The critic Mark Edmundson, in a recent article from the Chronicle, once again turning to Emerson (cf. his book Why Read?)–and notice also the appearance of Whitman, in relation to Emerson. This idea of a literary education, of a way to read a writer in the manner of the writer, I think does get Emerson right. To a point. But then, of course, one must resist the influence of the writer being read. In any case, I suggest we see here evidence of how Emerson and Whitman live on into questions of how we should read, of the need for a literary education; but also, of a desire to have that not be narrowly defined. A kind of literary against itself. Like Whitman on Emersonianism: breeding self-slaying giants.
Mark Edmundson, Against Readings.
So, the notion of literary education: Emerson brings it back to mind (this is, after all, what he is about with his various lectures on the scholar and its avatars); but brings back to mind with a need to revision it. The point Edmundson, seems to me, could make even stronger. All those folks teaching Emerson (or Whitman) with their ‘readings’ seem not to be doing much in terms of how that author wants us to conceive reading, or even be read.
On the other hand–or is it the same? Consider this book found on Amazon, 7 Secrets for Successful Wisdom: Tapping the Wisdom of Emerson. Is this just part of the tradition of reading Emerson too easily?
