11/29/07
Inquiry
Upon research for an aspect of my paper, I became curious as to what other people would say about the properties of a text. For a text to exist, it must have certain/specific properties. What would you deem the properties or characteristics of a text that make it a text? (And I mean this in the simplest form--text, not Text v text) Would it just be the common elements of literature, such as plot, setting, themes, etc? Or is there something else that makes a text a text? The only reason I have not offered my answer is that I am still not quite sure, although I do think that some of the elements of literature play a part in characterizing a piece of writing as a text.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think this goes back to one of our class discussions about text vs. Text vs. work. And in answer to your question Jackie, wouldn't a text, in its simplest form, merely be the words on the page? In order to make it something more than that, it requires a reader to comprehend or interpret its plot, setting, themes (if there are any). So, I guess for a text to exist in the sense that you mean, all it requires is for someone to read it. Maybe I'm thinking too simplistically...
i see what you mean, emily, but if a text is just words on the page, would a recipe be a text? a lesson plan? a to-do list? i know this seems to be going back to fish, and i'm not sure i want it to, but i don't think that those things would be texts, at least as read by most people. emily says that a text requires a reader to comprehend or interpret it. is a recipe a text if its reader interprets it to mean something deeper than "how to make a cake"? but the recipe isn't REQUIRING the reader to do that, the reader just is. is it a text if the reader interprets it or if the words on the page require an interpretation?
i know this really didn't get anywhere, but it's just the questions that came to my mind...
I see what you all mean about what exactly makes up a text, but what all of the comments seem to boil down to is that "text" is a subjective term. I don't think you can list elements of literature and say that they make it a text. Lots of poems don't have a plot or an explicit setting, but poems are definately texts.
Then, if we say a recipe is a text if someone interprets it, does that mean that a children's story is not a text if the child does not see the deeper message? That story is, I think, just as much a text to a child as it would be to an adult who can see the layers and interpretations of the story. Sorry I didn't come to any conclusions either.
I agree with Sylvi's idea that literature is not just limited to something that contains plot, settings, and themes, because a poem is definitely literature in my eyes. So I guess I'm not very sure what the criteria is to make something a text either. I guess it can go back to class today, where we broke up into groups and decided based on our own personal views what makes a novel good literature.
This is why I think that we can attempt to create a list of properties or characteristics that make text a text, but its always going to be subjective. There is no universal rulebook out there that will tell us what makes a text a text, and what makes literature good. Which is why I think we're leaving all of our posts without a real conclusion.
I understand what everyone is getting at. Yes, we cannot just say a text is a piece of writing that contains plot, themes, characters, etc and have it apply to all forms of literature. It is hard to define text, I know, but I think what I am wondering is: what is your subjective take on a text? What do you attributes do you give to text to recognize it as one? I think we can all agree that a recipe would not be a text...since Fish's "poem" was not our favorite. Obviously, as Emily says a text is "words on a page," but what else would you like to attribute to a text?
Here is my somewhat pathetic stab at it: I believe that a text has the following two properties, at least. I think that text definitely has meaning of some sort, no matter what form the text is in. Also, there is a structure to it that makes it a text or literature. Of course, these are not specifics because, honestly, I cannot find the correct words right now, but I hope you get my point. So, again, what properties do you, in your subjective opinion, attribute to a text?
Several of the comments have danced around Fish and the ideas of subjectivity and objectivity. My paper deals a lot with Fish and what a text provides, so I'm going to somewhat summarize the conclusion I've come to. I think that Fish is right to an extent, you have to admit that larger institutions influence the way we think and interpret. In the case of a text, I think that what we see as hallmarks of a text (if we could agree on them...) are based on what we've been taught to see. However, because writers are also influenced by the groups, I think it becomes a giant example of what came first, the chicken or the egg? If we concede the idea that we are all influenced by larger forces and that many of their views are generally held in common, then whatever we define a text as is objectively there and guides our interpretation. So our definition of a text might be as basic as the elements we expect to find in it like plot and imagery, and include our expectation of a larger meaning . The point is that because we learn to use specific interpretive strategies that look for specific elements in a text, we are influenced by them and they become part of the given elements of a text that are used to gain meaning.
I think that, regardless of which group it is who is influencing the meaning of “text,” we should still attempt to find a definition. The general opinion of this blog seems to be that definitions cannot be found that are not subjective. However, I like that Jackie made a brave stab at two criteria for text, but we run into the same problem that was discussed much earlier in this blog in an entry titled "Terms and Meaning." The problem with Jackie's criteria (sorry Jackie!) is that of defining the terms "meaning of some sort" and "structure." A person could still argue that a recipe card could possess both of these attributes.
I got curious and decided to find out what a dictionary had to say about the definition of "text." Dictionary.com defined it as "the original words of an author or speaker, as opposed to a translation, paraphrase, commentary" or "the actual wording of anything written or printed" and, finally, "anything considered to be a subject for analysis by or as if by methods of literary criticism." I personally like the last of these definitions although it does assume that text, as several of us discussed, a social construct. Actually, I believe that all definitions of words are in some way a social construct. Therefore, a recipe would in all likely-hood, not be considered as a subject for analysis by the methods of literary criticism and therefore not be a text. With this definition, however, we must concede that, yes, if we were going to analyze a recipe as a literary critic would, then it might become a text. However, whether it could be considered a subject for literary analysis is debatable.
~ Kristen
Kristen makes an excellent point. I think that meaning and structure do pose the same problems as defining text themselves. They most definitely can be just subjective as 'text.' I think it is difficult to ever come to one definition of text, meaning, structure, etc. that everyone would agree with. I appreciate Kristen's looking up the definitions and giving a little bit more perspective on this subject--even if we run into the issue of social constructs.
Overall, I think that we all have the ability to include things like recipes into what we deem to be texts. We can all define the word text so that it fits what we want to say is a text. For instance, in Fish's "How to Recognize a Poem When You See One" we saw how he defined a list of names for a homework assignment as a text. Not that any of that really solves anything, but it is, I guess, the truth.
Even a recipe requires interpretation of signs to a certain extent- although not at the same level as a text.
Can we really say that either one "requires" interpretation though? They certainly both provide the opportunity for interpretation, but maybe texts provide the opportunity for that interpretation to apply to a broader spectrum of humanity.
I agree with Sylvi about the subjectivity of our definition of "text." It seems to make an objective list of properties improbable.
Kristen brings up an interesting point that if we take text to mean "anything considered to be a subject for analysis by or as if by methods of literary criticism" to be a text then we are saying that texts are social constructs. I guess the question then becomes what are the rules/ properties, if any, of social construction?
Post a Comment