3. Foster discusses the “dialogue between…texts.” He refers to this as “intertextuality.” What is the significance, value, and effect of this textual connection? How does it inform and enhance our reading experiences? Is intertextuality intentional or serendipitous? How does it operate? How might it relate to the “one big story?” How might it relate to archetypes, symbols? When have you noticed intertextuality at work in the “real” world? What is the “mythic level?”
Foster touches on many points pertaining to the various aspects, processes, and mechanics of intertextuality by relating to the readers the sheer importance that it serves in every literary construct. Being able to relate one piece of literature to another is, at times, necessary in understanding the core concepts of a text and is sufficient enough for some in it’s bare state. However, for more intellectually driven individuals, a more meta cognitive view must be taken to expand ones literary horizons. As Foster states in Chapter 4, “The more we become aware of the possibility that our text is speaking to other texts, the more similarities and correspondences we begin to notice, and the more alive the text becomes.” Literature, as a whole, is one extensive strand of knowledge being added to, broken down, and built back up again as time progresses. This is the sole essence of intertextuality.
While the use of this textual connection can be perceived and interpreted in many ways, the implementation of it by writers is almost always overwhelmingly intentional. Take Ancient Greek works of literature for example. The Iliad, Odyssey, and Aeneid work so harmoniously with one another that it is hard to dismiss the intentional motifs and symbols found within them. Seeing as how these two different authors, Homer and Virgil, construct such subtle yet undeniable connections within the texts stands to prove how intertextuality is rarely “serendipitous.” This is when literature begins to coincide with the “mythic level.” Without intertextuality, mythology would not have a steady enough foundation to be built upon. Perhaps this is the reason as to why scholars and historians alike are so entranced by mythology and classic works of literature. They provide a unique pattern among them that has enthralled readers for generations and has urged them to delve deeper into the inner workings of numerous other genres of literature. That is the magic of intertextuality.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Friday, June 22, 2018
Blog Response to Prompt #7
I think ambiguity plays a major role in the reading experience, because aside from the concrete text that is already present, it allows room for the reader to come up with their own interpretation. There is no question to what a text means if it is represented clearly and/or explicitly mentioned within itself. More often than not, the reader is able to take away from the text what they wish; a text can hold more than one truth. Every interpretation is inherently correct, because of the gaps that ambiguity spawn and allow to be filled.
Ambiguity allows literature to be more interesting and inclusive for all people. I believe art of all mediums, whether it be literature, music, painting, etc., can be deemed inclusive because of its ambiguous nature and can appeal to people of all backgrounds or beliefs. Take for instance, the infamous smile of Mona Lisa. Viewers tend to see her facial expression differently and debate whether she is smiling or frowning. For some, though, her expression changes back and forth from time to time. Those two expressions are obviously opposite and some say that what the viewer sees corresponds with their own emotions at the time. I think that that is what is so unique about all types of art. Some art may mean nothing to one viewer or reader, whereas for someone else, it can resonate deeply with them and impact how they feel. This power of ambiguity allows art to attract a wider audience and to be appreciated by many.
Ambiguity allows literature to be more interesting and inclusive for all people. I believe art of all mediums, whether it be literature, music, painting, etc., can be deemed inclusive because of its ambiguous nature and can appeal to people of all backgrounds or beliefs. Take for instance, the infamous smile of Mona Lisa. Viewers tend to see her facial expression differently and debate whether she is smiling or frowning. For some, though, her expression changes back and forth from time to time. Those two expressions are obviously opposite and some say that what the viewer sees corresponds with their own emotions at the time. I think that that is what is so unique about all types of art. Some art may mean nothing to one viewer or reader, whereas for someone else, it can resonate deeply with them and impact how they feel. This power of ambiguity allows art to attract a wider audience and to be appreciated by many.
Blog Response to Prompt #4
4. Foster talks about the relationship between the reader and the writer suggesting that, “reading is an event of the imagination…a reader’s imagination is the act of one creative intelligence engaging another (the writer’s). How does this occur? What does this suggest about the nature and process of reading and writing?
Anytime a reader engages in a new piece of literature, a relationship is established. From the moment the book is opened, the reader and the writer have made a new connection. The writer’s creative intelligence works with that of the reader in order to create a beautiful novel. In a sense, it is like an artist creating a new masterpiece. Elaborating on this comparison, imagine that thirty people were handed Foster’s book and the same blank canvas. They were told to read the text, then create a portrait based on what they read. When the thirty readers finish their paintings, the end result is most likely going to be thirty completely different portraits from the individual readers. This is because each person who read “How to Read Literature Like a Professor” established their own relationship with Foster. In doing this, each relationship resulted in a different, unique interpretation of the book/painting, despite being given the same materials to start with. So, what Foster is suggesting is reading itself is an art, and art is interpretive. Although every reader is given the same base creativity from the writer, they establish a personal connection through their own creative intelligence and make the book their own.
