2026 #30 An Experiment in Criticism (Lewis)

 

An Experiment in Criticism by C.S. Lewis
My rating: 5 of 5 stars


"In reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself," C.S. Lewis offers after 140 pages of the most wonderfully vexing postulations regarding that which is "literary" and "unliterary." This is definitely a "MBF" -- a "must-be-finished" book. I've read too many reviews that seem to have bristled at the beginning and either stopped reading closely or just stopped reading altogether. To be sure, Lewis's tone befits his Oxford professorship, but there are so many moments when his tongue is planted firmly (but elegantly) in his cheek, and his provocations are intended to prove perhaps his largest point: literature is to be received, not used.

"Using", he says, is "inferior to 'reception' because art, if used rather than received, merely facilitates, brights, relieves or palliates our life, and does not add to it." (88). Lewis advocates deep reading, a "resting" in the literature, rather than using it as an opportunity for "castle-building" as he calls it. A good book coexists in a rather symbiotic relationship with good reading. The work should work on us, rather than the other way around. He writes, "In good reading there ought to be 'no problem of belief' meaning we should be able to receive that with which we do not agree, thereby possibly entertaining a time and space otherwise when we might agree.

I think he loses people with his attempts to parse "literary" from "unliterary" in the first few chapters. But he offers nuance: "Let us be quite clear that the unliterary are unliterary not because they enjoy stories in these ways, but because they enjoy them in no other." (38) Here he refers to a desire for excitement and an arousal of certain emotions, which he is not condemning, as I understand it, but offering that it is only part of literary engagement.

Lewis has one moment that I felt was truly classist: he decides that grocers and gardeners will have read few books, but perhaps have seen more films (76). It is an unfortunate moment in a book that otherwise seems to have a fair amount of equanimity, versus a critique (in the negative sense). "The literary," he notes, "sometimes 'use' poetry instead of receiving it. They differ from the unliterary because they know very well what they are doing and are prepared to defend it." (100). But he also, supporting his "good reader" theory, offers that there are really, at the end of the day, no so-called "guilty pleasures": "If ... we found even one reader to whom the cheap little book with its double columns and the lurid daub on its cover had been a lifelong delight, who had read and reread it, who would notice, and object, if a single word were changed, then, however little we could see in it ourselves and however it was despised by our friends and colleagues, we should not dare to put it beyond the pale." (108)

If you are a reader (whatever that means to you), it is worth spending some time with what Lewis had to say. It has made me re-evaluate why I have a numeric reading goal every year. I know part of that is there is SO MUCH I wish to read and I am extrinsically motivated when my time is not always my own. But Lewis has given me a lot to think about in terms of the reading experience. If he irks you at the beginning, read more slowly. Underline. Receive what he is actually saying. You may come away from it still irritated and thinking he's a pretentious prig, but you might find some value there too.

View all my reviews

2026 Reading Goals 30/60

#192030 Challenge: 1961

TYPTBR 15/18

2026 #26 The Opposite of Cheating (Gallant/Rettinger)

 

The Opposite of Cheating: Teaching for Integrity in the Age of AI by Tricia Bertram Gallant
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This book is particularly useful for early-career teachers (or on the flip side, late-career teachers who have upheld the status quo in their teaching for the last twenty years) but almost any teacher in higher ed can benefit from parts of this book. Despite the subtitle, it isn't particularly "AI" oriented, but this is somewhat understandable because it is very difficult to keep up with AI as a specific context.

The authors' primary aim is to advocate for a culture "accepting of errors." This framing of "cheating as error-making" can be a bit tough to embrace when we picture in our mind's eye the student who seems to cheat because they believe they can get away with it. Gallant and Rettinger offer that we should try, however, to bring nuance to our understanding of cheating and resist painting with too broad a brush.

To that end, the first chapter is a great overview of types of neutralizing behaviors and rationales for cheating, and looks into how "help" and "assistance" are tricky words in this world of AI (and also a variety of online "services" (legal and not)). Chapter Two's emphasis on communication is vital, underscoring that is our job to make a syllabus meaningful and relevant, and there's considerable emphasis on developing "actionable and measurable learning objectives." A later discussion of rubrics is particularly welcome: "Creating a full rubric can and should take time and effort" the authors opine, and I'm certainly glad to see this in an age of Khanmigo-generated rubrics being used by brand new faculty who aren't even sure what a rubric is. The authors do support using a ChatBot to (help) generate a rubric, but their Chapter Four should be required reading before anyone attempts using chatGPT or Khanmigo for making a rubric for the first time.

I was a bit surprised at the credit for Universal Design for Learning being given to Burgstahler and Cory rather than David Rose (and no mention of CAST's Guidelines), although their 2008 book certainly was a crucial contribution to UDL as it applies in higher ed. There is also not a whole lot about alternative grading, save for a brief discussion of mastery grading, specifications grading, and ungrading. That said, it isn't really within the scope of the book to dig in to how alt-grading might help deter cheating, but it is highly relevant to the general principles of integrity that the authors support.

I was surprised by the multiple references to "contract cheating" which made me consider that it may be more prevalent than I thought. But ultimately the book isn't about types of cheating as much as how to create a better culture within a class to discourage it, and this includes how to respond when it does happen. The authors encourage a balance between protecting assessment integrity (Chapter Six) and teaching ethical thinking to our students. I wished that the latter had more examples and case studies reaching across a broader spectrum of disciplines, but what is there is inspiring and offers interesting models to explore. Teaching ethical thinking is largely teaching critical thinking and offers a student an opportunity to examine the false dichotomy of good v. bad choice. Instead, borrowing from Rushworth Kidder, that choice is reframed into a "trilemma" and the consideration of what lies outside of the dichotomy is where the learning happens.

The book is well-researched, but more anecdotal in tone, which gives it an arguably more accessible voice, especially for those more interested in practice than theory. But the citations are there for further reading when needed.

Ultimately, the authors successfully frame academic integrity as something that needs to be injected into course design, assessment, pedagogy, institutional policy, etc. They do put some onus on institutions, and advocate that faculty should be proactive in impacting institutional policy, but there isn't a whole lot of guidance as to how to go about this. Even if an institution has "teeth" in their follow through of their academic integrity policies, the authors don't really address the very real economic motivations that are perhaps a stronger consideration at the institutional level and may be part of the issue of disconnect between academic integrity policies and what faculty try to uphold.

View all my reviews

Challenges 

2026 Reading Goals 26/60

2026 #20 Teaching With AI (Bowen/Watson)

 

Teaching with AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning by José Antonio Bowen
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

If you are an educator, no matter where you land on the topic of AI, you should, as Louis Epstein said in a review of the first edition in the Journal of Music History Pedagogy*, “read this book.” Epstein also notes the authors’ “almost gleeful boosterism,” and indeed, there is no real doubt that they assume AI as a given. In the epilogue to the second edition, the authors generously allow: “Faculty are the ultimate decision-maker, arbiter of quality, and content expert within their own classroom” (319). But make no mistake, the book is unapologetically prescriptive: “You need to start playing and working with AI” (319); “Our curriculum and classroom discussions also need immediately to include AI topics around ethics, data privacy, civics, environmental and energy costs, labor, discrimination and bias” (321). On those latter fronts, if you are looking for advice on how to approach those topics, this is not the book for that (it will only tell you that you need to, not necessarily HOW to). Most of the book is focused on better prompt writing, because, as the authors claim: “All assignments are now AI assignments” (245). In his aforementioned review, Epstein notes that the “unspoken thesis” of the book is that student and faculty are now forced “to decide what really matters to us in our teaching and learning”. I don’t disagree, actually, but I have a feeling my human-generated SWOT analysis of AI and that of the authors would differ greatly.

