Superman that Lit. Class

So, what should literature classes read? I found our discussion over whether or not Superman comics could be incorporated into a college level class particularly interesting, especially since people seemed so divided on the issue. I for one think it is definitely possible to include Superman in a college curriculum and still have an intellectual element within the course. For instance, we examine works such as fairy tales and children's literature in classes and find intellectual value within those works, so what makes a work like Superman any different? Perhaps, yes, it is a bit more modern, however, I think that works that our society produces today has value, especially when students are asked to compare them to more classical literature. Questions could be raised in a class that examines Superman and the Odyssey together. For instance, what elements does one have that the other doesn't? Why or why not will Superman stand the test of time, like the Odyssey? Students can then also examine the change in values and ways of thinking in the different time periods as well. I think it is important to ask our students to ask themselves why what they read in class is important...then they aren't just being told to read something but can consider its possible value and form an opinion on their own.

Another idea

MARY KATE POSTS:
Is it possible for an author to be wrong about their own work? On the surface, I don't think so, especially when it comes to a direct explanation of their text (or even summary). However, I think that an author can be incomplete when interpreting their work. For instance, perhaps they are aware of their intention, however, what if a subconscious purpose or intention exists within an author? I think someone like Freud would argue yes, but it is impossible to prove. I do think that readers can add or expand to an author's interpretation of their works. Because once an author puts a work "out there," it is open to interpretation and scrutiny. An author's intention makes up only part of literature, but without the reader's spin or view on it, does literature even exist?

Legit Interpretations

We also discussed in class "What makes an interpretation legit?" In that class, many students mentioned certain interpretations that would be considered not valid (Example: "Darling buds of May" referring to BudLite, or The Dead referring to telephones) So if an interpretation can be considered invalid, then what makes an interpretation VALID? In my opinion, I think that textual evidence that links the interpretation to the text and functions with the text in one possibility. Another would be an interpretation that is linked to the social context of the time (which would exclude the BudLite theory). I think that an interpretation also should be a functioning interpretation (unlike, say, Fish's) in the fact that all elements of the interpretation fit together and work with one another. In other words, no explanation is left unexplained. I also think an interpretation is legit when it involves the reader and leaves room for debate and questioning (or even further possibilities for interpretations). Can anyone add to my list?

Determining Intention

MARY KATE POSTS:

At one point, Professor Chapman wrote on the board the following sentence: Determining an author's intention is (fill in the blank) important/necessary/useful part of literary interpretations. In my own mind, I like to think that there could have been an all of the above option. Authorial intention is necessary to consider in the way that it is important and useful to consider. However, we can never truly know what an author 's intention is, right? But in my opinion, there is a purpose behind all works and an informed reader can make a best guess as to what that purpose is. But is that all a reader can do? No, of course not. So maybe we can delete all three options. Would is make sense to say that "Determining an author's intention is a part of literary interpretation." Just that, only a piece of the puzzle or only one way to look at a work.

Examining the Past - Is it possible?

When we examine literature, we often try to look back on the time period that it addresses in order to make sense of the work and place it within a social structure. As readers, we try to consolidate and make sense of what happened in the past in order to understand what we read. However, this (to me) sounds over simplified. We can attempt to analyze the past all we want and try to make sense out of how our society has evolved, however, the past is such a complicated, intricate element that I don't know if it can ever be completely consolidated for the analyzing purposes. Things get filtered throughout time, and forgotten, and overlooked, that we can only hope to understand a fraction of past societies. Even as members of current society, we cannot claim that we fully understand the time and society in which we live! Therefore, we can only make our best guess, especially when history is linked to literature.

Plato vs. Freud

THIS IS MARY KATE POSTING A NEW COMMENT (I am currently logged on under a different email account).

In class, we pinned Freud against Plato and discussed whether or not emotion should be incorporated into literature. On one hand, Freud argued that authors should indulge in emotion. Plato, on the other hand, argues that they should ignore emotion and be rational in literature in order to explain "truth." While I agree that one purpose of literature should be to generate some sort of truth about the world, I cannot imagine what literature that is void of emotion would even look like. Is this even possible? Instead, what about using logic and reason to channel out emotions to create something constructive that leads to truth? Analyzing our own emotions could possible help us to understand truths about the world. This should not be avoided in my opinion.

Smith

Last day to blog! woo

I realized, when looking over the blogs, that no one had really talked about Smith #2 as of yet, and that article, though long, was one of my favorites (though not at first). When I first started to read Smith I saw words like 'economics' and 'cost-benefit' and 'accounting' which brought me back to horrible memories of accounting I freshman year and made me cringe in horror that she would dare compare literature (my love) to accounting (hate). However, as I continued to read the article, I realized for one, that it was more about economics and sociology than accounting and that it actually made a lot of sense. Books do seem to change value over time and even if they are 'timeless' their meaning and importance changes to an extent. I immediately thought of Shakespeare. When I saw Titus Andronicus performed at the Globe, complete with Lavinia dripping cups of blood from her mouth as it stained down her white dress, I saw a type of Shakespeare that was completely different from that which I had learned in school. Titus was entertaining. It was loud and in your face and the crowd wildly cheered or gasped in horror together, we were so enraptured by this 'drama' that was more of a Shakespearean slasher. True, in Shakespeare's days, they might not have used as much fake blood, (though I'm not really sure of that) but watching that play in the Globe as it might have been performed in the 1500s showed me a different side to Shakespeare. His plays have really changed from what they once were, entertaining shows that even peasants could watch for a penny, to required curriculum in schools. Don't like Shakespeare? Read the spark notes, right? But Shakespeare wasn't originally meant to be read in a classroom so students could suffer through understanding the difficult language, it was meant to be seen and enjoyed. This isn't to say Shakespeare didn't possess that deeper meaning (though I wouldn't cite Titus as the best example for deep interpretation) but how we read Shakespeare, how he is important, and why he is valued has changed. I think that's why I liked Smith's 'contingency of value' idea so much. It ensured that literature was never static.