There is no point in looking for hidden meanings in everything you read. If a meaning is important, it shouldn’t be hidden. And besides, once you’ve determined what you believe a text might mean, how would you possibly know if the meanings are really there or not? And even if you could confirm those meanings, why spend time talking about it? In short, what is the purpose of crafting an analysis of text? No one benefits from that. The author doesn’t need to know. And whether we analyze a text or not, the text doesn’t change. It’s still there, just like it was before it was analyzed. Whether or not I determine that text Y has a beautiful motif of red, no one’s life gets changed. In fact, the original gets ruined with all that talk talk talk about the text. So what's the point? -- internet blog on English classes
"Talking with friends about books harks back to the original impulse behind storytelling, the forging of human bonds. We have told ourselves stories not just in order to live, but in order to live with one another. Primary storytelling itself is insufficient for the forging of human bonds, for audiences need to talk about the stories they read and to compare their interpretations in order to be sure that they have read the same story. The more isolated from one another readers feel, the more they need such secondary conversations in order to establish a bond with other readers. " --paraphrased from Brian Hall's essay on book groups
"An unfortunate split runs through arts education, reflecting the romantic culture war between creators and critics, between the teaching of art itself and the teaching of art criticism. The assumption is that a great masterpiece is so powerful that it cannot help making an impact on any student who can be brought to read it carefully. If the experience of reading is to mature and be stretched beyond the place where it already is, it needs a critical vocabulary with which to express itself. It is therefore misleading to oppose the firsthand rexperience of reading to secondhand critical analysis about our reading. How we talk about books shapes how we read the books themselves." -- Gerald Graff, "Clueless in Academe"
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." -- attributed to Sigmund Freu
Respond to these thoughts and to one another. Please use your "joining the conversation" template.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
Egder Dominguez
Sigmund Freud has suggested that objects in literature aren't always carefully selected to be used as a symbol. I have to agree with him that directors in movies and the authors of books aren't always searching for the perfect object to create symbolism. An example can be that of the spear in "The Lord of the Flies". While others may contend that the spear represents some sort of brutality in humans, William Golding may not have intended so. It is just a weapon that was able to be crafted on the island. If there had been a gun available, the hunters would have instead used the gun.
Justyna Ciezobka
The author of the first idea on fiction and analysis has suggested that literary analysis is useless. According to him, it doesn't matter if you analyze what you've just read because it doesn't change the text in any way. Although I should know better by now, I cannot help thinking that this person has some point in what he's saying. For example when I read a book titled "The Rose of Fort Henry" I didn't necessarily focus on the meaning of the book. I just read it like any other book; as long as I knew what was going on in the book I was ok. I didn't need to have a whole conversation about it with someone else and focus on it's meaning, word choices, etc. It would've been too much if I would want to go over such a process for every book I read...
Ashley Hart
I disaggree with the rant on English classes because there is often a deeper meaning to why authors write the things they do. When the author of the English rant says, "If the meaning is important, it shouldn't be hidden" they are saying that if the meaning is as important as it is made out to be then it should be in plain sight. By disguising the message within the text the readers are able to interpret the the meaning in their own way. No one has the exact same view on everything so disguising the meaning gives the reader a chance to pull out what message they want. For example, in the play, "A Raisen in the Sun" Walter takes Mamas money and invests it in a liquor store that eventually turns out to be a scam. Many readers would say that Walter was irresponsible and inconsiderate of anyones feeling but his own. On the other hand I could argue that Walter was trying to help his family benifit by investing in the liquor store. Once the store blossomed the family would have mass amounts of money but only time would tell. Each person who reads this play is going to interpret it in their own way. I disagree with Brian. By analyzing a subject or a piece of literature we are able to use our own minds to make infrences about the work. If we don't make any analyze at all or choose to analyze the way others do then we're just imitating as Plato would say, right?
