Thank you for your reply. I thin you misconstrue my “intention” with this critique. First of all, you seem to question the merit of having a politically motivated reading. However, as an academic, you probably understand the importance of transparently expressing one’s own critical lens. My proposed reading has a specific, limited purview, not an all-encompassing one.
Not once do I state that this is the only possible reading of this text. Nor do I propose that this reading is how I would “teach” the text, either. I think you’ve mistakenly assumed that because I wrote a specific and pointed piece of criticism, I see this as the only lens through which to view the book.
You’ll notice, if you carefully check my introduction to the article, that I merely re-read it as part of a process of familiarizing myself with texts commonly taught in high schools, while preparing to teach high school. These notes are not intended as “teaching notes” for the book, however. Up to this point, I have never taught this book to students. This article is purely a personal encounter with the book and in no way necessarily reflects how I might teach it. Moreover, since writing it, I’ve moved on in my career to pursue writing more than teaching. For this reason, the patronizing “warnings” you gave to me as a “fellow teacher” fell flat for me as I read them.
Likewise, the way you’ve rhetorically merged my stated lens — a reading from the perspective of the #metoo movement — into the broad category of “political,” while suggesting that is a “disservice” shows that we obviously fall into completely different camps regarding literary criticism. I feel the critic’s role regarding a text is to identify their own frame of reference, rather than veil it under a mask of a transcendental worldview. Likewise, I believe “political” readings are useful for questioning the cultural norms implicitly upheld when we favor specific works of literature in the canon.
As a close reader of the text, it is important to form an opinion about a text and find ways to make it relevant to today’s audiences. In light of the ways the #metoo movement has informed our perspective of “toxic masculinity,” many texts that employ familiar tropes related to this theme, including this book. Past canonical works often become ripe for re-examination in light of current events.
I absolutely agree with you that various possible interpretations can arise from this text. I believe that texts come to life in the hands of the readers, who have every right to speak back to the classics, rather than put them up on a pedestal.
