I concluded my studies at the University of Virginia with a firm conviction of the fact that my beliefs—religious, political, and literary-critical—were diametrically opposed from those of most if not all of my professors. This was very helpful to me in the discernment of what it meant to embrace a literary vocation. I could begin with a clear understanding of what it was against which I felt the need to fight. The problems that pervade the UVA English department are, of course, chronic problems for universities nationwide. Still, I always note with special attention (call it a distinct breed of anti-alumna spirit) the activities of that university and that department.

So it was when Katy Carl, the editor-in-chief of Dappled Things, sent me Mark Edmundson’s Chronicle of Higher Education Review article “Against Readings”. I never had the chance to attend one of Prof. Edmundson’s class (truth be told, when an opportunity finally presented itself, I was so heartily sick of the Romantic poets that I opted for Medieval instead), but he was well thought of by faculty and staff and popular with the students. Beyond this, I had no real opinion of him, and few expectations.

As a consequence, his article was in many ways a pleasant surprise. The difficulty is that Edmundson does not reach high enough. His wish to abandon (at least, temporarily) the specialized, analytical vocabulary that oppresses literary criticism, is heartily seconded from this quarter—only I would have it abolished forever. What really needs to be done is to take his vision further, throwing off the shackles of political correctness and relativism, and reestablishing the proper basis and goal for literary criticism or reading or any other pursuit—truth. Edmundson’s argument that the highest objective for the teacher of literature is to bring moments of secular conversion is insufficient; the true and highest objective for the teacher of literature or of anything at all must be to draw the reader toward authentic and resoundingly spiritual conversion—conversion without scare quotes, conversion to fright the ACLU.

Perhaps Edmundson is picking his battles, perhaps he is seeking to redeem his colleagues and their shared work gradually, taking baby steps in the reasoning process. But it seems he is still lost in the worldly, and when he urges teachers to help their students to change through reading, he neglects to mention the only agent of true change—that is, grace. If we try to speak of the “harmony” of the soul without that Divine element, we’re still caught in the cacophony of a limitedly human outlook. Nevertheless, it is an astonishing thing to have heard from the Academy, and particularly from that bastion of literary-critical nonsense, my revered alma mater.