Does Literary Analysis Actually Help Us Understand Books Better?

The Promise vs. Reality

Reading How to Read Literature Like a Professor has been a mixed experience for me.¹ On the one hand, it’s a useful book that introduces readers to common literary devices, archetypes, and the interconnected nature of literature. Foster expertly walks us through various patterns and symbols that appear in literature, from weather symbolism to character archetypes. On the other hand, it left me wondering whether spotting all these literary connections actually enhances our understanding of books—or if it’s just a sophisticated form of pig latin, a special language that’s more about showing you know it than actually communicating something meaningful. (Sorry, couldn’t resist the comparison!)

When Foster explains how every trip is a quest², or how nearly every meal scene is actually about communion, I found myself asking: are these insights making me a better reader, or am I just learning to speak a specialized language that’s only valuable within certain academic circles?

The Question of Value

The book centers around the idea that literature exists in conversation with “the canon”—that collection of classical works we’re supposedly meant to know to fully appreciate modern books. Foster frequently references works like The Odyssey, Paradise Lost, and various Shakespeare plays, suggesting that recognizing these connections enriches our reading experience.³ But this raises an interesting question: does recognizing a reference to Shakespeare or Milton actually deepen our understanding of human nature? Or does it just demonstrate our familiarity with other books?

This emphasis on canonical connections seems to assume a particular kind of reader—one who has extensive exposure to classical Western literature. But what about readers who are well-versed in other traditions? What about those who bring rich life experiences but limited literary knowledge to their reading? Are their interpretations somehow less valid?

Real Connections Matter More

As someone who mainly reads fantasy novels, I find myself connecting with books in ways that have nothing to do with classical literature. Take Brandon Sanderson’s Mistborn, for example. There’s a character who can manipulate others’ emotions, leading to a fascinating debate about whether all human interaction is inherently manipulative.⁴ This sparked thoughts about psychology, social dynamics, and how we influence each other in daily life—insights that feel more valuable than spotting a parallel to some ancient Greek text.

The character’s argument that every interaction involves some degree of emotional manipulation made me reflect on my own daily interactions. How often do I modulate my tone to get a better response in a work meeting? How often do I choose my words carefully to avoid hurting someone’s feelings? These real-world connections seem more relevant to understanding human nature than identifying whether the character fits some classical archetype.

Finding Real-World Meaning

The same book features characters wrestling with whether it’s ethically right to overthrow their God-Emperor, the Lord Ruler. Even though he’s oppressive, one character struggles with the morality of opposing a being who literally defines good and evil.⁵ This led me down a rabbit hole of thinking about objective morality and ethical frameworks—real philosophical questions that affect how we view authority and morality in our own world.

This isn’t just about spotting literary devices; it’s about grappling with fundamental questions about power, morality, and human nature. When reading pushes us to examine our own beliefs and assumptions about the world, isn’t that a deeper form of literary engagement than identifying biblical allegories?

[Continued in sections below…]

The Assumed Hierarchy

Foster never explicitly states that connecting books to “the canon” is superior to other forms of reading. But there’s this underlying assumption that recognizing literary references somehow leads to a deeper, more sophisticated understanding. It’s worth asking: deeper for whom? More sophisticated by whose standards?

The book’s approach reminds me of how certain programming languages or frameworks are sometimes treated in the tech world—as if knowing the more obscure or traditional ones automatically makes you a better developer. But any experienced engineer will tell you that what matters isn’t the number of languages you know, but how effectively you can solve problems and create value.⁶

A Different Kind of Connection

Most people who read—when they read at all—do so for pleasure, personal growth, or to understand different perspectives on life. They find meaning by connecting stories to their own experiences, not by tracking down references to Dante. And isn’t that kind of connection just as valuable, if not more so?

Consider the statistics: only a small percentage of adults regularly read literature for pleasure⁷, and an even smaller percentage have extensive knowledge of classical literature. If the “deeper meaning” of books is only accessible through knowledge of “the canon,” we’re saying that meaningful reading is only available to a tiny fraction of readers. That seems not just elitist, but fundamentally wrong.

The Value of Direct Experience

Look, I’m not saying literary analysis is worthless. Understanding patterns and references can add interesting layers to our reading. But when I see how Mistborn’s exploration of manipulation makes me think differently about my daily interactions, or how its questions about divine authority connect to real-world discussions about power and morality—these feel like more meaningful insights than recognizing a mythological allusion.

The value of literature surely lies in its ability to help us understand ourselves and our world better. Sometimes that happens through recognizing literary patterns, but often it happens through direct connection with the text, unmediated by academic frameworks.

Reading for Real Life

Perhaps we need to recalibrate how we think about “sophisticated” reading. Instead of measuring understanding by how many literary references we catch, what if we valued the connections readers make to their own lives and observations? After all, isn’t literature ultimately about helping us understand ourselves and our world better?

This isn’t about lowering standards—it’s about recognizing different forms of literary engagement. Just as code can be elegant in different ways, reading can be meaningful in different ways.⁸

Finding Your Own Path

Reading doesn’t need to be an academic exercise to be meaningful. Whether you’re analyzing classical allusions or simply reflecting on how a story relates to your own experiences, your way of engaging with books is valid. Maybe that’s what we should be celebrating: not our ability to spot references to “the canon,” but our capacity to find personal meaning in what we read.

And hey, if you want to learn to analyze literature like a professor, go for it! Just remember it’s one approach among many—like learning pig latin, it might be fun and interesting, but it’s not the only way to communicate what matters.

---

Notes

1. Foster, Thomas C. How to Read Literature Like a Professor: A Lively and Entertaining Guide to Reading Between the Lines. Harper Perennial, 2014. ↩︎

2. Foster discusses this in Chapter 1, “Every Trip Is a Quest (Except When It’s Not).” ↩︎

3. Throughout the book, Foster makes numerous references to these works, particularly in chapters about symbolism and archetypes. ↩︎

4. Sanderson, Brandon. Mistborn: The Final Empire. Tor Books, 2006. This debate occurs during interactions between Breeze and other characters about his use of emotional Allomancy. ↩︎

5. This ethical dilemma is a central theme throughout the first Mistborn book, particularly in discussions between Kelsier’s crew members. ↩︎

6. Drawing from my experience as a software engineer, where this parallel seemed particularly relevant. ↩︎

7. According to the National Endowment for the Arts’ reading surveys, though you might want to verify the exact current statistics. ↩︎

8. Another parallel to software development: just as there are many ways to write good code, there are many ways to read well. ↩︎