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?

Ambiguity comes into play when the reader evaluates the text and comes to a plausible meaning of the open text. The readers can have varying interpretations of the meaning of the text, and because of this they can openly share. All interpretations will vary and none will be correct or incorrect since it is not explicitly stated. It triggers that crucial part of the brain that helps you think and comprehend others meaning with open minds. Ambiguity is a clever way for the writer to let the reader bend the story to their will and interpret the vague symbolism. I have found I better appreciate and admire a book that is full of Ambiguous meanings, it shows that the writer values the attention of the reader. Having a reader boggle their mind about a simple cut off ending or scenic descriptions means that there are invested and good readers, and it even helps them understand more about why the author might have placed open ended text.

Art is a source that relies on ambiguity. Most of the time, we as observes do not know the meaning behind certain paintings, and therefore are left to interpret as our own and critically analyse every little detail that the canvas has painted on it. The artist themselves know the meaning or inspiration behind the artwork, but left it ambiguous to possibly be meaningful for the onlookers themselves. A notable painting is ‘the scream’, created by the famous Norwegian artist Edvard Munch. This image is ambiguous itself, with no set meaning behind it, others analyze and try to understand the author's meaning of this painting. Some believe it shows anguish, while others interpret completely different emotions from this painting. A book that many are familiar with ‘the Aeneid, is often open ended. Virgil is descriptive with his writings, but often readers were confused with his usage of symbolism. During discussions of this book, many would  interpret completely different meanings with Virgil's work, I believe this shows that Virgil was possibly striving for this, since many know the story of Aeneas, he wanted to leave open ends so that the audience could interpret their own take on the story in his work.

(the post kept messing up each time I would submit, and now the text is appearing to be middle centered. if anyone knows how to fix this please comment. Thank you!)

#1-- in response to Question #3

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?” →

Intertextuality can be either serendipitous or intentional; its significance is determined by how the author is incorporating the reference and its value is set by the awareness of the reader within the author’s purpose of including the textual reference. Intertextuality can be intentional to display ethos appeals for the author, show that they are included in the current literary circle or to create a stance on another statement. For example, Thomas Paine referenced other biblical and political works in his revolutionary and controversial work, Common Sense, to create his stance on American independence from the reign of Great Britain during the Revolutionary Era. On the other hand, there is the potential for intertextuality to be serendipitous as explained in chapters five and six in which the author may unconsciously, or unintentionally, connect familiar works. Throughout all levels of schooling, teachers have preached ad nauseam that the only way to improve one’s writing ability is by exposure to more literature and this circumstance definitely is at play in the argument for intertextual serendipity.

This connectivity, whether intentional or serendipitous, allows for the development and comprehension of literary archetypes, which provides the syllabus and assignments for courses such as Advanced Placement Literature. From this understanding, we, as the audience, grow to understand the historical and contextual points of the piece that add a sense of reward and satisfaction. The mythic level of intertextuality is reached when the reader draws the same connection as the author, which is described Foster as “a reader’s imagination is the act of one creative intelligence engaging another (the writer’s).”

Blog Response to Prompt #5

5.    After studying Foster, what ideas about the process, the experience, and the purposes of reading seem significant?  What are the philosophical underpinnings of his book about books?  What does it mean to be literate?  What does it mean to read?  How does this relate to “being human?”  What will you carry with you from this book?

The lessons which can be obtained from Fosters renowned book, “How to Read Literature Like a Professor,” are many in number and high in value. Out of the many teachings put forth by the author, the importance of being able to completely understand both ambiguity and intertextuality seem to be stressed to the max, and for good reason. The significance of these two processes collide with one another to form the essential and fortified “backbone” of, in one way or another, every literary work that has been or will ever be written. However, these lessons could not have been conveyed in the ways they were if Foster did not have an underlying sense of philosophy within his writing. This is but only one reason that explains why this book and the respective author are studied by numerous people who wish to learn more about the seemingly “simple” act of reading literature.

When certain questions arise pertaining to the art of literature, a visor of ambiguity must be put on to fully comprehend the complex answers. For example, if asked what it means to be literate and what it means to read, a specific way of thinking must be conjured up to properly respond. Being able to interpret these two questions is perhaps the most base-line way to determine whether or not an individual understands the construct of literature. Being literate and being well versed in reading are two ends to a broad spectrum with a lot of distance in the middle. Having the ability to read in general is a gift unto itself, but it is the knowledge and information either attained from or added to a text that determines the true calling of the reader. This drive and hunger to learn more and to earnestly expand ones boundaries of thinking is an innate and natural desire found within every individual. The only question is: will they choose to act on it?

Blog Response to Prompt #3

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?"

Intertextuality is the basis of analysis for literature. As fundamental here as functional harmony is to analyzing music, as the five flavors are to describing food, and as fundamental as color palettes and artistic styles are to describing paintings. This pretense for understanding is what allows different interpretations and frankly classes like AP Literature to exist. Without a broad interplay between texts, these different understandings don't exist. The intertextual relationship is what allows symbols to exist in the way they do now, as a consistent landmark in texts. It informs readers in that way as well. This vocabulary of symbols is what allows readers to make simple interpretations. Through the inversion and subversion and ironic use of symbols a more meta-understanding can take place. The author intentionally uses a symbol the opposite way to evoke a more visceral reaction.

Intertextuality is fundamental to the understanding of literary and artistic archetypes. This broad relationship is what provides the framework of understanding that allows for archetypal readings of symbols. Rain means x because it meant x so many other times in other works. This intertextual relationship also exists to be thwarted, as previously discussed. Snow normally means x but here it means y, just the opposite of x. This sense of surprise or subversion gives literature and other archetypal mediums their staying power. Cliches form and are then broken with ironies which then become clichés which leaves literature about where it is now.

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?

It has been said many times by many different people (and perhaps that is illustrative of the truth of the quote) that there is only one story. Wise King Solomon said it, the author of How to Read Literature Like a Professor, Thomas C. Foster, said it, and countless other philosophers and academics have come to the same conclusion. Many a creative individual have become disillusioned at the concept that there are no more original ideas; humanity has simply been too productive and too creative to allow for new concepts. Even millennia ago, in the time of the wise king, this idea seemed to be true.

He could also mean it the way Carl Jung and many others interpret it: that everything, every character, idea, or setting, is an example of some greater archetype. While Jung applied this to all things, most simply apply it into works of art. As the website, tvtropes.org, shows, almost everything contains some classical archetype either ironically or played straight. It is only through inversions in irony or other minor tweaks that this one "big story" can be subdivided into the small texts we all read and discuss.

It is evident upon looking at the website and even upon reading How to Read Literature Like a Professor that this intertextual relationship is as important to modern literature as functional harmony is to modern music. Without these ideas floating around in the zeitgeist, there is no room for a shared understanding of works or even a similar understanding of individual characters.

Blog Response to Prompt #3

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.

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.