I somewhat disagree with the idea that it's better to read a work without knowing the author first, and then going back and seeing who wrote it. Yes, it is true that sometimes you can get a different interpretation of a work this way; you probably wouldn't get the soldier aspect of the e. e. cummings poem without knowing something about who e. e. cummings was and what his life was like but you might get a totally different interpretation of the work that you might consider to be equally valid.
However, I don't think you can apply this rule to every work of literature. For instance, if reading The Waste Land without knowing that Eliot was very interested in The Golden Bough and all the Fisher King ideas, sure, you might think that the poem was very pretty and you might catch some of the allusions to Dante's Inferno and whatnot, but overall, you probably wouldn't get much out of the poem, as it depends very heavily on outside ideas.
Also, as a reader, I can say that I did not get a lot out of the e. e. cummings poem until I knew the author; I like knowing something about the author and his personality as it helps me interpret the works. I don't think you can say in general that it's better to "read blindly"; it might work well for you personally, but not for everyone.
0 comments:
Post a Comment