Bowen and Watson offer: “The new goal of any assignment, especially a writing assignment, is to emphasize the important human contribution while recognizing the realities presented by AI” (250). I like the use of the word “realities” here, but the book is instead heavily focused on “opportunities”, with a strong belief that if we invest the time, students can integrate AI in meaningful ways. What isn’t clear (yet), is how this will really play out, given students’ various motivations for “efficiency.” There are good select studies on issues such as human agency in creative problem solving in AI collaboration, but the full-scale adoption of AI as our “thought partner” in higher ed has not yet come to pass in such a way that we have large-scale data on the impact. But we are probably getting there.

There are some seeming contradictions. Some of the examples and prompts offered by the authors mention how AI can be used to alter/experiment with “voice” in a piece of writing. I’ll be transparent and say that this, along with a new interpretation on the role of citation in writing, is one my biggest issues with AI. If I go full-on “the Borg are coming,” this is where I see a real abdication of human-ness. So, I found it odd to offer guidance on including “voice” in prompts for AI (p.59), but then in Chapter 8, on “Cheating and Detection”, the authors advocate starting a conversation with a student who you suspect might have used AI with “I don’t really hear your voice as much as I would like” (161). I happen to think that’s a GREAT way to start the conversation (and I have), but I also don’t encourage them to use AI with thorough prompts that include directions to “respond as if you were x” or write “like an engineer.” The conflation of “language” and “voice” I find problematic as well.

There is also a lack of acknowledgement of potential tokenism and essentialism in prompting AI in the ways the authors describe. For example, as a faculty member, the authors promote doing a practice conversation with AI wherein it is prompted to be “my student Jeff, who is a nineteen-year-old from Wisconsin majoring in biology and taking my course pass/fail” and then directed: “Please respond as if you were Jeff.” (133) While only a “practice conversation” and not a script, it posits poor Jeff as some sort of archetype of whatever identities we’ve given the AI. It isn’t to say that our experience of Jeff IRL is complete, but one hopes that we might have a better sense of Jeff as a student than an AI combing known character traits of nineteen-year-olds, biology majors, and folks from Wisconsin. More problematic (perhaps) is the counsel: “Perhaps you simply ask the AI to be an under-represented voice in the room (225).” On the same page, an author might ask an AI to “reimagine” their work with the lead character as “an Asian American and identify what plot lines might need to be changed.” I note that it does say “might”, but the idea that we would ask AI to represent “an Asian American” doesn’t seem any better than asking an Asian American to speak for all Asian Americans.

My critique of the authors’ suggestions for citation goes far beyond the confines of their book. There seems to have been a large-scale shift in discussion about “checking citations” without highlighting the point of citation in the first place. I carefully say “seems” here, because this is a baseline perception, not a carefully researched thesis. But the authors tell me that I might, as a scholar writing an article, prompt an AI with “Who are the other major figures in this field, who might be reviewers of this article? What work of theirs should I cite?” (114). I understand the pragmatism there, but why not instead: “What work of theirs should I read?” I don’t think that’s a pedantic distinction.

In the chapter on “Reimagining Creativity”, the authors supply a cartoonish image created with Gemini-2.5 via a prompt that prescribed “style of a Renaissance woodcut with seventeenth-century London in the background” and features Genghis Khan on the left with his face merged into a strawberry, and Queen Victoria is on the right with her face hybridized with a cauliflower (Figure 4.1, 81). Both figures then have a thought bubble (as directed in the prompt) that asks “Will anyone care if we are AI generated?” The image is an answer to the question the authors pose: “What if AI makes the art itself?...Humans still need to think of the ideas, but does it matter whether AI was used to realize the actual image?” (80) Bowen and Watson don’t have the answer, but only offer “There are important personal, social, economic, and ethical issues that deserve a place for discussion in society and in our revised curricula.” (80). These discussions have long been part of artistic and creative production (think digital photography), so they aren’t wrong, but I’m growing tired of the “just because we can” advocacy when it comes to AI. I'm reminded of an AI demo on my campus wherein we were shown how one might create a "nature documentary" using AI generated images. I was alarmed that the irony was not acknowledged.

Ultimately, however, the book backs a lot of what is just good pedagogy. For example, there’s an excellent suggested exercise for a class on defining values, teamwork and accountability (180 – 181), something that mirrors the “Community Agreements” I facilitate for all my classes. Whether that discussion needs to be in service of using AI or not might be challenged, but it is good that it is offered in the book. Table 12.1, an “Assignment template combining motivation, task clarity, and success criteria” is another useful example both in and outside of AI contexts. And while I have not yet embraced intentional integration of AI into my own teaching/course content, I might get behind allowing specific prompts such as “Identify which ideas and arguments in this essay are common, flawed, repetitive, heteronormative, or culturally limited”(268). I see this as a bit different than the prompt I mentioned above that essentializes Asian Americans, but I’d have to run it on several examples for myself to see what a given AI calls “culturally limited.”

And that’s probably the biggest problem. One takeaway from the book is that converting core critical thinking skills into AI prompts is no simple task, and it isn’t until the Epilogue that Bowen and Watson seem to vaguely acknowledge the immense amounts of labor being placed on faculty: “Much of the AI-fueled pedagogical revision on college campuses has emerged as another unfunded mandate for faculty and their time.” (325) Even if I entertain sharing just the basic information of this book regarding how to prompt, I cannot imagine doing so at the sacrifice of things I find just as (or more) important for my particular course. And I certainly do not have the time to teach them “how to be expert prompters” AND music history. It isn’t to say that I can’t incorporate “relevant” examples and creative projects, but I certainly cannot afford the time to invest in the type of nuanced prompting the authors promote. So, who will? That remains to be seen.

So yes, my colleague Louis is right. Read this book. It features excellent and recent sources, and it will either strengthen your resolve, confirm your intentions, or move the needle to the middle, depending on your starting point.

*Now called The Journal of Musicology Pedagogy  


View all my reviews

2026 #17 The Anthropocene Reviewed (Green)

 

The Anthropocene Reviewed: Essays on a Human-Centered Planet by John Green
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

"Making conclusions about a book's quality from a 175-review is hard work for artificial intelligences, whereas star ratings are ideal for them." (3). Nothing quite like an introduction that dissects the act of reviewing to make one feel self-conscious in reviewing, but I shall make an attempt.

First, a prescription: take your time in reading these essays. Keep the book on your nightstand and read one or two at a time, when you need to remember that to err is human, but also so is to love, hope, dream, etc... Quite seriously: my only criticism of the book is that Green employs a rhetorical device that, while effective, starts to lose its punch when you read essay after essay. And Green is a good enough writer to nod to that in his "Postscript" (271 - 274). That's all I'll say about that, because there's far more weight that gives the book "five stars" for me. The scare quotes there are in homage to the book's m.0.

