What’s in a Question? Literary Inquiries and Interrogations, 1900-1964
TTH 9:00AM-10:50AM, 160-B37
Office Hours: Thursday 2:00-4:00PM and by appointment
Course Description: This course explores whether the question—seemingly a transhistorical rhetorical construction that appears evenly from the Middle Ages to the present—might have a special franchise in literary works of the period 1900-1964. From T. S. Eliot’s “Do I dare to eat a peach?” to Faulkner’s “Why do you hate the south?” to the tremendous popularity of Agatha Christie’s sleuths, modernism’s fascination with questioning seems to indicate an increased sense of epistemological doubt and existential anxiety. On the other hand, the period also sees writers, like Gertrude Stein or Ernest Hemingway, who conspicuously shy away from posing questions, even to the extent of refusing the question mark. How are we to interpret such marked lack of interrogation? We will focus on four writers, but relate the concerns of the course to other nodes in literary, intellectual, and socioeconomic history. Some suggestive contexts to consider in relation to the question will be the rise of show trials, the consolidation of psychoanalysis, and the decline of religious catechism. Not only will we reflect on our contemporary relationship to forms and practices of questioning (routine google searching, pervasive “uptalk,” asking Siri for information, etc.), we will also examine the questions that we ask of texts as readers and literary critics—what do we ask, and how?
Readings will be capped at 170 pages per week, and will taper off during writing-intensive weeks. All primary texts are fairly canonical, but some are works less regularly read in the English core (Ford, Forster). Others, like Eliot’s The Waste Land or Joyce’s “Ithaca,” may be familiar to students from Literary History III or other survey courses; in such cases, this class will draw upon and consolidate students’ prior knowledge while spurring them to parse more carefully and speculate more boldly. Students are also encouraged to browse through listed optional readings—all students will briefly present on one optional reading throughout the quarter (see “Minor Assignments,” below).
Primary Texts (Available at Stanford Bookstore, except Joyce’s “Ithaca,” which will be posted on Coursework):
2) T. S. Eliot, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” (1917); “Portrait of a Lady” (1917); “Conversation Galante” (1917); “Gerontion” (1920); “Sweeney Erect” (1920); “Sweeney among the Nightingales” (1920); The Waste Land (1922)
3) James Joyce, “Ithaca,” from Ulysses (1922)
4) E. M. Forster, A Passage to India (1924)
5) Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot (1953)
Secondary Texts (will be posted on Coursework):
1) Ranier Lang, “Questions as Epistemic Requests” from Questions (D. Reidel, 1978) (selections)
2) E. M. Forster, “Plot,” from Aspects of the Novel (Harcourt Brace, 1927), 83-104
3) Ansgar F. Nunning, “Reconceptualizing Unreliable Narration: Synthesizing Cognitive and Rhetorical Approaches,” from A Companion to Narrative Theory (Blackwell, 2005) (selections)
4) Michael Levenson, “Character in The Good Soldier,” Twentieth Century Literature (1984 winter), 373-87.
4) Virginia Woolf, “Character in Fiction,” (1924) from The Essays of Virginia Woolf, vol.3 (Hogarth Press, 1988), 420-38.
5) Roland Greene, “Poem,” from The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (Princeton, 2012), 1046-48.
6) Vincent Sherry, “Mr. Eliot’s Wartime Services,” from The Great War and the Language of Modernism (Oxford UP, 2003) (selections)
7) Linda Hutcheon and Michael Woodland, “Parody,” from The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, 1001-03.
8) Selected Letters of E. M. Forster, Eds. Mary Lago and P. N. Furbank (Harvard UP, 1983-85) (selections)
9) Rex Ferguson, “Mysteries and Muddles in A Passage to India,” from Criminal Law and the Modernist Novel (Cambridge UP, 2013)
Optional Readings (will be posted on Coursework):
1) Gertrude Stein, “Poetry and Grammar,” from Writings, 1932-1946 (Library of America, 1998), 313-36.
1) Short, speculative close reading assignment (3-4 pages) on one aspect of questioning in The Good Soldier (minimum 2 drafts). The initial draft will focus on practicing sustained formal analysis and engaging in one or two careful speculations on the bigger historical or theoretical implications of such analysis without reference to secondary material. After in-class workshopping, the second draft will focus on adjusting, corroborating, and historicizing the first draft’s speculative dimensions through a limited incorporation of secondary sources (no more than two).
2) Final paper proposal (no more than 1 page): students will draft a research proposal of no more than 1 page outlining the research problem that they intend to explore in their final research paper.
