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 Freud
Respond to these thoughts and to one another. Please use your "joining the conversation" template.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
first comments reserved
Jimmy you are so anal!!
jimmy u are a butt
"internet blog on english classes" is right that we do over analyze something which it there is no purpose for over interpreting that meaning, but she seems more dubious ground when she claims that the original gets ruined when we keep talking constantly about the text.
I believe that there's no point in excessively evaluating something over and over again. Like it said, if a meaning is important, why hide it?
Analysing text isn't really pointless because I would say that it makes you a deeper thinker in all situations of life. In many cases, it allows you to make personal connections from your life with the text you are reading.
I competely agree with the first argument on texts being analyzed. But I disagree with his satement that "if a meaning is important it shouldn't be hidden" because that is partly the point of the analysis. I also agree with the statement that " no one's life gets changed" because how many people actually read our analysis besides our teachers and classmates.
Kathy Razniak
I agree with Brian Hall's view on why we need to discuss the books we read because without discussing written works how would people know if they are getting the meaning that the author intended. Through discussion people get to find out what other readers got from a written work and compare the effects of the work itself. This allows the author's point to get across because if a group of people agree on a set tone or mood in a story than it is obvious that the author got across what he intended to with his work.
I agree with the first quoted paragraph from the English Class blog. We all have different point of views on things and since text is text it always tend to stay the same. We, as readers tend to manipulate meanings of writings and make it to our understanding to which we can understand what the writer meant.
I agree that the claim "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" because when analyzing a text you might sometimes misinterpret the actual meaning of the text. Sometimes analyzing every single small detail could ruin the entire message that the author was trying to get across. Like there is a bunch of things you could say about the phrase "I LIKE CHEESE" sometimes that just means i like cheese. So I agree with nina on this one.
I agree with Brian Hall and the storytelling bond. When you tell stories, you are offering your own interpretation of a particular story. When another offers an alternative interpretation, it creates a bonding between two human spirits that may not have been created otherwise.
I disagree with Graff that a "Critical Vocabulary" is actually needed. When it comes to analysis it is all about the effect of that anaylsis. You don't need to necessarily have a huge vocabulary list to make yourself sound smarter because then it will lose its analysis.
The excerpt from Brian Halls essay talks about the understanding that humans must have with one another and the only form of achieving that is seeing that actual contact and human interaction with one another in order to achieve that form of sympathy. By focusing on the “human bonds” it overlooks the bigger problem which is the way that people lack actual sympathy which is something that has already been instilled in us from birth.
Erika Marquez
I think that the only way the orignal may become ruined is if someone interprets it to the point where it is far from the authors intentions. However, no ones interpretation for a text is wrong because it's their personal interpretation.
I think that the internet blog is mistaken because either way it goes, everything has to get analyzed. Nothing is ever what it seems and people have differnt interpreatations of everything. I also disagree with the statement "A cigar is just a cigar" because that person looks at the the cigar and says cigar, but another person can look at the cigar and say "lung disease". Its all up to the viewers interpretation.
Nina has suggested that "analyzing text is pointless."
However, when you analyze a text you are training your mind to become stronger. You are expanding your horizons of thinking. Sure it doesn't benefit anyone, but it benefits you!
Think of it as like this:
The reason I practice shooting a basketball is because I want myself to get better at it. It doesn't necessarily benefit anyone else, but it benefits me.
I disagree with Nina's view that there's no point in excessively evaluating something over and over again, because after carefully analyzing a text multiple times and conversing about it with others you began to see the indepth meaning about the text. It helps to emphasize the mood.
I disagree with Kyle Anthony on the importance of analysis because by reading other peoples' analysis you will actually gain pieces from the text that you will not understand by reading it yourself. If we stop reading other peoples' anaylsis then we would thus have a end to literary arguements, and people would gain no knowledge from anaylsis. So I think disputing lit anaylsis welcomes knowledges, its not a bad thing.
Robert Slay!!!!
POST PT 2! Details and support.