Green is a superb writer, and that's basically a requirement when analyzing the Anthropocene through lenses as diverse as Dr. Pepper, teddy bears, staph infections, invisible rabbits (or movies about them), the Indy 500, wintry mix, CNN...and...(here "etcetera" doesn't suffice because "the rest" you can't possibly guess). Each essay drew in my interest, even when I came pre-loaded with disinterest. In most of them, Green manages to do in four to five pages what CNN cannot do in a 24-hr. news cycle (his criticism of lack-of-context in journalism in the essay "CNN" (pp. 127 - 132) is spot on). But of course he isn't trying to provide "news" per se, but you will certainly learn about facets of humanity and history (and about Green himself) in surprising and fresh ways. The essays "Harvey" (pp. 133 - 138) and Auld Lang Syne" (pp. 145 - 152) are particularly excellent if you are in the mood for feeling and sentiment. Green, who is often hilarious and somewhat self-effacing, drops sentences like this as well:

"I'll never again speak to many of the people who loved me into this moment, just as you will never speak to many of the people who loved you into your now." (148)

Did your eyes well up with tears, or did that knot form in your throat? If so, you've probably known loss. I had to put the book down to give some heartspace over to the people who I've lost who have loved me into my now.

If you like art, as Green does, open up "Hiroyuki Doi's Circle Drawings" (191 - 194), which, if it isn't obvious from the above, is about a lot more than the drawings themselves. When it comes to grief, Green finds meaning in art by an octogenarian Japanese chef-turned-artist, but also, the "World's Largest Ball of Paint" (245-249), which, if you weren't aware, is in Alexandria, Indiana.

Even with the heterogeneity of topics, we never lose sight that it is indeed the Anthropocene under review. "For humans," Green writes, "being in uncharted territory is often good news, because our charted territory is so riddled with disease, injustice, and violence." ("Viral Meningitis, 206). The paperback edition includes two additional essays: "The Orbital Sunrise" (279-286) and "The Gingko Tree" (287 - 295), both of which imply that Green probably has a ten-volume set of essays brewing inside of him.

I can't think of a person to whom I would not recommend this book, because I think everyone can benefit from thinking about hot dog eating contests and the Bonneville Salt Flats in ways they did not imagine. If you are looking for "feminist" lit (and there the quotes are because I think it really is just about caring about humans), Green's "Air Conditioning" (73-78) makes a really great point about the determination of "room temperature" in offices and how that came about. If you thought Charles Darrow invented the game Monopoly, you'll want to read his essay on the game (175-179). And C.S. Lewis gets to be "the widower" of American poet Joy Davidman, quoted in the essay on viral meningitis. But if you don't know what you are looking for at all? Pick up this book.

View all my reviews

Challenges on Storygraph (@rebcamuse):

2026 Reading Goals 17/60

Tackle your Physical TBR 2026: no. 11

#192030 Challenge: 2021

2026 #13 The Guilty Feminist (Frances-White)

 

The Guilty Feminist: You Don't Have to Be Perfect to Overthrow the Patriarchy by Deborah Frances-White
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I'm going to start with one ofthe drawbacks (for me -- specifically in regard to the audiobook), as much of the book is really great. I'm not sure, but many of the "interviews" seemed to be read (rather than the recorded originals), with Adjoa Andoh acting as the guest (?), but it was honestly hard to tell, and the credits on Audible are no help. Regardless if it is the actual guests reading their answers or not, it seemed rather artificial and I missed the organic quality of an interview. That aside...

I was not aware of Frances-White's podcast when I bought this book on Audible, so I came in with few expectations beyond liking the premise of "I'm a feminist, but..." One thing the author really drives home is how WOMEN can be so damn judgmental of each other and she decries the gatekeeping that happens in the name of "feminism." I appreciated that Frances-White seems to recognize that feminism is a broad term that can encompass a wide range of CHOICES (and that having the autonomy and agency to exercise those choices is REALLY the point).

Raised as a Jehovah's Witness, and now a comedian and podcaster, Frances-White comes at this topic with the exact lack of apology and forthrightness that needs to be there. She does love a metaphor, to be sure, but growing up as she did, I think driving a point home became an ingrained practice--sadly I'm sure much of it was internal for a good long time. Her ultimate goal seems to be to unite the different "sub-genres" of feminism against patriarchy, and I think that's a noble endeavor.

I'd quibble with some things, and what I'll say is that she seems to welcome dissent and argument. For her, women SHOULD disagree with each other (respectfully) but not to the point where our infighting undermines the larger goals. I felt there was a strong bias toward women being sexually repressed as a result of the patriarchy, and very little acknowledgment that some women may just not want sex, and might engage with it purely to share something with a beloved partner. There was also a subtext sometimes that "real" feminists behave badly, and I don't necessarily subscribe to that, but I certainly appreciated her points about how often women can sugarcoat their own anger because we are beholden to the social conditioning of being nurturers. I don't think shock value is always the right method, particularly if you carry white privilege-- it often comes at the expense of taking space AWAY from intersectional voices. Frances-White makes a concerted effort to be intersectional and that is a strength of the book -- particularly useful for white women who consider themselves feminists but travel exclusively in white packs of feminists or use various facets of their identity to play the "oppressed Olympics."

Sometimes the audio from the podcast where she mouths off on a particular topic made me feel a bit cynical. Delivering a speech on stage for a podcast where the audience is primarily full of fans is not quite the same as testifying before Parliament and some of these moments felt a bit self-congratulatory.

On accessibility. The interview with Becca (someone --- I wish she would have mentioned who the interviews were with at the end as well), made an excellent point about competing access needs, and that it is important to just be transparent about what your event is doing to be more accessible and try to mix it up so that you are moderately accessible to as diverse a crowd as possible. That seemed like really great advice and useful for those who instead throw up their hands in the face of "can't please all of the people all of the time" and end up choosing the status quo rather than even trying.

Reframing saying "yes to the dress" fell a bit flat for me, but in the same vein as the idea that being a b*itch is validated in the name of feminism (I'm overstating her point a bit here, I realize). Her point that some women become bridezillas because it is the only time of their lives that they are in complete control of everything didn't resonate...I think it is also a huge privilege and if you are going to be sh*tty to people when you are a bride, it just makes you sh*tty, feminist or not.

Her feminist readings of films (so-called "chick flicks"/rom-coms)? Dirty Dancing worked for me--it was a fairly compelling argument, and something of which I was probably semi-aware when I saw it as a young teenager. Pretty Woman on the other hand...Frances-White does acknowledge that it is still problematic and I get that her larger point is that rom-coms often center female autonomy within the context of whatever class level that is present. But as someone who often doesn't enjoy rom-coms, I guess I feel a reframing or re-contextualizing isn't necessary (but importantly, nor is an apology).

In other ways, however, her nuanced parsing of rude cat calling versus genuine complimenting was appreciated. Where it is difficult is that the metric is different for every woman: one person's compliment is another person's harassment.

