RE RE Reading Blindly

I agree with the idea that there are pros and cons of blind reading. On the one hand, blind reading allows you to interpret the work in any way you want, but on the other hand having prior knowledge of the work allows you to understand where the author is coming from and possibly understand more of the intended impact.



But..I don't think that it has to be one or the other. I think as a good reader I should be able to look at a work, having prior knowledge of the background of the author or context of the piece or not, and draw my own conclusions from it. How boring would it be if all you had available to you was the face value of a piece? I think that one of the most wonderful things about art is that it speaks differently to everyone. So.. I don't think that knowing the background of a piece limits you from making it your own, drawing your own conclusions from it, or manipulating it to apply to a topic or tone of your interpretation.



This may be more difficult for some people, but I think that the value of a piece, more often that not, comes from how it speaks to the individual. I think of this idea as representational art. Taking the presentational form the author gives you, and making it your own.

Re: Reading Blindly

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.

Reading Blindly

I think it is important to read something blindly before you go to check it out and see who really wrote it, whats it all about, etc. By reading blindly I mean go into the reading with no previous ideas, no opinions about it, nothing. Just read it and see pictures or messasges you take from it.

This was especially important in the "the boys i mean" poem. If I had looked it up before reading it and saw that it was by E.E. Cummings about war, I never would have had the thoughts I had about it (I had initially thought it was by a bitter girl who had a very jaded view of boys and sex).

Reading blindly allows one to draw their own conclusions and insights into the work, without taking the easy way out and checking what it is really about or what other people had thought about it.

Literature?

I think that Eagleton is right in saying that it is not a good idea to define literature by "what is good". Not only do people have different opinions in what is good writing, as he pointed out, but this could also mean that different, unique styles that come along might be written off as being non-literary just because they don't fit the mold. This would be a tragedy because then people wanting to excel in literature would probably just go the safe route and write conventionally, not wanting to branch out.

On a separate note, I know it is hard to define literature, but I wish Eagleton had put a little more effort into defending the definitions of literature that people had proposed rather than stating them and then immediately explaining why they would not work. I think it would have been interesting to see his way of building up evidence FOR the various possible definitions of literature as well as exploring his arguments against them.

The boys I mean are not refined

After learning that "The boys I mean are not refined" was written by E.E. Cummings, a man, I have had a whole new interpretation to this poem. At first, when I assumed the speaker/author was a female, the poem, to me, had a tone of bitterness or maybe even envy. It seemed to me that the poem was about the destructive, abusive nature of the young male. They have no inhibitions and with that, so much power in the world; they even "shake the world when they dance." Now that I know a male, war veteran wrote this poem, everything changed for me. I no longer get the tone of bitterness but one of disgust. Though the poem still sends the message of the vulgar, destructive nature of the young male, it also has a subtle commentary of war. These "boys" who are already so dangerous, brash and stupid, who "kill like you take a piss," are perfect for war. They are your soldiers, who are accustomed to the controversial scandal of war.

Eagleton agrees that Literature can not be given a meaning.

From Literary Theory pg. 9, Terry Eagleton states:

    " Anything can be literature... Any belief that the study of literature is the study of a stable, well-defined entity, as entomology is the study of insects, can be abandoned as chimera."

This paragraph caught my attention immediately, simply because prior to reading the selection, I personally regarded literature as consisting of a set standard that required enhanced vocabulary and technique. In addition, my high school English Literature teacher taught me that literature absolutely required literary devices and was created to consist of higher value and meaning. 

Thankfully, Eagleton opposes that by saying, "Anything can be literature, and anything which is regarded as unalterable and unquestionably literature." I agree with Eagleton, because I believe that the literature is undefinable and is comparable to art. Isn't it like saying a young child's poem has as much potential as Shakespeare's poems, just as Jackson Pollock's contemporary abstract art is to Michelangelo's Renaissance masterpieces? Of course, we can't allow ourselves become so too liniant as to losing the value of the word "literature", but still, this scenario undeniably makes sense to me. No one has ever told an artist that only certain formations will validate his/her work's artistic value, so why do that to writers?

Thinking about "the boys i mean"

I wonder, said Slothrop to himself, how this poem would change if instead of the refrain being "the boys i mean" cummings wrote, merely, "boys"? And how do we make sense of the poem being concerned about being "refined" while using monosyllabic, crass and vulgar language? What's the effect of that ironic double standard?

Growth of English is directly related to downfall of religion

From Literary Theory pg. 20, Terry Eagleton writes

"If one were asked to provide a single explanation for the growth of English studies in the later nineteenth century, one could do no worse than reply: 'the failure of religion'."

This whole paragraph caught my attention the first time I read it because it is interesting to consider the replacing of the church, which was the cornerstone for human virtue, with Literature. He goes on to say that religion was a 'cement' for society, that it tied together groups of people while also serving as a passifying force, and that the failure of religion was regarded by the ruling class as a terrible thing.

So is Eagleton saying that the study of English, and Literature is able to replace some of the values or ideology that an individual would not have minus the church? This definitely supports the argument that Literature has a way of reaching an individual in the deepest parts of their minds, in a different way that unites people to almost a common human cause. It is not going to be a very strong argument to say that knowing Literature will make you a better person, but the benefits spread out over a society could have an improving effect.

Literature..

So basically...I've been thinking about how any word, or theme, or story can take on a different meaning depending on the cultural context in which it is used. I think this is really interesting because it has given me a new perspective on the discussion we had the first day in class. I kept on trying to think about what stories or works I considered literature, and a major part of that for me was identifying important themes and lessons. We talked a bit about the motivation of a work and if the work has value to the people who are reading it. Well, given that now I am considering that the value of a work can change vastly depending on who is reading it, I think that the whole concept of "what is literature" in regard to my initial response of "what are the important themes in works that I consider literature" has to be viewed in a different way.

Take a look at this story about a woman who thinks that the themes of Shakespeare's Hamlet are universal.

http://www.cc.gatech.edu/home/idris/Essays/Shakes_in_Bush.htm