the process?
We receive over 110 books and have to choose one winner. The MLA has designed the process well so that the members of the committee have a fair division of labor. It's a chance to get an overview of some of the best and most compelling work in the discipline.
5. What non-academic book have you read and enjoyed recently?
I'm loving Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow: it's a fine overview of the work he did with Amos Tversky on heuristics. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in how people make judgments.
Send us your story! Share your announcements, awards, and news.
For other 5 X Friday interviews, go to our news page.