Essentially, she really trying to message that women have choices and can make choices, and that the fighting among us is really underserving us, and can be as pernicious as the patriarchy. Having gone to a women's college, I'm particularly sympathetic to this viewpoint, and I wish that the women who could really benefit from hearing what she has to say are going to be the ones to pick up a book called "The Guilty Feminist". I've had fellow feminists, whom I consider friends, tell me I was "losing my identity" when I chose to take my husband's name. I've seen that evidently I am serving the patriarchy by preferring to shave my legs. I had a man YELL AT ME once because I held the door open for him when I sensed that he was following me into a coffee shop. "You shouldn't do that!!" he yelled, failing to grasp the irony of mansplaining to me about the patriarchy.

There are a lot of nuggets of wisdom here and some thoughtful reflection and even when I didn't always agree, I welcomed the space to think about these things. One last bit that I'll close with is a quote: "Hope without a plan of action is the doorway to depression." It is, most definitely, time for a plan of action, and I hope that we can find a way to embrace each other, with all our imperfections, to gather our collective hope and make a bold move.

View all my reviews

2026 #11 A Liturgical Play for the Medieval Feast of Fools: The Laon Ordo Joseph (Lagueux)

 

A Liturgical Play for the Medieval Feast of Fools: The Laon Ordo Joseph by Robert C. Lagueux
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Full disclosure: the author is a friend and colleague/boss.

That said, I read this on its own merit (and NOT at the behest of the author), as I am a self-described "medievalist groupie" (in terms of musicological specialty) and I found myself entranced by the detailed contextualization of this medieval drama. Lagueux devotes much needed attention to the "gloss" and how it operates dramaturgically, supported by well-conceived suppositions regarding the performance of the work in Laon. The situation is very nuanced, and he makes a convincing case for multiple levels of Biblical exegesis that play out in the Ordo Joseph. Most fascinating is the symbology and the role reversal of various clerics of the Church in service of enacting social inversion. Unlike the music associated with Florentine Carnival (e.g. canti carnascialeschi), in this context, Lagueux notes, "...inversion does not require mad revelry." (88). His investigation of the Ordo Joseph supports his claim that, "...meaningful inversion can and does occur in the context of an ecclesiastically sanctioned undertaking." (88)

Equally valuable and intriguing is the author's "reconstruction" or after Peter Jeffery, "re-envisioning" of the music, based on thoughtful and detailed consideration of the available chants (in Laon 263, many for Epiphany) that would work for the rhythms and rhyme schemes of the text. Lagueux also considers intertextual significance, such as the use of the sequence In sapientia (fol. 131v-132v) which offers a Reader's Digest view (my words) of the life of Christ, reflecting both the commemoration of Epiphany as celebrated in the Middle Ages, as well as dialoguing with christological connections in the story of Joseph.

View all my reviews

Challenges on Storygraph (@rebcamuse):

2026 Reading Goals 11/60

Tackle your Physical TBR 2026: no.7

2026 #8 Raising Hare (Dalton)

 

Raising Hare: A Memoir by Chloe Dalton
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

We can start with the fact that I've never really given a lot of thought to rabbits and hares being distinct animals, although it registered somewhere in the back-burner of my brain. I think I'm probably not alone. Dalton's memoir sets out to change that, at least in passing. When she encounters an abandoned leveret (baby hare), her life is forever changed (and that isn't hyperbole). Yes, it is a story of one woman and and at least at first, one hare. But it is also a very thoughtful meditation on the fragile ecosystem and how humans must struggle to maintain some sort of precarious equilibrium, as the balance was long ago upset. Dalton is transparent about her struggles and her questions (of herself, of the relatively isolated world of hare-related knowledge, of her little furry friend(?)). It is this questioning that keeps things from falling into the trap of an overly saccharine and anthropomorphized tale. She reels us in with her narrative in such a way that we find ourselves holding our breath as she writes of circling hawks and various other garden predators, any of whom would like a lunch of leveret. She introduces us to previous chronicles offered by hunters, poachers, and poets alike, who offer musings and (mis)characterizations of these enigmatic animals. Dalton seems conscious of adding her voice to the small trove of information so that sometime in the future, another leveret-encounterer might turn to her memoir for assistance.

The hare is never named and this is ultimately an act of respect, but, also, one suspects, an act of self-preservation. While Dalton works hard not to domesticate the animal, there is something else -- some undefined opportunity to commune (sort of) with another species. I picked this up in the airport because I had heard about it and I wanted something short enough to finish over the course of two shorter flights. I might not have gotten around to it otherwise, so I'll thank not only the airport bookstore, but also Denise Nestor's gorgeous illustration on the front cover (and those that are included inside the book as well). It is truly a delightful and tender read.

View all my reviews

2026 #4 Eleanor of Aquitaine (Weir)

 

Eleanor of Aquitaine: A Life by Alison Weir
My rating: 3.75 stars

My original interest in this book was to fill out some of my historical context surrounding troubadours, and to be sure, there are plenty of references to these poet-composers of southern France in relation to their poetic chronicles of Eleanor of Aquitaine. The quote from the Boston Globe on the covers says, "An alluringly candid portrait of this most public yet elusive of medieval women." To this, I say, "sort of." It isn't Weir's fault -- the records just aren't there (unsurprisingly -- "elusive" is correct). Weir makes do with a wonderful host of historical accounts and primary sources, but the net result is that a good proportion of the book is NOT about Eleanor of Aquitaine, but instead Henry II, and the various Kings (including first husband Louis VII), archbishops, dukes, etc. Once Henry dies in Weir's narrative, however, Eleanor gets more air time (and I think this likely aligns with the historical record as well). So, in a way, I think the book is a meta-reflection of the documentation upon which it rests.

That said, the real mark of a good history book is to get you interested in that which you didn't know you were interested! Weir achieves this in her thorough narrative of the personalities, unions, rivalries, etc that make up 12th-century France and England. There's enough about Eleanor that Weir's main point is illuminated: "[Eleanor of Aquitaine] came into her own at an age when most women were either dead or long in retirement, and ruled as capably as any man. She was no shrinking violet, but a tough, capable, and resourceful woman who travelled widely throughout the known world and was acquainted with most of the great figures of the age." (346). The details of that narrative are worth reading. This is a revision of the heretofore widely accepted tropes of Eleanor as "wicked queen" and "adultress."

It is generally a really great chronicle of the status of women in the medieval period, especially royal women who were seen as barter for various diplomatic transactions. The double standards abound when it comes to marital infidelity, and one has to chuckle at the charges of consanguinity leveled at both of Eleanor's marriages -- the charming handwritten genealogical tables at the back of the book come in handy.

One consistent issue I had is that Weir often describes various figures in a formula that seems to be: extol their prowess and strength, then debunk/contradict it with various accounts of their hubris and in some cases, real lack of humanity. This often takes place in the span of two short paragraphs. For example, in describing King John (as just one example), Weir tells us that he received a lot of bad press, but that recent studies show "he was a gifted administrator who showed a concern for justice...he showed real concern for his kingdom." She goes on to tell us that the "Exchequer, Chancery, and law courts began to function more effectively" and that he "took a more than ordinary interest in the welfare of his common subjects." (318-319). In the very next paragraph, however, we are offered a quote from a chronicler that he was "but a plunderer of his own people, trusting strangers rather than his subjects, wherefore he was eventually deserted by his own men and, in the end, little mourned." (319). This seems to be a regular narrative approach in describing all the main male figures of the historical narrative. I appreciate that these men very likely did have a rather incongruous set of qualities/vices, but the repeated structure in the narrative felt like pop-up instances of whiplash, rather than relating the understandable complexity.