I believe over analyzing something ruins the text because the first original impression that you get off from a piece of work is ruined ultimately in the search of an alternative meaning. What is simply written is there. It's like for example, you listen to a new song and you like it; however, you heard it over and over and over and over again EVERYWHERE like the radio and t.v., don't you come to hate it because it becomes a nuisance?
I don't think there is entirely such thing as a deeper meaning because a meaning is a meaning. Who says the original meaning you have wasn't deep at all?
THE BELL RUNG.
I don’t not believe that Nina’s argument that we over analyze literature. While a “cigar is just a cigar” what we have to understand is that there is reason and effect from just saying that. Just by simply stating that a cigar will always remain a cigar is analyzing it. We cannot look and thing and expect it to be in plain sight. Things are thought about before they are written, therefore extra thought and the effort of analyzing something is necessary.
Erika Marquez
I am of two minds about Sigmund Freud' claim that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." On one hand, I agree that things are somethings are just what they are right in front of you. There is not always a deeper meaning to a text. On the other hand, there are the right times and situations in which the analysis of a text is needed in order to understand even the most basic meaning a text is trying to show.
Sorry.
The first post has suggested that the original text would become ruined if people talk about text. I agree to some extent, " I think that the only way.....personal interpretation".
Nice Alex and Joanna!
in response to ALex Prude's statement, i disagree because you are talking about side effects of the cigar but looking at the cigar is what the cigar is.
Althought I agree with the internet blog on English classes on the idea that a works meaning should be explicit and you should not have to search for it, I still cannot accept their overall conclusion when they say that analysis is not beneficial because it does not effect anyone. It does effect the person who is analyzing the text and allows them to understand its meaning.
Cristina Pérez [1st period]
Though I concede that "a cigar is just a cigar", I still insist that critical analysis about a paper, lyrics, movie, etc. can make your mind expand abroad and be a more intelectual person.
Jamie Chan
I agree with the 1st blog becuase some times things are really what they are although i agree with this blog. I also agree with the 3rd one whats the whole meaning of literature if there you can't put your own interpretation on it.
Some strong comments so far. Most, however, are missing specific examples to back up your claims. What's an example of a text that you believe was overanalyzed? What's an example of a time that doing literary analysis actually enriched you?
For homework, please respond to one new point posted here by one of your classmates. Credit earned by:
1. actually responding or challenging someone else's arguments
2. using the template
3. providing SPECIFIC EXAMPLES
Laurel Carney
I would have to disagree with everyone whom has stated that there is such thing as over-analyzation in literature and fiction itself. I believe that every writer gives us works of literature for us to interpret in our own way, and for us to not analyze and interpret would be an insult to the writer. Literature is another form of art and it's truly amazing how a collection of words can be taken and thought of in so many different ways. For example, Kurt Vonnegut's literary works can be analyzed over and over and will get different interpretations each time. Vonnegut wanted us to actually think about what can be said through his writing, and he wanted us as human beings to take what we learn from his literature and apply it to our lives and world. So to not analyze to the fullest extent would mean that we, as readers, are not doing are job. Analyzation, in my opinion, enlightens us, which I believe ted also stated, and allows us to view things in so many different aspects that we become better people. Everything that we experience becomes a part of us whether we like it or not.
To comment on what Robert said, I agree to some extent; however if you use a huge vocabulary the mood/tone changes as opposed to using short and simple words, and many people do it intentionally.
I agree with what Laurel said; however, there is a such thing as over analyzing. The evidence she used was only pertaining to the incident of Kurt Vonnegut. About when a text really is what it says? what about if someone wrote a poem, that was short and straight forward? For example, "roses are red, violets are blue, I'm eating a yellow banana, and thinking about you". Sometimes a cigar really is a cigar.
Cristina Pérez
I agree with kyletrentz's view that analyzing can make you a deeper thinker. After you read certain text you get a picture in your head but then you are left with questions about things you didn't understand. That's when analyzing comes to help you out because if you look deeper into something you will find that there are other hidden meanings to it. I have gone through certain poems [Sylvia Plath's specially] where I would read the text and understand somewhat of it. After I would analyze it the poem would take a whole new look for me. I would know how to talk about it and point out certain techniques that allowed me to understand the poem in a deeper way. Therefore analysis did help me out to get into that deeper meaning land.
