Why Lecturers in History and Literature Should Not Discourage Reading.

Any lecturer in history or literature reading this title will probably feel quite sure he or she does not do this. However, if you have ever said any of the following except to a student concerned about how much to read , you have. Please consider not doing so any more.

• You really don't need this depth of research at this level.
• You really don't need this depth of research for an essay of this length.
• You don't need to read quite so widely for this module.
• You don't need to read everything ever written on a subject before addressing it
• Your research is already more than adequate.
• Remember you're researching for an essay, not an PhD. 
• I think you should stop researching and start writing now (unless time is becoming short.)

These statements are perfectly reasonable for any lecturer with a student worried about the level of research needed for a certain module or paper. My objection is when this is given as unsolicited advice on the assumption that this is all any of us are concerned about. It says to me:

"I don't find my own subject very interesting and don't understand why anyone else would."

I am sure this is unjust. Any academic who has decided to devote their life to the study of a particular subject must find it interesting, must want to read everything they can about it, and read it with great pleasure. Why then, is it so difficult for some to understand that their students might feel the same way? What kind of argument against reading is 'you don't need to.'  No-one needs to read about history or literature at all. The cure for cancer will probably be found by someone who has no idea how the Black Death impacted drama of the fourteenth century. We read about such things because they're interesting and add to our understanding of history and humanity.  Why, then,  have I felt the need to apologise & justify my interest in a subject I'm spending considerable sums of money to study at a post-graduate level to the very people who ought to understand it perfectly?

Yes, of course this is about me. All of those statements have been said to me more than once by multiple lecturers. It has led me to mumble apologetically that I have a lot of free time, and self-deprecatingly diagnose myself with OCD. Why is this necessary? Of course, there are some good reasons for advising a student to limit their reading but if you mean:

• Your use of critical sources is overwhelming your own analysis.
• You are running out of time to actually write the paper.
• I'm interested in your own first impressions. (I'm not sure this is ever the case)

surely its much more helpful to say that explicitly? 

My own experience is that these have never been subtexts.  The more I research, the better my grades are. Grades are not the problem yet I am constantly being 'reassured' that I don't need to read so much. Well, thank you, and I'm sure you mean well, and that this has reassured many anxious students but you're actually wet-blanketting all over my enjoyment of your subject.

     

I think the best thing to do for any enthusiastic student feeling frustrated by this attitude (and I confess I have only met two in addition to me) is resist the temptation to be apologetic or defensive about it. If a lecturer informs you that you don't 'need' to do the research you're thoroughly enjoying doing, smile pleasantly and say:

 'I find history/literature interesting.'