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?

After reading How To Read Literature Like A Professor, by Thomas C. Foster, ambiguity seems the most significant. This enriches the reading experience because it strengthens the understanding between the reader and the story. If the purpose of reading literature is to fully comprehend every detail within the story, then ambiguity is required. As Foster says in Chapter 12 Is That A Symbol? "Every readers experience of every work is unique." That is largely because most stories are ambiguous and contain more than one meaning, allowing each reader to follow the story as they believe, but also follow along the path the writer has made.

 Which leads to the question, What is the difference in being literate and reading? To be literate, is the ability to use the text to comprehend all the parts and place them together. The ability to read is great, but simply reading does not necessarily mean that the parts are coming together. Consider a puzzle, being literate is taking every piece, of information, and forming the big, put together picture. Reading is taking incomplete pieces and trying to make one whole picture. Foster's philosophy puts the focus on the pieces that are required to start understanding how everything connects. Meaning Foster, like other author do, uses ambiguity to guide the reader but also give free rein to what the reader takes from the story. This book showed me that taking multiple steps to get ahead and understand is not wrong, it is simply the way that my brain functions.

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?

When reading Through "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" I imagined Foster being comedic in many of his statements. While to me personally, he seemed to express blunt humor through his work, others who read this book might suggest otherwise. Everyone imagines a differing type of approach Foster might have in his own work, this shows that every imagination or creative intelligence differs from others since they all engage the writers work differently and how they might progress the text. Therefore, this example shows that the reader is actively trying to decipher what the author has left for them, but during this progress the readers imagination morphs and shapes the readers meaning into their own interpretation. This is a creative liberty on ones work, the reader cannot always pinpoint how the writers creative intelligence works, so with compromising and still obtaining the overall meaning they gained from themselves and the authors work. 

One must be open minded when reading  They must be creatively smart to understand and place the information they are given into their own words and interpret the writers work into their own. The nature of reading and writing is all about progressing what you are given and interpreting it as your own. It is a creative space that allows the reader to express how they think and their values depending on the piece.  

#2--in response to Question #6

6.    Foster talks about the “symbolic level.”  How does this inform the kind of reading professors (and AP Lit. students) do?  How does one work to read in this manner? What does it require of us as readers? →

For most things, there is a certain order or hierarchy to the process. Take for instance, the hierarchy of needs presented by world-renowned American philosopher Abraham Maslow; one must first meet basic needs, such as obtaining water, nutrition, and shelter, in order to pursue psychological or self-fulfillment needs. This relates to the reading process of professors and Advanced Placement students alike because there is first an establishment of phonics and letters, which form into words to create sentences, and so forth; Foster’s “symbolic level” would be considered the top of the hierarchical pyramid.

The challenge for AP Literature students is to match the years of experience of a college professor, or someone who has spent years consciously examining literature. In the Postlude, titled Who’s in Charge?, Foster focuses on establishing conviction in readers to identify patterns of archetypes symbols by implementing certain techniques. This formulaic system of “specific interpretive activities” includes expanding knowledge to increase the possibility for recognition of intertextuality and therefore, symbols. This in depth reading demands focus, annotation, and knowledge of related texts. For the slightly above average students of AP Literature, we must work harder to uncover the secrets of text because we are not as familiar with the grammar of symbolism. I relate this to my internship with a local radiologist. For those who are unfamiliar with the field, radiology uses x-ray and radiation to diagnose disease and as you may imagine, misreading the results could be devastating. The trained eye of my mentor was able to quickly flip through despite the impending consequences and this is the same for the reader; we must deliberately think about the patterns to come to a conclusion for literary works.

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.