The film and theatre industries both demonstrate the concept that the connection between the reader and writer is unique and up for interpretation. The actors, for instance, interpret the work of writers for a living. They are given their script, and it is their job to make a connection with the writer’s work. They must combine the creativity of the writer with their own artistry as the reader, and somehow interpret what it is their character is supposed to be like and how the scene should be performed. As an actor in shows on occasion, I too, have had to make that creative connection with what I am reading and interpret the writer’s creative vision with my own. The actors’ combined interpretations, along with interpretations of directors and anyone else involved with a performance or an upcoming film, show the unique connection that is made is subjective based on the creative intelligence of the reader.
Anytime a reader engages in a new piece of literature, a relationship is established. From the moment the book is opened, the reader and the writer have made a new connection. The writer’s creative intelligence works with that of the reader in order to create a beautiful novel. In a sense, it is like an artist creating a new masterpiece. Elaborating on this comparison, imagine that thirty people were handed Foster’s book and the same blank canvas. They were told to read the text, then create a portrait based on what they read. When the thirty readers finish their paintings, the end result is most likely going to be thirty completely different portraits from the individual readers. This is because each person who read “How to Read Literature Like a Professor” established their own relationship with Foster. In doing this, each relationship resulted in a different, unique interpretation of the book/painting, despite being given the same materials to start with. So, what Foster is suggesting is reading itself is an art, and art is interpretive. Although every reader is given the same base creativity from the writer, they establish a personal connection through their own creative intelligence and make the book their own.
The film and theatre industries both demonstrate the concept that the connection between the reader and writer is unique and up for interpretation. The actors, for instance, interpret the work of writers for a living. They are given their script, and it is their job to make a connection with the writer’s work. They must combine the creativity of the writer with their own artistry as the reader, and somehow interpret what it is their character is supposed to be like and how the scene should be performed. As an actor in shows on occasion, I too, have had to make that creative connection with what I am reading and interpret the writer’s creative vision with my own. The actors’ combined interpretations, along with interpretations of directors and anyone else involved with a performance or an upcoming film, show the unique connection that is made is subjective based on the creative intelligence of the reader.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Blog Response to Prompt #2
2. King Solomon wrote, "There is nothing new under the sun." Foster applies this precept saying that all "writing and telling belong to one big story." What does he mean by this? How does this idea add to understanding and the richness of the reading experience? How have you seen this principle in action in your own experience with art in general?
By saying that all “writing and telling belong to one big story,” Foster means that all writers borrow ideas from other texts to incorporate into their own work, even if--and often--unconsciously. Teachers have always said that in order to become a better writer, one must read more often and closely. By reading more and more pieces of writing, the writer learns all the different parts of different stories that combine to form the writer’s own ideas. Realizing other works where a certain idea can be found increases a reader’s appreciation for all the texts involved. Knowing that not everyone understands a certain similarity makes readers feel like their experience with the book is special and personal.
This summer, HART (Huntington Area Regional Theater) is showing “Shrek The Musical,” in which I am participating. The show has so many allusions to other pieces of art from a parody of the classic Disney song “It’s a Small World” and references to classic princess tales. At the end of one of Lord Farquaad’s songs, he sings the infamous last notes in “Defying Gravity” from the Broadway show “Wicked.” This reference to Idina Menzel’s lovable underdog character Elphaba adds humor to the song, but only if the audience members understand the reference. It shows the audience that Lord Farquaad, a tiny and villainous man thinks that he is as lovable and strong as Elphaba, even though Elphaba is the protagonist of “Wicked” and Lord Farquaad is the antagonist of his show. What also adds to the humor is the less than stellar delivery of the singing from Lord Farquaad. The borrowing from the “one big story” adds new layers to just the basic storyline of a work.
Blog Response to Prompt #2
2. King Solomon wrote, "There is nothing new under the sun." Foster applies this precept saying that all "writing and telling belong to one big story." What does he mean by this? How does this idea add to understanding and the richness of the reading experience? How have you seen this principle in action in your own experience with art in general?
In Chapter 4, "Now, Where Have I Seen Her Before?, considers that all stories belong to one big story. Foster means that as we read we notice ideas, words, scenarios, and many other fragments of a story that come from one original text. Foster states, "there's no such thing as a wholly original work of literature.", justifying that all work is borrowed from a larger text or story. Therefor adding to the richness of the reading experience, as you read and notice something that you've heard or read before, it expands your view of the plot and where the story is going to go.