Gerald Graff suggested that fiction is used to widen people's minds and and is made to "make an impact on any student who reads it carefully". Ultimately, this idea matters to anyone who feels that fiction is a good way to stretch a students imagination and shape their way of reading. For example, in the song "Careless Whispers", George Michael talks about a dance that refers to a relationship he had. If "a cigar is just a cigar" as Sigmund Freu said, this song would just be about a dance that ended briefly. In reality, George Michael is trying to symbolize the heartbreak and the ending of a relationship.
Gerald Graff from "Clueless in Academe" has suggested that "How we talk about books shapes how we read the books themselves." I agree. People have different interpretations of stories. What I think may be different from what you think. People must discuss the meanings of stories in order to understand the text as a whole. You might realize something from someone else's view point that you haven't realized from your own. For example, the book "The Alchemist" made me feel inspired in a way to find my purpose in life and follow through with it. Someone might disagree with me and say you don't know your purpose in life and if so, there will be obstacles that will distract you from going through it; that is way many people change their majors in college.
The standard way of analysing literature has it that you learn from what you read. In reading a book you can understand what the words mean but if you analyse it then you are able to understand its deeper meaning. Such as the book The catcher in the Rye the red hunting hat had a meaning that i didn't understand until i was able to further analyse it.
Oh. This is Desiree!!!
Sigmund Freud has suggested that somethings in life is what it is. I agree with Sigmund view that somethings in life are just what they area, because people tend to think to deepy about certain text or images they read or see.
In Ms. Levine 3rd period English class, we were ask our opinions about the effects of a Lexus are ad. The effects were either positive or negative. When the discussion was contiuning, my fellow peers started to argue that the over all effects of the ad was negative.
Jorge Andrade:
I disagree with the third blog about "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" because wth me especially, my dad can waste a whole box of cigarettes on a day. Those cigarettes represent to me the addication, dependabilty on it. It frustrats me how he has to go to the gas station, every day blowing his lunch money on the pack of them. It's something that everyone has, when something you see, hear, touch, etc..; it hits you likea reflex, which makes you want to think and remember that instant.
It's a part of being human how something like a cigar can impcat you so much.
I think the internet blog is mistaken on their view of english classes. They say, "if the meaning is important, it shouldn't be hidden. And besides, once you’ve determined what you believe a text might mean, how would you possibly know if the meanings are really there or not?" When a reader encounters a peice of literature that makes them connect to the words, they create their own assumption on the meaning. A person who reads little red riding hood can take on the assumption she is just a brat who ate the bread for her grandmother, strayed from the path, and spoke to a stranger. You percieve this by just looking at the words. By analyzing the text you some can say the real message is you shouldn't think of only your self and you should be more catious with who or where you are. Just because a person or place seems nice doesn't mean it's good.
Steven Gallardo,
Sigmund Freud has suggested that, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". Its like saying a story is just a story and its that plain and simple. From movies to music, today we have been debating and even fighting for movies to prove a specific point. People may interprete it into other claims but the story itself will never change and always stay the same. I think he is right because the truth is always changed by another person and in the end it doesn't matter because you can go back to it and it will still be its own story for you to interpret.
My whole life I have heard it said that "you should always see the deeper meaning behaind a thing", that you should try to break a thing apart an place it together the way you understand. What if a thing doesnt need to analyzed everytime? What if "somtimes a cigar is just a cigar"?(Freud)For example I read a story by Nora Roberts called "Waiting For Nick", this particular book needed no analysis, it needed no adressing on finding key points and direct language. All a piece of art needs somtimes is to be viewed and admired, not broken down and dare I say defaced by those who believe the "know exactly what the author intended".
The author of the green comment has suggested that there is no point in analyzing text because it is a waste of time and it is pointless. I think the author is mistaken because they overlook the point of the analyzing fiction in general. The point of analyzing fiction is to get your ideas about a subject into the public and to possibly persuade others to agree with you. For example, when I watched the movie Dreamgirls and discussed it with my friends at school they didn't really like the movie at first but when they listened to my ideas and reasons they completely changed their opinion and went to see it movie a second time. Since they changed their mind about the movie and went to see it again, they had a new understanding about movies and they gave the company more money.