I found myself wondering about some of the other women in the book--particularly Eleanor's daughter in law Berengaria (wife of Richard I), who seemed the most untainted by folly and foibles. This is, as I said, a strength of the book. Weir's research and gifts for writing draw you in to the medieval trials and tribulations of the various bloodlines of French and English royalty.

View all my reviews

Challenges on Storygraph (@rebcamuse):

2026 Reading Goals 4/60

#192030 Challenge: 1999

Tackle your Physical TBR 2026: no. 3

2026 #2 Ungrading (Blum, ed.)

 

Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead) by Susan D. Blum
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Another excellent tome in the Teaching and Learning in Higher Education series from West Virginia University Press, Blum's Ungrading is probably one of the most often cited sources on the topic. The essays in the book provide "solutions in the plural" as Blum puts it, recognizing that capacity and agency will vary across faculty and different contexts, and that ultimately "Ungrading" can mean a lot of different things. Jessie Stommel's "How to Ungrade" offers a fairly extreme form of ungrading (no grades until the course grade, only feedback), while others provide more moderated approaches. Always as entertaining as he is erudite, John Warner gives us "Wile E. Coyote, The Hero of Ungrading" milking an extended metaphor in service of understanding the challenges of ungrading (for both learner and teacher/facilitator). I appreciated Marcus Shultz-Bergin's reflections, "Grade Anarchy in the Philosophy Classroom" which reminds us that we should be prepared for (some) things to perhaps not work as well as we thought they might. In other words --- stay humble. Celebrate your victories, learn from your mistakes. For those interested in a diving in a bit more deeply to pedagogical theory, Christopher Riesbeck's "Critique-Driven Learning and Assessment" gives good information about how to mix the quantitative and the narrative when it comes to assessment.

The mix of approaches and perspectives is generally an asset, although I found some of the essays less relevant and/or robust. As a whole, however, a very worthy read and a great place to start if you want to know about alternative grading.

View all my reviews

Challenges on Storygraph (@rebcamuse):

2026 Reading Goals: 2/60

Tackle Your Physical TBR 2/18

2025 #58 Undoing the Grade (Stommel)

Undoing the Grade: Why We Grade, and How to Stop by Jesse Stommel
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Jesse Stommel is (and has been) one of the most important voices in "ungrading" as a practice. His insights shared on social media, various blogs, and in previous publications have done much to foster the important dialogue(s) that have multiplied over the last decade or so. There's a lot in this tiny volume that is great for excerpting, but the manifesto-like tone and compilation of previous writings (which is more of what it is rather than a book) frustrated me occasionally, especially as someone who is not new to these topics.

Stommel makes a convincing case for "why" we shouldn't grade, for the most part, but the "how to stop" part could be a bit more robust in terms of nuance and detail. That said, there are some really important take-aways, even for those who might not want to adopt a complete "ungrading" approach. Stommel writes, "My goal in eschewing grades has been to more honestly engage student work rather than simply evaluate it" (2). This is a key factor and should be an overarching pedagogical objective for anyone looking into alternative assessments (I use the term in acknowledgement of its problematic aspects). There are also some really wonderful pithy quotes: "Grades are the bureaucratic ouroboros of education" (11) sums up the raison d'etre for Stommel's work, in that it isn't just about grading/not grading/ungrading, etc..., but looking at the larger structural failings of education. "Ungrading" (broadly interpreted) is one way to fight back, and it can be done without necessarily jeopardizing one's gainful employment, especially if it is grounded in sound pedagogy and includes student dialogue and buy-in. That's not to say everyone will have the academic freedom to do so, but as more and more educators make "plus 1" changes (to borrow from Behling and Tobin's Reach Everyone, Teach Everyone: Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education), the tide may eventually turn.

 
Stommel's indictment of relegating "pedagogy" to the LMS is spot-on, although I'd push back a bit at his disdain for rubrics. I appreciate and agree with his criticism of "overly mechanistic" rubrics that are more focused on "efficiency in evaluation" (29), but I gently part company with him when he says: "...when rubrics are given in advance to students, they are likely to close down possibility by encouraging students to work toward a prescribed notion of excellence." (30). While I can see that, I would offer that the right rubric can be an excellent tool for transparency of expectations (especially if those expectations are cultivated through dialogue with the students, as Stommel advocates). With LMS incorporating AI more frequently to assist with things like making rubrics, I fear rubrics are being defined, especially for new faculty, as mechanistic tools for evaluation rather than realizing a fuller potential that they could have as a pedagogical implement for engagement and transparency.

 
In "How to Ungrade" Stommel says, "If you're a teacher and you hate grading, stop doing so much of it." (68). He helpfully differentiates the conversation from one about "efficiency" (a word I'd like to see removed from pedagogical spaces, at least until we regain some balance as far as AI is concerned). I think there's a lot of joy to be had from engaging with student work, and this might shift the conversation a bit: rather than aiming for "less grading" it might be about spending that energy cultivating relationships and I think Stommel makes a strong and impassioned case for doing just that . Overworked and underpaid teachers are (rightfully so) often leaning into "easier said than done" because they are exhausted. So, I'd encourage those who are new to the ideas of people like Paulo Freire and bell hooks to use Stommel's book as a starting point for inspiration, and try out some of the concrete examples for alternative assessment in Chapter 8.

View all my reviews

2025 #57 Failing Our Future (Eyler)

 

Failing Our Future: How Grades Harm Students, and What We Can Do about It by Joshua R. Eyler
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is a great primer for those uninitiated to the idea of alternative grading, or those who need a baseline rationale. Beautifully researched and convincingly argued, Eyler demonstrates, on multiple levels, the actual harm of grading as a system, without resorting to heavy-handed rhetoric or sanctimonious finger-wagging. Eyler's audience should be parents, educators, and administrators, and there is wisdom here for both K-12 and higher ed. For the purposes of this particular book, his grouping of several alternative grading models under "Standards Based Grading" (SBG) makes sense, but it means that this is not the book if you are looking for nuanced explanations of the differences between, for example, SBG and Specifications (or "Specs") Grading. For that I recommend Grading for Growth by David Clark and Robert Talbert -- a book Eyler cites. Some of the stats and case studies make for tough reading, so consider this a content warning as he does briefly mention suicides at particular institutions (hopefully that doesn't shock anyone working for more than a few years in higher ed). Eyler covers a lot of ground in terms of providing both background and practical advice, and the rich bibliography is a fruitful place for further exploration.

View all my reviews

2025 #55 Elsewhere (Russo)

 

Elsewhere: A Memoir by Richard Russo
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I picked this up randomly as someone had offloaded a bunch of Russo's works in a Little Free Library, and I read and enjoyed Empire Falls. While I'm not usually into memoirs, this is really a beautifully written remembrance of his mother. What makes it beautiful is its honesty. Russo steps back enough in the narrative that it almost reads like fiction--we watch love mixed with guilt and manipulation, with a complexity that I think most people will recognize. Russo also addresses ideas of "home" and how easily they can shift and change, but also how love-hate relationships form with places. It is also an unflinching look at the realities of mental illness in a relatable way, revealing how easy it is to enable and excuse with the best of intentions.

