Not that Homer. I mean the one with two names: Homer Goldberg.

I regret that I didn’t take the opportunity to add my two cents to his tribute when he passed last year. As you may know, he was a master teacher in the English Department for many years (see his obituary here). I was fortunate to have him as an undergrad for a two-semester honors seminar focusing on the novel and history. The reading was formidable: Defoe, Fielding, Stendhal, Thackery, Tolstoy (War and Peace!), Hemingway, Faulkner, and Orwell. That experience had a great impact on me as a reader and subsequently as a teacher.

Screenshot from Stony Brook People, Nov. 1973, Vol 4. No. 5. Click on image to see pdf.

I think of Homer, not only because of his passing but also because of his influence on me, especially now that I am coordinator of the department’s ACE program. After many years of teaching literature in high school, I understand what fundamentally made him great — much of it he surely developed through inquiry, reflection, collaboration, and hard work; the rest was probably instinctive: Homer being Homer.

In case you’re not aware, EGL 192, Intro to Fiction, is currently being offered in several high schools as a class in the Accelerated College Education (ACE) Program. Intro to film will run next year. Students who enroll and pay a fee can receive three SBU credits. In order to qualify, participating high school teachers must have the appropriate credentials to become de facto adjuncts. They must also submit syllabi that are the equivalent of those used on campus. Part of my job is to ensure that the level of academic rigor is high enough. Teachers attend a three-day summer workshop which I facilitate. Several members of the department have participated by presenting elements of their expertise and engaging in a lively discourse about the challenges of teaching such a course.

Working in the ACE program, first as a participant and now as coordinator, has provoked me to actively address questions about teaching literature — at least as it applies to non English majors. What is the value of literary study? What should students read, assuming that this is the only/last literature course they may take? How much? What should they do with their reading? And what are the best ways to show that they have learned what they have been taught?

Of course these questions are not exclusive to an ACE course. Anyone who has written a lit syllabus has had to answer them — at least provisionally. Homer would probably answer some of them differently now than he would have back then; I’m sure he’d acknowledge the exclusive dependence on canonical male authors, typical of its time. And does anyone assign a thousand-page novel these days? I would love to hear his ideas today.

Homer clearly loved teaching literature. I remember vividly what he brought to the classroom, components of good teaching that are universal and timeless: passion, compassion, and academic rigor. This was a seminar, so discussion relied heavily on our active participation, which often consisted of fumbling attempts to make sense of great texts that we probably hadn’t read carefully enough. Of course he tolerated much of this. But at times he just couldn’t contain himself and would rise from his chair and launch into an impromptu lecture on allegory or Aristotle’s Poetics. It was humbling, inspiring, and apt. Like a great basketball coach, he instinctively knew when to let his charges run and when to intercede. He showed us what good text-based analysis was, and we internalized it and learned to practice it.

He also clearly cared about us as individuals, insisting on multiple personal conferences to address our writing. And each semester he invited us all for a meal at his house, where he shared stories about his time at U of Chicago and opinions about the latest Woody Allen movie — Sleeper if I remember correctly. Homer had a sharp sense of humor and delighted in nonsense. (Allen’s movies have recently become less funny I suppose. But let’s not go there.)

So as a teacher and coordinator, I hope I have absorbed some of what I learned from Homer. As I reflect on and participate in the ACE Program, I seek a balance between teacher expertise and student empowerment. I am reminded of the impact of a teacher’s enthusiasm for the work and passion for the subject — it is infectious. And I remember that making a personal connection with students goes a long way in engaging them. I believe Homer would approve.

Of course I will continue to reflect on the other questions and encourage participating teachers to address them:

• Why read/study literature?
• What should students (non English majors) read in one semester?
• How much?
• What should students do with their reading?
• How should they be assessed? (In addition to the conventional literary analysis essay.)

Please feel free to contribute!