Kerri Carnahan
I must say that I agree with the text in green, the internet blog on English Classes. "If a meaning is important, it shouldn’t be hidden" relates to the "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
Both of these thoughts that say analyzing fiction by talking about it is absolutely pointless, color our idea of peoples' tendencies to over analyze things that often do not contain meanings, morals, or anything of that sort to be further "uncovered".
In relation to the very blunt and clear statement made in green, "It’s still there, just like it was before it was analyzed", Sigmund Freu's "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" may not be so relative in the case of someone who is, in fact, not analyzing the texts! Basically, both of these warn people to just LEAVE TEXT ALONE! However, when the blogger spot says to merely leave the text alone because, really, it won't make a difference in anyone's life whether or not you try to uncover a hidden meaning that should have been made very clear to begin with, it is basically contradicting to "a cigar is a cigar".
The text doesn't change after you have read it, analyzed it, or even scribbled all over the paper with your crayons. However, a cigar is not just a cigar after you have used it for its sole purpose. This reveals the very biased opinions on whether or not defining texts is important. However, the cigar has served it purpose and that is that. Will the smoker then go and sweep up the ashes? NO!
In the comment posted on an internet blog on English classes, the author suggests how literary analysis is pointless. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion which in this case, can suggest literary analysis is just a waste of time. The author states how whether we analyze the text or not, the text doesn't change. If several people analyze a body of text, everyone is going to have a different opinion. So how are we to know who is right and who is wrong?
For example, today when we analyzed some nominations for the most effective break up song, we all had different opinions. Some people would rather deal with a break up with an empowering matter than just wallow. To some extent I also agree with what Justyna said about how a book is just a book. People read thousands of things every day such as advertisements but, many of them are just passed by and not thought much of. Not everything’s had a hidden meaning behind it for everybody.
Kerri Carnahan
Both the green text from the blogger spot and the gray text fro Sigmund Freu suggest that analyzing a text is pure idiotic because no one will benefit from you, basically, trying to fit a square into a circle.
I must say that I agree with the text in green, the internet blog on English Classes. "If a meaning is important, it shouldn’t be hidden" relates to the "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
Both of these thoughts that say analyzing fiction by talking about it is absolutely pointless, color our idea of peoples' tendencies to over analyze things that often do not contain meanings, morals, or anything of that sort to be further "uncovered".
In relation to the very blunt and clear statement made in green, "It’s still there, just like it was before it was analyzed", Sigmund Freu's "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" may not be so relative in the case of someone who is, in fact, not analyzing the texts! Basically, both of these warn people to just LEAVE TEXT ALONE! However, when the blogger spot says to merely leave the text alone because, really, it won't make a difference in anyone's life whether or not you try to uncover a hidden meaning that should have been made very clear to begin with, it is basically contradicting to "a cigar is a cigar".
The text doesn't change after you have read it, analyzed it, or even scribbled all over the paper with your crayons. However, a cigar is not just a cigar after you have used it for its sole purpose. This reveals the very biased opinions on whether or not defining texts is important. However, the cigar has served it purpose and that is that. Will the smoker then go and sweep up the ashes? NO!
So what about, for example, Harry Potter? Worth analyzing?
In their work, Sigmund Freud has hailed the idea that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." By this he means that sometimes things are just what they are and nothing more. In the case of text he means its just a story, their are no deeper meanings to them. I disagree with Sigmund Freud's view because sometimes books or stories try to give you a lesson about life and these lessons can't be seen by looking at the text itself, you have to read inbetween the lines. If cigars were just cigars or books were just books then what did the story of Macbeth really mean? If it was just a story about a man and his quest to be king then it would be really boring and many would question the point of writing it. Being able to think about the true meaning allows a person to open their minds and explore possiblities. For example, in the story Macbeth I felt that the point was to tell the readers that women were just problems. This assumption lead me to look more closely at the world around me.
I think that the writer of the first entry is mistaken. They overlook the emotional importance of mystery and inclarity in writing. For example, if a writer chose to speak his mind without generalizing or making certain ideas slightly vague, it might come off as being very biased, and would be difficult to interpret for readers.