View all my reviews

2025 #39 DEI Deconstructed (Zheng)

 

DEI Deconstructed: Your No-Nonsense Guide to Doing the Work and Doing It Right by Lily Zheng
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I let this book sit for far too long on my shelf. I've long admired Lily Zheng for their posts on social media (I follow them via LinkedIn). While Zheng has since introduced a new approach to DEI: the FAIR Framework (Fairness Access Inclusion Representation), it is essentially the outcome-driven approach she advocates in this book. While the current governmental attack on DEI has not that much to do with the weaknesses described in this book (at least politically), their advice is sound and certainly would have/would strengthen DEI initiatives at all sorts of institutions: companies, higher ed, etc. It is truly "no-nonsense" -- very "tell it like it is" without unnecessary abrasiveness or grandstanding. They really want to help us all do better. Chapter 2, where Zheng "reformulate[s] the key terms and concepts of the DEI space away from their feel-good buzzword roots and toward operationalized and tangible outcomes" is particularly useful.
There were several "mic-drop" moments for me, such as:
"Identity isn't morality. Being privileged or marginalized on one or more dimensions of identity doesn't make us any better or worse as people; it simply positions us differently and offers us different advantages and disadvantages within broader systems. It changes the power we have access to and our ability to understand experiences similar to and different from our own." (165)
It doesn't get much more "no-nonsense" than that.
What is really helpful is that Zheng's approach can help ANYONE first, identify their stakeholder role (as well as their relationships to other roles), and then provides helpful reflections and exercises to make those things a reality within our varied spheres of influence.
Really essential reading for anyone doing work in the "DEI" sphere -- even if the acronym has changed, it is worth thinking about the pitfalls because they can easily occur no matter the abbreviation we use.

View all my reviews

FTL2025 5B challenge DEI Deconstructed---->Demian (Hesse)

#2025 #38 On Tyranny (Snyder)

 

On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Is this some lofty tome packed with new critical insights and expansive historical knowledge? No. Does it aim to be? No. Did it actually take me five months to read? No. But I had to put it down because I read before bed, and well -- this should keep you up at night. But hopefully with a sense of energy and resolve.

What the book IS, however, is a reminder. A reminder of the things you should hold dear. The things that truly COULD make us great, or at least could reinvest in real patriotism. It is an expanded listicle of 20 "lessons" from the twentieth century. The book opens with: "History does not repeat. But it does instruct." Heather Cox Richardson illuminates that in her "Letters from an American" posts. If you feel you lack courage to resist, throw this tiny book in your bag and take it out and reread it as you wait for the bus.

Make eye contact and small talk (#12).
Start somewhere.



View all my reviews

2025 #33 The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story (Hannah-Jones, ed)

 

The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story by Nikole Hannah-Jones
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

No book or project could ever be comprehensive when it comes to exploring and capturing the history and legacy that began in 1619, when enslaved Africans set foot on the shores of North America, a year prior to the arrival of the Mayflower. The book is an enlargement of Hannah-Jones's foundational The 1619 Project, published in the New York Times Magazine. However, as a reclamation of American History, this book is a chronicle, a celebration of poetry, art, and writing, and a call for understanding and moving forward. "A truly great country does not ignore or excuse its sins, it confronts them and then works to make them right," Hannah-Jones says in closing.

The contributors to the book are many and varied, with some of the most profoundly powerful and influential voices of our time: Claudia Rankine, Khalil Gibran Muhammad, Michelle Alexander, Ibram X. Kendi, Henry Louis Gates, Terry McMillan, and so many more.

In the audiobook, some readers are more compelling than others, but the words are potent, well-researched, and a true call for understanding how conventional narratives of American history have been whitewashed. Turning points, such as Abraham Lincoln's assassination, are reframed so that we understand that when Andrew Johnson took over the presidency for a brief two-month period, he tried to rescind wartime Order No. 15 (known as "Forty Acres and a Mule") and that these original reparations never truly materialized in a way that provided widespread and sustained land ownership to Black Americans. The connection of this (and preceding events) to the current wealth gap between Black and white Americans is made clear.

Ibram X. Kendi's truth-telling is particularly powerful, especially as it targets and demolishes narratives of "post-racial" America. The criticisms may be hard to hear for some, but the cycle of attempts to declare any and all "wins" as progress has largely clouded the narrative in its failure to recognize the persistence of neglect and abuse toward Black Americans, and the systemic infrastructure that perpetuates it.

It is not an easy book to read/listen to -- nor should it be. There is deep and painful beauty expressed in the poems. Few facets of modern life are left un-addressed, whether it is healthcare or mass-incarceration. The book can be (and has been) excerpted to great effect, but sitting with it from start to finish has its own benefits. As a white American, it was invaluable to be reminded of the things I have learned, to be invited to de-center white historical narratives, and to critically consider how much we truly owe to the legacy of Black Americans and how we have failed (and continue to fail) to honor it and fight for it. There has been a lot of backlash and vitriol aimed at the project. I recommend engaging with the book instead of allowing the controversies to subsume the content.


View all my reviews

2025 #30: More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI (Warner)

 

More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI by John Warner
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

One might draw parentheses around "in the Age of AI" when it comes to John Warner's excellent book. If there is one thing that is certain, generative AI has made it necessary to think about writing in general, as the assumed ubiquity of AI has implied definitions of writing that are certainly unsatisfactory from a pedagogical standpoint, and stand as evidence of the marketplace's power to (try to) shape our destiny. But this isn't just another example of capitalism's dominion. Many uses of AI ask us how much of our humanity we are willing to relinquish? The answer is demoralizing for many of us, yet Warner does provide a framework which he details in the last section of the book: Resist. Renew. Explore.

Warner starts, however, at the "beginning". He eschews "intelligence" as a synonym for "automation" --the real function of AI. I'll admit to a strong confirmation bias, but Warner puts AI through its paces to offer a well-considered and informative critique that I found incredibly helpful in quieting the bile that rises in my throat when it seems everyone has just obeyed our AI overlords in advance. He begins with an accessible explanation of what ChatGPT is and what it is doing when activated. While it is informative, it also serves to remind us that, at some level, we must understand how technology works rather than just allow ourselves to be uniformly awed (or galled) by its "magic." He is openly critical of the propaganda put forth by AI advocates who stand to gain financially (e.g. Sam Altman), but carefully debunks their claims rather than resorting to panicked invective.

Some of the chapter titles read like tongue-in-cheek clickbait, but it adds to Warner's overall sense of humor, which pops up throughout the narrative. To be sure, we are reading a very human writer.

Chapters 3 to 9 offer a more personalized view--almost a mini-memoir of Warner's own life as a writer-- but peppered with rather significant points about semiotics and rhetoric that are a heckuva lot more reader-friendly than most of what is written about semiotics and rhetoric. On a personal level, Chapter 6, "Writing is Feeling" touched me the most, and I think mileage will vary on that depending on the life experiences of the reader. I wasn't quite prepared for tears in encountering one of the most perfect meditations on grief I've ever read. I won't quote it here, but it is on p. 84 (hardcover). It underscores that this is very much a book about being human.

Chapter 7, "Writing as a Practice" felt a bit less useful and more of a (gentle) mouthing-off against the "one key thing" mentality that prompts us to enthusiastically adopt the shiny thing du jour. His diplomatic takedown of Gladwell and Duckworth's themes felt more gratuitous than other parts of the book, but that may be because I needed no convincing at the outset.