3) Annotated bibliography and “methods” paper (2-3 pages): students will draft an annotated bibliography of at least 5 sources related to their final project; they will also write a short “methods” paper where they choose 1 or 2 sources from their annotated bibliography and identify, analyze, and evaluate rhetorical, argumentative, and methodological strategies that they find particularly compelling and effective. These may range from the very small (beginning an essay by gesturing towards the etymology of a word; limiting contextual digression with timely phrases like “… for reasons that need not detain us here”) to the very big (e.g. “how reading Dreiser through the lens of compulsion as opposed to determinism fundamentally shifts the way we think about American naturalism”).
4) Final research paper (12-15 pages) (minimum 2 drafts):
The final research paper must give extensive treatment to at least one literary text, although it need not be a work covered in class (subject to instructor’s approval). The paper must engage in some way with the topic of the question, broadly defined. Drafts will be workshopped in class, with the student producing at least two drafts total.
Each student will give a brief presentation (5-7 minutes) on one of the listed optional readings throughout the quarter. He or she will succinctly summarize the argument of the secondary reading, draw the class’s attention to one or two moments that illuminate (or fail to illuminate) the theme of the question and / or the week’s primary readings, and start off the discussion in creative and interesting directions.
1. Development of close reading skills, or the cultivation of careful, persistent attention to literary form; development of sensitivity to interpretatively rich moments instead of perpetuating irresponsible notion that every moment in the text is equally close-readable
2. Circumspect development of distant-reading heuristics that are derived from particular works but may be tested against a broader archive to illuminate our knowledge of genres or periodization. (e.g. the placement of a question in a structurally prominent position, such as the beginning or end of a lyric, etc.)
3. How to construct an interesting and imaginative research project: learning how to catalyze a general topic of interest (“the question”) through specific tropes, affects, and processes (tone, syntax, punctuation and revision culture, voice, plot, etc.); learning how to relate the topic to historical contexts (the modernist period as one of show trials, the rise of existentialism and the ironization of theological catechism, the consolidation of psychoanalysis, etc.)
4. Demystification of rhetorical and argumentative strategies used by literary critics; how to adapt them for one’s own argument
5. Consolidation of planning and writing skills for a long research paper, especially in the following areas: how to research and archive effectively, how to read secondary sources “opportunistically,” how to join the critical conversation, how to outline, time management, and careful awareness / development of personal style
I will hold regular office hours and encourage you to come talk as often as needed. All students will be expected to conference with me at least twice throughout the quarter.
Weekly Schedule (subject to minor changes)
Week 1 Questioning Modernity
Jan 6 (T)
>Introduction: Why question?
>Listen to Seth Lerer’s podcast, “uptalk”
>Discussion of readings
>What is close reading?
The Good Soldier, 13-64
Lang, “Questions as Epistemic Requests” (excerpts)
Gertrude Stein, “Poetry and Grammar”
Jan 8 (TH)
>Discussion of The Good Soldier and secondary texts
>What is “opportunistic reading”?, or How to read criticism effectively
“Smarter than You Think; Computers That Listen to You Make Strides in Talking Back” (NYT article)
“We Talked to Siri about Her, and Whether She'll Ever Fall in Love” (Esquire article)
Mar 12 (TH)
Presentations of final paper
Due:final draft of final paper
Students with Documented Disabilities Students who may need an academic accommodation based on the impact of a disability must initiate the request with the Office of Accessible Education (OAE). Professional staff will evaluate the request with required documentation, recommend reasonable accommodations, and prepare an Accommodation Letter for faculty dated in the current quarter in which the request is being made. Students should contact the OAE as soon as possible since timely notice is needed to coordinate accommodations. The OAE is located at 563 Salvatierra Walk (phone: 723-1066, URL: http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/oae).
The Honor Code is the University's statement on academic integrity written by students in 1921. It articulates University expectations of students and faculty in establishing and maintaining the highest standards in academic work:
1. The Honor Code is an undertaking of the students, individually and collectively:
1) that they will not give or receive aid in examinations; that they will not give or receive unpermitted aid in class work, in the preparation of reports, or in any other work that is to be used by the instructor as the basis of grading;
2) that they will do their share and take an active part in seeing to it that others as well as themselves uphold the spirit and letter of the Honor Code.
2. The faculty on its part manifests its confidence in the honor of its students by refraining from proctoring examinations and from taking unusual and unreasonable precautions to prevent the forms of dishonesty mentioned above. The faculty will also avoid, as far as practicable, academic procedures that create temptations to violate the Honor Code.
3. While the faculty alone has the right and obligation to set academic requirements, the students and faculty will work together to establish optimal conditions for honorable academic work.