Over-analyzation of context can have both positive and negative effects. I believe that it's natural for humans to translate things we don't fully understand, and apply them to our own lives and experiences.
the first blog suggested that there is no real purpose in analyzing text. " a cigar is just a cigar." and " if the meaning are important, they shouldn't be hidden." Many teenagers believe that their is no purpose behind literary analysis. Although there may be some cases where " it is what it is" and ther is no need to search for a deeper meaning in the tect, in most cases, stories have a deeper meaning, or a moral behind it. For example, the story of " The Tortoise and The Hare." If any person would just read this story, they would think it's just abouyt two animal running a race against eachother, and at the end the winner is the turtle. this story, along with many others has a moral behind it. " Slow and steady wins the race" is the moral that most people would derive from this text. If you take your time to do things, in the end everything would have a better result than if you were to speed through it. Even still,i give some credit to what Justyna said. Many people read books either because it was an assignment for a class, or for entertainment. Sometimes the text isn't interesting, and all you're worried about is keeping up with what's going on in the story. Many times you don't care to find out what the deeper meaning really is, if it has one.
Although Brian Hall does not say so directly, he seems to imply that when different readers read the same text, they all have to come back together to talk about it just for something that is possible irrelevent to literary analysis. The reason why people come back and talk about movies they've seen or books they've read, is so that everyone could be on the same page in their grouop of friends, and so they won't feel left out. From past studies, i have learned that every human being has basic needs that he or she needs to have met. one of those needs is social needs; the need to belong to some sort of group. One example that could relate to Hall's entry is when the "Twilight" series came out. the majority of my friends read the books, and everyday they would come back and talk about it with our group of friends. They would argue about which character is "hotter" and what they think would happen in the next chapter. I didn't read this book, because it just didn't sound interesting to me, so i just drifted off and did something else by myself. From the feedback i heard from my peers about this book, it was clear that they weren't focused on the deeper meaning of the novel, but the action involved, and the physical attractiveness of the characters. Like Kerri said, some texts are just meant to be left alone.
It has become commontoday to celebrate the concept that analysis is the appropriate way to go about viewing art in any form. I personally dis agree with "lyric" about the fact that authors always have a deeper meaning to them. Sometimes the meaning is right on the surface and we as readers delve deeply into those things that are meant to slap us in the face, and instead we diminish the real point by breking down that which is already broken.
I disagree with Brian Hall about having no point finding hidden messages because by the author having to make the reader think "Out Side of The Box", makes you reflex on it whether good or bad, and wonder of your own life and how to respond to it. I'm sorry, but not everything can be handed on a gold platter, if something is worth getting; it's worth searching for it. With the reader had done this, it some how improves in the way when we are kind of in the same position or instant, we know better. The whole point of it to make the reader some how learn either to agree with their view or not.
Without the deepper meaning, the book or novel would just be another history book, everything would be narrow-minded.
-Desiree Portalatin
If I'm not mistaken... I agree with Yesenia when she says that though not all stories have meanings, a majority of them do.
--------------------------------
The internet blog states, "There is no point in looking for hidden meanings in everything you read. If a meaning is important, it shouldn’t be hidden."
I think this person is mistaken. Having hidden meanings leads the readers to ponder why the story was written in the first place.
I personally believe if a meaning of a story was straight forward, then one: the story will probably be boring, and two: there wasn't a point to write that story in the first place.
The story "Keeping You a Secret" by Julie Anne Peters is about a girl who falls in love with another girl and how she deals with that part of her life(highly recommend this book!!). The hidden mention (what I thought it was) was how one shouldn't have to worry what others have to say to you if that one thing makes you happy and/or "whole".
If the meaning wasn't hidden, the book will probably talk about how a girl is just going out with another girl. It wouldn't have been interesting if it went straight to the point.
Justyna Ciezobka
-Gerald Graff has suggested that the way you understand a book is the way you read it. For example, when I read a chapter in my history book for the first time I just focused on the main points so my reading wasd basically skimming through the text to get through it faster. Then, I thought that such reading doesn't make sense so I decided to read it over one more time. This helped me in understanding what the text meant. Maybe this can be one example of what Graff means...