Writing teachers (and teachers that use writing) will find chapters 11 to 14 particularly useful, especially if they are interested in having conversations with their students about AI--or rather, about writing. The title for Chapter 16 privileges an anecdote that Warner uses to address one of the most important points of all: writing as intention.

Importantly, Warner encourages constant education, but measured by our own specialities and areas of focus. We cannot possibly read all the things about AI (my Substack feed overwhelms me every day), but it is important to push back at our own confirmation bias as well. I appreciated that Warner notes that he is almost "more obligated to read [Ethan Mollick] because I disagree with him.' (275). There's hope if we engage with thoughtful voices like Mollick, Marc Watkins, and others. Warner says we must foster community:

"Our communities inevitably must contain both those with whom we agree and those with whom we differ. As long as they are willing to see themselves as a member of the community with the well-being of the community in mind, they should be welcome." (275).

I'd like to print that out banner-size and hang it in a few places...

From the morally questionable beginnings of the founding of AI, the degradation of labor (and human-ness), to the careless implementation of automated grading, Warner is clear that we are leaning toward a Faustian bargain when it comes to AI. As a teacher, I was particularly struck by this:

"Writing is meant to be read. Having something that cannot read [AI] generate responses to writing is wrong. It is a moral betrayal of our responsibilities to students." (240) Far too often in discussions of AI I have heard "efficiency" used as a synonym for "pedagogy" and they are certainly not the same thing.

But Warner is also pragmatic: "There is no wishing away AI at this point, meaning it must be grappled with and done so in a way that preserves our humanity." (128) He allows for the limited use of LLMs in processing text (not reading, not writing): "Only humans can read. Only humans can write. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.." (123)

AI has made it necessary (possible?) to critique our values when it comes to a lot of things, but especially writing. Most educational systems are founded on valuing product over process, so we can't be that surprised when we find that students are using ChatGPT to "cheat." Efficiency is key in the systems we uphold. If we want to truly have our students embrace the "messiness of learning", we have to stop honoring that which privileges standardization and the mechanization of education. The second part of Warner's framework is "renew" and he makes a more-than-convincing case that we can refuse to assimilate into some sort of algorithmic Borg, and instead embrace the human processes of reacting, observing, analyzing, and synthesizing as cause for celebration, rather than erasing them in the name of efficiency.



View all my reviews

2025 #27 Let Only Red Flowers Bloom (Feng)

 

Let Only Red Flowers Bloom: Identity and Belonging in Xi Jinping's China by Emily Feng
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

In her acknowledgements, Emily Feng thanks NPR for being a place "where creative storytelling and sharp news reporting are valued in equal measure" (274). To be sure, that describes Let Only Red Flowers Bloom. Feng lived in China for seven years and the book gathers together stories, using a tale of one or two to reflect the many. Each chapter has a focus, e.g. "The Lawyer" or "The Businessman" or "The Detained", but certain "characters" become threads that tie the chapters together. Kenny, for example, we meet first in "The Protestor" (Chapter 9) as a youthful idealist who is one of approximately 40K demonstrators in Hong Kong who believe they are peacefully protesting an extradition law. Kenny protests at night, unbeknownst to his parents, committing to a highly organized, underground network, that includes volunteer doctors and medics, as injured protestors were getting arrested when taken to the hospital. Kenny then has a new identity in Chapter 10 -- The Fugitive.

These stories serve as a mere primer on just *some* of the basic conflicts in China: the attacks on the Uyghurs and Mongolians, ethnic minorities of all stripes on the mainland, the battle for identity and sovereignty in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and much more. I chose this book because I realized I had a knowledge deficit when it comes to China, and I wanted to know more. Feng's narrative is compelling, well-researched, and wide-reaching--the final chapter, "The Diaspora," pulls back the curtain on the "long-arm" of the Chinese government but also the complexity of more than 5 million Chinese living in the U.S.

There are a few places where more careful editing might have curtailed some unnecessary repetition, especially in Chapter 11, but most of the book skillfully weaves in and out of the present and past, weaving with the cast of characters and their stories to ultimately express large questions. Feng herself had plenty of exposure to danger as well, but she instead choses to center the stories of those she interviewed, and does not inject her own challenges at the border or otherwise with any kind of dramatic hyperbole. If anything, her unadorned self-narrative is all the more chilling, as with her description of a high-speed chase wherein Feng and her driver are tailed after leaving the airport. After being detained, she notes:

"He [the driver] drove me back to the airport in silence. He gestured at his torso, then held a single finger up to his lips, motioning me not to speak. He had been bugged." (152)

The book is a powerful testament to storytelling as truth-telling, and it puts many human faces on complex issues that are reduced to inadequate headlines and social media blurbs in mainstream culture here in the U.S. A worthwhile read to remind us of the human spirit and how it has to endure in all sorts of contexts, all over the world.

View all my reviews

2025 #12 Every Day I Write the Book: Notes on Style (Kumar)

 

Every Day I Write the Book: Notes on Style by Amitava Kumar
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Kumar captures the quirks as well as the slings and arrows of writing in academia through a mish-mosh of anecdotes, short essays, and what feels at times to be scrapbooking (in a good way). The book is divided into nine parts: I) Self-Help; II) Writing A Book: A Brief History; III) Credos; IV) Form; V) Academic Interest; VI) Style; VII) Exercises; VIII) The Groves of Academe and IX) Materials.

Those interested in a writing "guide" can just skip to Appendix A: "Ten Rules of Writing", but as the strikeout text on the book's cover implies, this is not a guide (in the traditional sense) nor a report on style. Instead, it is a memoir (in parts) of a writing life, interspersed with nuggets of widsom, dry humor. Fans of Anne Lamott's Bird by Bird may recognize Kumar's small pencil and folded index card that he carries in his pocket, and indeed many of his recommendations align with Lamott's, albeit with a slightly less sardonic tone.

While one would expect Kumar to be "well-read," he shares his knowledge pragmatically, without pomp, and always with clarity of meaning. We don't just get a vast bibliography shared through an eclectic set of "notes", but actual motivation to read those essays and books. There's an earthiness and honesty in Kumar's voice, that manages to critique academia while still acknowledging his own role within. A few bits felt more self-indulgent than instructive, although sometimes the shortest offerings packed a punch, such as the final note of part III: "Credos remain meaningless abstractions unless put to use." (68). He reminds us that one can read endlessly about writing, but to be a writer, one must... write. And let's face it -- reading about writing provides comfort, as if filling our brains with what we ought to do is a substitute for actually doing it (and is a better alternative to binge-watching television).

Struggling academic writers would be well-advised to keep this book close at hand, as even picking one bit of it at random might help jolt you out of a slump. It can also be read in small doses, rather than cover to cover, and I might even suggest out of order, depending on your need at one moment (although there's a certain joy to the sections Kumar offers, and fun little surprises such as the wit about credos mentioned above).


