Response to Erik Kelemen's, "Critical Editing and Close Reading in the Undergraduate Classroom"

Erik Kelemen’s article, “Critical Editing and Close Reading in the Undergraduate Classroom” makes the case for the use of close reading along with textual criticism. He draws a distinction between these two approaches by stating the theoretical difference between close reading and textual criticism. The former “attends to the words on the page,” while textual criticism “attends to the text of one document in relation to these other textual possibilities…”(Kelemen 132). Hence, both of these approaches allow students to systematically derive meaning from the text, at the same time, understand how meaning of the text is derived through past interpretive processes.

Kelemen observes how close reading constructs interpretive meaning by an in-depth analysis of the text, holding the notion that meaning “can be fixed or is forever in free play” (Kelemen 131). As an additional point, Kelemen does not limit his definition of close reading as a New Critical method to only use what is available exclusively on the page.

Further, he applies David Rosenwasser and Jill Stephens’, description of the “The Method” in which they provide a rubric for close reading that requires "exhaustive iterations through the recording of the words, phrases, and thematic repetitions, the location of expressed and implied binary oppositions and finally a location of anomalies within these identified patterns" (Kelemen 127). To my mind, Kelemen’s description of Rosenwasser and Stephens’ “The Methods” transcends New Critical and Post-Modernist approaches to literature, allowing students to systematically locate points in the story that deal with social, political, and psychological issues, decreasing the arbitrariness of socialized readings of literature.

Additionally, I see an overlap between Kelemen's use of Rosenwasser and Stephens’ “The Methods” and my use of John D. Ramage, John C. Bean and June C. Johnson’s use of “double-entry logs” in The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing. In this case, the “double-entry log” is used as a tool for students to record and response to acquired sources during the research process. The double-entry log draws a distinction between the text and the student response allowing students a way to develop their response by paying close attention to textual evidence.

With tweaking, I have used this method in my literature courses as a way for students to record and document their responses to the text, at the same time, incorporate and apply their understanding of New Critical terms such as paradox, tone, diction, character, and theme while also considering the rhetorical, biographical, historical and social contexts.

On the other hand, Kelemen describes how critical editing as a form of textual criticism constructs an interpretation of the text through the acts of interpretation, paying close attention to variations in editions. While his description of the classroom activities seem a bit labor intensive and challenging, I think that this approach is worth exploring. Using Chaucer’s lyric, “Truth” as an example, Kelemen focuses his students’ attention on variations within different editorial versions. Once students are introduced to editorial theory, they pay close attention to these variations and in the end, make editorial changes while justifying these changes in the form of a short paper.

Kelemen leaves me wondering if textual criticism could be applied to other forms of writing about the text in question. For instance, could one use this method to incorporate reviews on the text along with criticism of the text? Would incorporating reviews and criticism illuminate how and provide evidence for why a particular text becomes canonized?