..I also agree with what Candace is saying about how she watched a movie and then told about it to her friends. It is a helpful way to convince them to share your interest in a movie, it may not be effective always, but sometimes it works. Sometimes you don't realize it,b ut you use analysis in everyday life like when discussing a movie or recent book you've read, an article in a newspaper, etc.....
I also agree with Yesenia how she commented on my comment..that a book is only a book tha tyou read as an assignment or for entertainment and don't get into its deeper meaning....
Although the internet blog on English classes does not say so directly, it seems to imply that analyzing texts is pointless. I disagree with this, because like Ashley said, texts are meant to have readers interpret them in their own ways. There is no right or wrong way in interpreting a text. I also disagree with the statement "If the meaning is important, it shouldn't be hidden", because something that is important leaves you thinking about it. If a text was just straight forward with its meaning, it wouldn’t have the same effect on us as readers than if we were to sit down and interpret the absolute meaning of it. Macbeth is a perfect example of text that requires analyzing to relate to or be affected by it. The book Macbeth widens our imaginations and teaches us things that we can’t understand by just reading the text. On page 56, the author states "Wisdom! To leave his wife, to leave his babes, his mansion and his titles, in a place from whence himself does fly? He loves us not; he wants the natural touch: for the poor wren, the most diminutive of birds, will fight, her young ones in the nest, against the owl. All is the fear and nothing is the love; as little is the wisdom, where the flight so runs against all reason. (Act 4, Scene 2, Lines 6 - 14)” In these lines, Lady Mac Duff explains how she felt when her husband fled to England. After analyzing this text, we come to realize that Lady Mac Duff is comparing herself to a wren, which is a bird. Birds are known to be protective of their families, loyal, and nurturing. Without analyzing this text, readers would think that she was just explaining a birds way of living, rather than . I agree with Ashley and Candace about how analyzing texts is definitely not a waste of time.
Hej...Erica Castillo
Although Sigmund Freu does not say so directly, he seems, to imply that things are what they are and that is it. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
I do agree that sometimes things are what they are and that is it. An example, would be a guy that has blood all over him and a knife in his right hand and a dead body right in front of him. We can all agree that he is the killer.
On the other hand, I disagree because sometimes there is a hidden meaning. This means we must read and read again to find the meaning. An example would be the movie Star Wars. Yes it is a good movie and there is a meaning behind the great movie but we have to watch it over and over and understand history from the bible and history of the world to get the meaning.
Ashley Hart
I disagree with Freud when he says,"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." By saying this he is simply saying that in some cases there is no extra meaning. I'd like to argue that everything has a deeper meaning. For example, when a woman says, "I'm fine." We can take that as if she is truely fine as Freud says. She may be just fine or we can take the tone in her voice and her posture and examine the way she has said "I'm fine" and find a deeper message behind the words. I like that egdar used the spear in "The Lord of The Flies" as a way to show that it was just a weapon that the boys used, but William Golding seems to have used the spear to show how the boys went from well developed gentleman to a group of neandethals who had become cruel and inhumane in the time they had spent on the island.
Although I agree with the attribute to Sigmund Freud to a point, I cannot accept their overall conclusions that "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Many times a writer may use a certain setting to strike a mood within someone or assign a certain name to a character in reflection to their personality. Not all the time are underlying messages going to be so evident, many times they're hidden for the simple reason to give people an idea of it.
When I was a child, I believed that everything I had to read or watched had some sort of hidden meaning. Now that I am older I know that some things have a hidden meaning but not all.
I agree with Desiree and Yesenia when they both say that not all stories have meanings. I have to say that I do not agree with Desiree and Yesenia when they say that majority of stories do. I think that the readers put a meaning in there own head not the author.