I agree with Joanna on the fact that a text can not be ruined by the analisis of the text. Also that it is only when a text's meaning is twisted knowingly to fit an argument. So, if that happens the text can be considered ruined. I kindof agree with her in that interpretation can be wrong, but if the interpretaion is completely oppisite of the authors known meaning it can be called wrong or twisted.
Krista Chapman
i agree with teds arguement "analysing isnt really pointless" becuase i truly believe it isnt because if we didnt analyze anything it would have lost its meaning. I however do not agree at all wiht nina's interpretation...that the text looses its original meaning. okay, well maybe it does, but in return we get a better grip on what we are reading and learning. sometimes the only thing we can hope for is for the text to benifit ourselves not other people becuase it is up to the reader to gain from that peice of knowledge and hopefully later on use it for personal gain and achievement.
Erika Marquez
Although I agree with the internet blog up to a point, I cannot accept the overall conclusion that there is no point in looking for hidden meanings (sorry Kyle T. but I disagree with you). The part in this blog that I could actually agree with on a certain level is the fact that once I analyze a text my life doesn't change. The things I can't agree with are that the text gets ruined by talking about and that the point should straight in front of you. The author of this blog contridicts the statement that the text doesn't change by saying that "the original gets ruined with all that talk talk talk about the text" meaning by us talking about it..IT CHANGED DUH!! If the point of the text was displayed right before our eyes there wouldn't be any need for analysis. When you analyze a text such as lets say a poem by Emily Dickinson it helps the reader to better understand the emotions that she felt as she wrote each piece. She is from a different era in time from all of us so by analyzing what she wrote and searching for allusions, paying attention to imagery would help us to connect with her on another level, and we'll become enlightened.
Lania West...
Although I agree with Lania up to a point, I will have to accept Laurel's ideology that analyzing does change your thoughts on things. I cannot accept Lania's overall conclusion that analyzing does not have effect on me. For example, with the 2008 Presidential Elections, many highly educated people use words to substitute words for other meanings in otherwise known as linguistics. What comes out the mouths to support a argument can have one meaning and when you analyze them they can take on a whole new meaning. For another example, the song we did today by "Air Bullet" I believe although the song might have meant to act as a love song, the words and melody didn't express it and we all had the adverse effect of "UUGHHHH""". This showed that analyzing the song considering the words and melody does have a effect on us because we now know that this doesn't apply to us. This can be also applied to some of the poems we did last year, I believe Sylvia Plath, when she was referring to the dead babies she didn't explicitly say they were dead but with analyzes we knew they were. See it all depends on the way you analyze, everyone is different and will analyze things different thus leading to many different effects. The same thing can be applied to when we were in class. When Ms Levine played the song by Maxwell, the effect was different amongst the students. The people who primarily listened to R&B, reacted to the song with excitement and the knew the song, while people who listened to other genres of music and or other cultures reacted differently. It all depends on the person.
Spencer Harstead:
Although I grant that the internet blog on English class is right about how analyzing ruins text, I still maintain that there is a point to analyzing text.
We need to analyze text because often times writers do place hidden meanings within them. Not that I appreciate them doing that; It's just how it always has been and always will be.
When we do analyze text, however, we often take it too far. We spend too much time and try to go deeper than we need to when we can't even confirm what we spend all that time on. That, to me, ruins the text.
Spencer Harstead:
Time to make fireworks.
"However, when you analyze a text you are training your mind to become stronger. You are expanding your horizons of thinking. Sure it doesn't benefit anyone, but it benefits you!" -Ted Nowak
I think Ted is mistaken because he overlooks the fact that what you are analyzing might be completely wrong. In those cases, you are only making yourself more ignorant. Most times, you can't confirm what you analyze which does kind of make it pointless.
Hi, katarzyna razniak here.
I disagree with Nina's claim that "that first original impression that you get off from a piece of work is ruined ultimately in the search of an alternative meaning." I believe that is false because unless you are reading straight forward facts the author usually inteneds for meanings to be found the deeper you analyze a text which makes defines a good piece of literature. It is true that people may get sick of songs once they listen to them over and over but i have noticed over the years that when im forced to listen to a song again and again i pick up new things in the song like a new background beat or another background singer. The same is true in analyzing because each time you can pick up on new techniques and effects until you finally come to a personal conclusion which can differ from everyone elses.