In Chapter 5, "When in Doubt, It's from Shakespeare..." examines that every bit of literature has a piece of Shakespeare within it. Foster also provides a list of common sayings that we hear and read everywhere but are all from Shakespeare. Foster states, for example, "To be, or not to be, that is the question." Which has been stated in many quotes, books, short stories, and many other things. Demonstrating that everything comes from one big work.
In Chapter 6, "...Or the Bible.”, inspects all of the scenarios that are in the bible that are brought into modern literature. Whether it is bits and pieces or one whole setting or scenario, it can mostly all be in relation to the bible even if it doesn't have anything to do with religion itself. If you are a religious person, and there is a part of a book that talks about religion, it makes it more personal, as if they are talking to you. That is the art of borrowing from one big work, and knowing what it came from, is that it all makes it more intimate.
These three chapters shows that there is not one modern original story, it all comes from one big story. Therefor making the story more relatable. I have seen this principle while reading the Odyssey, and many of the scenarios are carried out into literature to this day. Whether it is a manipulated version or just fragments, I knew the original story that it came from, which added to the richness of reading.
Blog Response to Prompt #1
1. Foster says that “reading literature is a highly intellectual activity.” He discusses the “language of reading” and the “grammar of literature.” What does he mean by these things and why are they important for the kind of reading he is discussing in this book? How is this kind of reading different from purely “affective” reading? What is the true value of “reading like a professor” according to Foster? Be sure to use textual evidence to support your answer.
Reading literature is a highly intellectual activity because through the reading you can see all of the parallels, symbols, the effects of the setting, and the grammar that is used. Seeing these things opens up a new world to the book, a door that you may not have opened if you weren't reading deeply, or like a professor. The "language of reading" is referring to codes or a set of rules to analyze the text to make sense of the characters and the expansion of the plot. The "grammar of literature" are sets of symbols or parallels to help you understand the story as a whole. When it comes to affective reading, it is more of a rhetorical aspect rather than, let's say, the "language of reading".
The true value of "reading like a professor" is putting aside your belief system, as stated in Chapter 14. After doing so you can read analytically and understand the text in a different light. The title of Chapter 14 is, "Yes, She's a Christ Figure, Too", which shows to examine that if you had the Christ figure stuck in your mind as a man, it would inhibit the way you viewed the story, and possibly cause you to perceive the story wrongly.
In Chapter 12, "Is That a Symbol?", Foster states, "Reading literature is a highly intellectual activity, but it also involves affect and instinct to a large degree.", which I believe is part of the true value of "reading like a professor", through interpreting the text into the larger scheme is essential. The instincts that you follow while reading allow you to interpret the true complexity of the story.
Sunday, June 10, 2018
Blog Response to Prompt #7
7. Where or how does ambiguity come into play in a reader's experience? How might ambiguity
work within a piece of literature (or art of any kind?) How does it impact our understanding, and
appreciation of a text?
work within a piece of literature (or art of any kind?) How does it impact our understanding, and
appreciation of a text?
Ambiguity is so crucial to a reader’s understanding of a text. Since everyone has different experiences, their perceptions of the same text can be vastly different. When writers allow their work to be ambiguous, the reader’s imagination is called upon, which makes reading fun. I feel that ambiguity of a text increases readers’ appreciation for the text because they can relate it to their own experiences. They feel personally connected to the story, as if it is happening to them directly. The ambiguity of meaning can also create thoughtful discussions about the book that add layers to the story. Book club discussions would be pretty boring if everyone had the same understanding and interpretation of the book.
In Foster’s chapter “A Test Case,” he presents the short story “The Garden Party” by Katherine Mansfield and asks three different people for analyses of the same story, all of whom provide different answers. Although the basic theme of the rich versus the poor remains the same, the responses vary in content and depth because of the ambiguity of the text. The second response focuses in part on the internal struggle of Laura, the narrator, to continue her garden party in ignorance or to pay respect to the family of the late man. The third response focuses on Laura’s growth as a member of the wealthy society, and the writer views Laura’s exit from the lower-class village as a return to the snobbish society from which she came. Foster himself makes a connection to the Greek myth of Persephone and Demeter. As a fresh and inexperienced analyzer of literature, I mostly saw just the basic plot of the story. Unlike the third response, I saw Laura’s return as a sign that she had a better appreciation for the life of the lower class, not that she had adopted the snobbish attitude of her mother, though that could be a result of my inexperience. The differences in interpretation show the beauty of ambiguity in a text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)