“There is no point in looking for hidden meanings in everything you read. If a meaning is important, it shouldn’t be hidden” --internet blog on English classes
I agree with this statement very much because if something is important it would be right in your face. An example, would be homework teachers put the important information on the paper so we can read and understated the homework. If the teacher did not put the important information on the paper and the teacher put other words. We the students would not know what to do.
If something is important you will see it. You would know have to search for house and find it.
Hi there, its Dominika, rewriting her blog after the computer in 261 not only refused to post it but lost it too. Grrrrrrrr >:(
Although I should know better by now, I cannot help thinking that blog number one does sorta maybe has a little tiny point. We can't always believe the author wrote a sub message, in which they cleverly disguised behind the text. Sometimes what we read is just that, the text we read. For example "Goldie Locks", there is no hidden message. I mean going into a strangers house, even worse a bear's house, and messing with their stuff is a obvious NO-NO. I don't need to analyze the text and imagery to figure that out, it's common sense. I'm not saying that analyzing text is bad and a waste of time, on the contrary I believe we need to do it to fully understand what we're reading. But sometimes analyzing it too closely, and over thinking it just gets you completely confused. And frankly being confused sucks.
I also agree with blog #2. Telling each other stories is very important because it helps people bond and become closer. For example: A parent reads or tells a story to their child before they go to sleep. This little act at night forms a sweet little bond between the child and parent, bringing them closer. Its the same when two friends share embarrassing stories to one another, it makes them closer because there comfortable to bring some of their flaws right onto the table, and not only share them, but laugh that them, together. Telling stories open new doors into people's lives, it helps pass down secrets and old traditional family stories, it entertains us from every end possible.
P.S. Yes I do think Harry Potter is worth analyzing.
Although I agree with Sigmund Freu and internet blog on English classes up to a point, I cannot accept their overall conclusions that there aren't underlying meanings applied to texts and works of fiction.
Though I concede that a text is a text, and you may even be able to percieve it for its proper meaning without overanalyzing, and that any such work of fiction will not be changed by your overall thesis on what the author intended it to mean on a more minute and deeper level, I still insist on agreeance with Gerald Graff when he says "How we talk about books shapes how we read the books themselves."
Therefore, I agree with, for example, Ashley Hart when she explains that you must also consider the way the words are written, the tone of the text, etc.
This is Julie Mei.
(Sorry, I forgot my blog ID and I thought I emailed what I typed during class today and found out something went wrong, so this is actually my first blog entry for this post.)
The internet blog says there is no point in analyzing text because the text doesn't change. Although I somewhat agree with what the English classes had agreed on, but Brian Hall's idea of "human bonding" is more relevant. I concur that analyzing the text with other people can actually help you comprehend more of the text's ideal meaning. The lines, "We have told ourselves stories not just in order to live, but in order to live with one another," speaks for itself. We tell stories to understand each other in a comforting way. And in order to write a text's meaning, you need to have a broad view of what you're writing of in order for people to know. Connecting and bonding with people will help you achieve that goal. For example, the story Cinderella is about a young girl who had to live with her stepmother and two evil stepsisters. Some may think the moral of the story is "be nice and good things will happen to you," or others will think "your prince charming will come and take your troubles away."
I will have to say I disagree with Yesenia and Desiree. There may be a few movies where there is no meaning to a story, but most of the time there is. And often times movies with no meaning has no audience; well, maybe just for a few laughs. Stories with morals are the ones that stay with us and we learn and grow from them. What Sigmund Freud said, "A cigar is just a cigar," I will have to disagree. Many authors or writers have deeper meanings in their message because they think it's necessary for the overall effect. (Similar to what Ashley Hart said, I really like how she used the example "I'm fine.")
Steven Gallardo,
I agree with what most people are saying about Sigmund Freud that it says to leave things alone because its pointless. With that in mind my examples of that are such as a great or classic movie that people are just so into. For example, the dark knight. People have many things to say about it and as far as we know only a few tend to disagree. Things should be left alone to some people because they just only want to know their facts that to them it was a good movie or not. But then why do we argue about them? I think its just human nature that we share thoughts on anything and everything because thats how we learn and grow from each other.
