Abstract
Recently Robert J. Scholes (2002: 166) wrote in this journal that in our teaching of first-year college students “the natural reciprocal of writing—which, of course, is reading—ha[s] somehow disappeared, apparently subsumed under the topic of literature.” He goes on to say that “this division of the English project” is the way most college English departments today think of their enterprise. This unfortunate split in our pedagogy has become so widespread that many people have sought strategies to counter it. For example, the Modern Language Association recently accepted a proposal to develop a volume on “Integrating Literature and Writing Instruction in First-Year English.”1 Scholes would like to replace “the word literature with the word reading” as the proper reciprocal of writing and would prefer to see students read more argumentative texts, including literary criticism (166, 169 – 70). I have no doubt that large-minded Emerson would have included nonliterary texts in his definition of a book that is read creatively. However, I would like to argue, mainly by example, for a beginning course focused intensely on the creative reading of literature as we usually understand the word. Although it is only