View all my reviews

FTL2025 3B challenge Every Day I write the BooK-----> Kindred by Octavia Butler

2025 #7: The Discarded Image (Lewis)

 

The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature by C.S. Lewis
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

The subtitle of this book is misleading in some respects. If you are not already well-versed in literature (not just medieval and Renaissance lit, but Hellenic antiquity as well), you might find yourself frustrated by Lewis's consistent references to items he believes should make up a core knowledge. That said, there is so much to be gained here and one should avoid distraction by getting too bogged down in the individual references. To do so is to miss the proverbial forest for the trees. Ultimately Lewis is building a case for a medieval model, and his epilogue addresses the complex and layered meaning behind that word. Ultimately he proposes more of a model-process: "The new Model will not be set up without evidence, but the evidence will turn up when the inner need for it becomes sufficiently great." (222-23).

Somehow, Lewis manages to bring us from talk of angels and daemons (not always demons), to an investment in the exercises of the human soul, such as Intellectus and Ratio:

"We are enjoying intellectus when we 'just see' a self-evident truth. We are exercising ratio when we proceed step-by-step to prove a truth which is not self-evident. A cognitive life in which all truth can be simply 'seen' would be the life of an intelligentia, an angel." (157).

It cannot be forgotten that Lewis was a literary scholar, a theologian, a poet, and himself a writer of science-fiction and fantasy. One gets the sense when reading Lewis, particularly in this book, that none of these are actually distinctively parsed for him. His acknowledgement and study of tropes seems to play out in real time, with statements that could be one or more layers of his intellectual onion. He critiques how we consider the past--as a 'costume play.' "This superficial (and often inaccurate) characterisation of different ages," he writes, " helps far more than we suspect towards ur later and subtler discriminations between them." (183). Indeed, I often remind my students (and myself) that history is more about patterns and tropes than pigeonholing figures, events, and art into narratively defined styles and genres.

The sum of the micro-literature reviews, the subtle 'digression' about digressions, and the encyclopaedic tone (something Lewis manages as an art), is an over-arching treatise on our human condition as it relates to literature (and art as a whole):

"Literature exists to teach what is useful, to honour what deserves honour, to appreciate what is delightful. The useful, honourable, delightful things are superior to it: it exists for their sake; its own use, honour, or delightfulness is derivative from theirs. In that sense the art is humble even when the artists are proud..." (214)

This book could be read in multiple ways. Perhaps when I have more time for curiosity, unhampered by the obligations of a career, I will sit again with this book and look up every treasure that Lewis cites. I will see the details of the collective contributions toward the medieval Model, and I suspect I will be richer for it. Lewis is not without his detractors, notably Philip Pullman (an author whose books I love), and others who have critiqued some of his works as sexist, and depictions in Narnia, in particular, as racist. Not having read any of those books since I was a child, I'm not equipped to comment on that at present, but I keep it in mind as I read Lewis's non-fiction works.

View all my reviews

Follow the Leader Challenge 2A ---> Enacting Musical Time by Marius Kozak

2025 #3 Grading for Growth (Clark/Talbert)

 

Grading for Growth by David Clark
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

David Clark and Robert Talbert's Grading for Growth is a truly useful book for anyone designing a course, full stop. Even those who may wish to stick to traditional grading structures (or have to, due to mandates), can benefit from thinking about the four pillars (as defined by the authors) of alternative grading: 1) clearly defined standards, 2) helpful feedback, 3) marks indicate progress, 4) reassessment without penalty. The challenge comes in fighting the pre-conceived notions of what letter grades stand for and their import.

The book offers some background on alternative grading: SBG (standards-based grading), specifications (specs) grading, and ungrading, although SBG gets pride of place in the authors' own assessment strategies. Because of this, sometimes it can be a bit blurry when they are talking "standards" as a pillar, or SBG as a specific system--especially later in the book. Chapter 5 does address standards-based grading quite specifically, and chapter 6 is devoted to specs grading, so the frameworks are fairly clear, but those new to these systems might benefit from additional reading, such as Linda B. Nilson's Specifications Grading.

The most significant part of the book (for me) was the Chapter 11 Workbook. I'm reminded of a wonderful professor I had for Macroeconomics in college. I was on the verge of failing her class--a first for me, and I came to her office in tears, one or two days before the final exam. She wrote out a schedule for my next 24 hours, specified exactly which carrel in the library I was going to sit in, when I would be taking breaks, eating, and sleeping. That list held my hand through studying for this final exam I thought I would surely fail. I didn't fail, and I passed the class with a very low grade, but I passed. What does this have to do with Chapter 11?

Well, it is truly a step-by-step guide to course design. It says it is a workbook for alternative grading, and certainly that is the focus, but the process the authors lead us through is a beautiful example of backward design. Now many teachers I know (myself included) always think that our learning outcomes are tied to our assignments, but I fully admit that my intentionality in making sure that's the case hasn't always been optimal. Administrative mandates about "phrasing" rather than helping faculty make the connections between outcomes and assessments haven't always helped either. About two years ago, I started numbering my course's learning outcomes and placing that number next to the various assignments. This was just something that made sense to me as I started to feel like LOs were becoming frivolous rhetoric--at least for the students. I didn't know that I was starting the process that undergirds alternative grading. Each of the 9 steps is clearly explained, with a time estimate for each step, as well as a continuous case study featuring "Professor Alice" and her "First Year Seminar" course that you review before working with your own course. Again, some of what's included might seem like basic common sense, but I suspect many instructors skip some steps here and there, and I know that I've certainly come up with coping strategies when I've not thought something through as well as I might. Steps 1-8 are doable in an entire day (and that's suggested), but I found it more effective (given my cognitive load preferences) to spread it out over several days, which allowed me to be fresh. The authors stress that one shouldn't spend TOO much time because essentially everything is fundamentally a draft. Most helpful to me were Step 3: Make A Prototype of the Marking Methods and What the A and C (D in my case) represent and Step 5: Build one Assessment and rehearse the Feedback Loop. Given my time constraints and the way I tend to think, I did sort of mush steps 6-8 together a bit, but perhaps those more disciplined can compartmentalize better. Whether one is designing a brand new course (which I think added to my inability to isolate those latter steps) or redesigning an existing one, this chapter is invaluable.

Chapter 12, "How to Do it," is also very useful, taking us out of the grade book and into reality, and reminding us of the big picture, e.g. building trust and promoting buy-in. The book can be used somewhat piecemeal, I suppose, although I think there is much to be gained by reading the chapters on large classes and lab classes, even if those scenarios are not directly applicable to one's own courses.

The authors, who have an absolutely terrific Substack of the same name (Grading for Growth), are humble and intentional. There is no smug grandstanding, or hyperbolic claims. Well-balanced in theory and practical advice, the book is one of the best I've read about teaching (in general). It models the collegiality that should be encouraging instructors to invest intentionally in their course assessment. While the authors don't specifically address UDL (Universal Design for Learning), the four pillars certainly intersect with the concept of building "expert learners" (old UDL guidelines), and "learner agency" (UDL 3.0 guidelines). Iterative work and feedback loops are at the heart of it all, and the spirit of the book is in keeping with the "plus-one" approach in Tobin/Behling's Reach Everyone, Teach Everyone (West Virginia University Press, 2018). If you are a teacher who has been feeling a bit "meh" about your courses, read this book. You'll find something to take with you. And do you yourself a favor, start reading it a month prior to your course (or at least get to Chapter 11). Learn from my mistakes.

View all my reviews