Egder Dominguez
Although I agree with Brian Hall up to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that book group discussions will form a human bond between individuals.
I consent that, as individuals, it is always pleasant to find another’s interpretation of a certain event in a book as being similar to one’s own.
An example can be of the blog assignments on “The Things They Carried” in which many individuals preferred agreeing with others who had similar views, such as on who was the most important character besides the author. This form of self-assurance is clearly evident.
I, myself, primarily looked for blog entries which coincided with my opinion. Yet I do not feel as if I have forged a human bond with my fellow classmates.
Sigmund Freud has suggested that "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." In other words, everything is not always a symbol nor is it trying to create or enhance any type of feeling. Somethings is just what it is, plain and simple. For my example im going to give a situation which is: you come out of your house in the morning to go to work or school and your one of your car's tires is flat. Just because your tire is flat doesn't mean someone is out to get you by slashing your tire or bothering your car. Maybe it's just what it is a flat tire caused by a nail or slow leak. My point is you don't have to over analyze everything, somethings just have simple meanings or purposes.
Wow, this is pretty interesting because I fell like I'm at war with myself when it comes to who do I agree or disgree with. Finally...I have come up with my answer which is I disagree with Desiree, Yesenia, and Erica's view that not all books have a meaning. I feel this way because there is no reason for writing a book if it doesn't have meaning or inspiration of some type behind it. If it didn't then you would just be writing just to be writing. To have a story you have to have a beginning, middle, and end. And to have those parts you have to have something to base them on, duh...that being your meaning.
The internet blog has suggested that "There is no point in looking for hidden meanings in everything you read. If a meaning is important, it shouldn’t be hidden." I agree with Desiree when she says "a story would probably be boring if the meaning was straight foward." I also agree with her when she says "having a hidden meaning makes the reader do some intense thinking about the purpose of writing the book." Books are suppose to simulate your mind, and that is wear the hidden meaning serves its purpose. For example, William Shakespeare's Macbeth is all about analyzing and trying to find the hidden meaning because if you don't than the book will make no sense what so ever. Sorry I can't quote any pages people, I don't know where the hell that book is:(
When referring to literary analysis attributed to Sigmund Freu compares it to “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”. In a way I can say I agree with him because it’s just like saying a picture is just a picture. Anything can just be seen for what’s on the surface by many but to some has a deeper meaning and can mean the world. I also agree with Jorge in a way when he says that a simple object can impact someone so much but then it all comes down to personal choice. For example, I keep a picture of my parents from when they were younger in my wallet. I have showed it to several people and they find no meaning behind it other than the obvious. I believe that once again literary analysis is like the significance behind my picture. Whether someone decides to analyze a text or not is a personal choice. A book can just be a book but it can be more than just that if we make it.
I am of two minds about Sigmund Freud’s claim that something’s objects don’t have a meeting to them. On the other hand, I agree, with the Internet blog on English class. This person has suggested that, “If a meaning is important, it shouldn’t be hidden.” Ultimately, this idea matters to anyone who may analyze books, art, and other literature that the real meaning shouldn’t be hidden, it should be the first thing you notice about the art. In discussions of political ads, once controversial issue has been raised in a Hilary Clinton ad racism. On the one hand, Orlando Patterson argues that the Clinton’s ad makes Brock Obama seems like a angry black man who will hang around your house at night, in the bushes. Others even maintain the opinion that Patterson is crazy for thinking these wild ideas. My own view is, the same as the Internet blog on English class. “The original gets ruined with all that talk talk talk about the text” in this case the ad. Clinton’s ad was meant to explain that she would be a president that anyone could call on at any time. It was not meant to say “An Obama presidency would be dangerous” (Orlando Patterson, March 11,2008, New York Times) The point being is that good text gets ruined if people try to over analyze something that is meant to have a positive meaning.
