Although I do agree with what was said about Sontag's conclusion being direct, I still had difficulty grasping its idea. I do not agree that the conclusion drawn was "obvious", as Taryn commented on previously. As was mentioned during class, this was an extremely challenging article to read, and I agree. My prior knowledge of pornography as literature is extremely limited. Rather than facilitating my understanding, the examples used confused me, even though CMcLeod stated in her earlier post that they were mainly close reading of relevant works. To any one who had a deeper grasp of the subject matter, this may have made perfect sense. Even though, typically, examples are used to support one's position, many of these examples seemed to be circumlocutory, and deviated from the point. It is evident that this article was directed toward those with an advanced understanding of the subject matter and needed reinforcement as to whether pornography constituted literature. Once I reread the article minus the examples, Sontag's conclusion seemed to be clearer and direct as it was meant to be. I believe her article could have been more effective if it were more succinct and concise.
0 comments:
Post a Comment