Yesica Prado
I disagree with Freud’s view that “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,” because there are symbols that have a deeper meaning and they need to be analyzed in order to understand the whole concept of a movie or a book. For example, in the French movie Amélie, the girl with the glass in Auguste Pierre’s painting was used as a symbol for Amélie. The girl represented how she was not able to fit in and was a lonely child. The painting focuses our attention on Amélie’s feelings and it gives us a better understanding of the conflict that she had with herself. If the director had not used the girl in the painting as a symbol, it would of lead the audience to think that Amélie is just a sneaky young woman that likes to play tricks on people because her feelings and reasons are not quiet clear.
Analyzing does not ruin a work of art like the blog on English classes suggest. In fact, by analyzing the audience is able to find the moral of the text and makes it more interesting having to look for it than if its just plainly out there. For example, if Picasso would of painted a bunch of sad faces of a man crying during his blue period, then his artworks would have been just plain and boring. People would not be interested in looking at a painting that it obviously expresses sorrow and agony straightaway. It was a more effective technique for him to use a set of monochromatic blues and different subjects to express those feelings. In the painting Poor People on the Seashore, the artist’s choice to paint the young boy poorly dressed emphasizes the sense of misfortune and misery.
Overall, the standard way of thinking about analyzing has it that it’s needed in order for the audience to be filled with the delight of a piece of art.
I agree with Candace that stories give you a lesson about life and in order to find that lesson it can only be achieved my analyzing the text.
Talking about fiction with another person or to a group of people can create "bonds" to help them socialize among one another and remove themselves from isolation. For example, the likes and dislikes on a particular movie can be discussed between a group of people, and there they can relate to one another by their differences and similarities of the subject. By doing so, they are being connected to one another by the experience of going through that subject. "Primary storytelling itself is insufficient for the forging of human bonds, for audiences need to talk about the stories they read and to compare their interpretations in order to be sure that they have read the same story."-Brian Hall's essay on book groups, it's not sufficent to say "Yeah, I read that". You can't socialize with a person by just agreeing that you did see or read something. In order to socialize and have a conversation you need to connect to one another by analyzing what you read or saw. For example, I'd care less if a person told me they read "Of Mice and Men", yet if they tell me how they felt about the ending of the book i could compare my opinion to theirs and make an interesting conversation. I do agree with the internet blog on english classes, "And whether we analyze a text or not, the text doesn’t change.". True. It doesn't change, but a text is never meant to change because of people analyzing it. It's open to freedom of expression. It helps people relate to one another based on their expression towards the text. As human beings I believe we need that connection of feelings towards a something to be able to relate to one another; otherwise we would all be in isolation from one another.
Although I agree with "the internet blog on English classes" when stating,"And whether we analyze a text or not, the text doesn’t change.", I have to disagree with the idea that "There is no point in looking for hidden meanings in everything you read." I believe we create those meanings based on experiences of others or ourselves towards everyday life. That's what helps readers connect to literature, and the reason of the importance of literature. I agree and disagree with Egder's claim on the "spear". I agree that in the 'Lord of the Flies' the "spear" could have been "intended" to just being a spear. On the other hand I don't agree that the audience has to follow the intention to look at it that way. It's open for a person to choose the spear as a symbol if they want. I think of that as adding color to the black and white ordinary spear. It stops it from becoming ordinary. That's what makes text interesting to me, in how I can relate to it by MY OWN meaning based on my experiences through life. Although I agree that "analyzing text doesn't change it", I still insist that in order to make text interesting and important, our own interpretation and analyzing of is needed. It's needed to remove the dullness of reading just to read words. Words are meaningful.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"-Sigmund Freud. It's true. Although it's true it makes the cigar seem dull and just plain ordinary. What if i said the cigar,TO ME, represents death and danger because a family member of mine died from lung cancer due to smoking. There i just made an ordinary object seem extraordinary by giving a meaning to it based on my experience of the object in my life. It removes the dullness of saying "it's just a cigar" which creates no possible connections towards another person,if trying to converse, by stating that. Life would be very dull, gray, and boring if we just saw everything as it is, plain and simple. Yet we don't enjoy plain and simple so we use creativity for enhancement and excitement in our life. We like to imagine the experience of unordinary situations that aren't available in our life and relate them to our ordinary life.
Post a Comment