Okay, in response to everyone [in which everyone basically disagrees with me after reading about fifty something posts]. Yes, I agree with all of you. But it doesn't mean that I changed my entire opinion either. I still believe that there is over-analysis and that there should still be analysis. I'm not going to challenge people cause I hate confrontation, especially Erika and JoAnna who both have greatly elaborated and supported their points, I applaud you for that, but I still think that there's certain things that shouldn't be over analyzed. Specifically in response to Ted [not to point you out specifically, but you're tough so you can take the beating] though, I agree that analyzing can help strengthen your mind and help you become a stronger reader, but I stated 'there's no point in excessively' analyzing something. It wasn't only Ted that missed this key word, it was a good amount of you guys ;)
My new statement: "I believe that there should be analysis, but there is no purpose in over interpreting and excessively analyzing."
About more then half way through the long pile of posts, JoAnna made a claim that over analyzing occurs when it's interpreted away from the author's intentions. I agree and somewhat disagree, because it's true that we can stray away from the author's intentions, but one can also argue, who really noes what those intentions are?
And to Ms. Levine, I know I didn't use the template formats to respond, but why do we have to use them? They become generic [in a sense] while also cause people to rely on them, ultimately becoming thought crutches. Personally I prefer not to use them verbatim because it becomes easier to express my thoughts, and allows me to arrange my arguments better. Example A: My comment on this post, really unintentionally badly written...I was trying to follow the rubric thing and didn't realize till later on how bad it was.
Someone challenge me on that :P I'll be up for a good fight after a week of sleep :P
I disagree with the claim that analyzing a text is pointless. Analyzing a text is definately not pointless. If authors didn't wnat their readers to analyze their text and interpret it in their own way, they would just write bluntly. For example, if they wanted to convey the idea that "love is blind", they would say..."love is blind" period. However, I believe a good author tells a story of fiction or maybe even non-fiction to allow to you to interpret the story to your own extent and to figure out what the author wants you to see. Authors use certain words and phrases, structure to make you feel a certain way. An author may want to make you feel as if being blind in love is a good thing is some ways, but they may want you to think that it is not such a good thing. It all depends on word choice and such; you couldn't really figure out what the meaning of a text was without analyzing it to a certain extent.
I disagree with Robert about his statement that vocabulary is not necessary. I do believe it is necessary when doing literary analysis simply because certain words have different connotations. A certain word would be important to describe your interpretation of the text. Simply, "It was good, very good" or "I think it is positive because it is red" does not cut it.
Hi!!! I disagree with kyle anthony because he is overlooking the fact that everything we perceive we have an interpretation of! So like i said I look at a cigar and say "ew lung diease" but and 53 yr old man can look at it n say "emmm cigar!!!" Thats whats so wonderful about us human beings! We have the ability to interpret and associate (sorry 4 being corny). we all dont interpret things the same way. If we did, there would be no need for this blog!
I totally agree with laurel when she said "I believe that every writer gives us works of literature for us to interpret in our own way, and for us to not analyze and interpret would be an insult to the writer." Every author/ artist has its own interpretation of their piece, but its our job as a reader/ viewer to try and understand what the author is saying about their worldviews! for us to neglect it and just say "a cigar is just a cigar" would be us as a viewer neglecting our responsiblity of finding a deeper meaning! I believe that the individual that refuses to dig into what he/she is given is allowing oneself to become ignorant in a sense!
This is Ted Nowak's retaliation post:
To Sevencer:
It doesn't matter if you are analyzing something in the wrong way in terms of expanding your mental ability. Sure there will be mis-analysis, it happens all the time. People come up with a different analysis for the same subjects and they can't ALL be right. But all this does is make you better at analyzing. You are not being ignorant, in one case it won't matter if you aren't getting the actual meaning of the text, the long run yields better results.
To Nina:
Alright Nina, I did miss that key word. My apologies and good catch.
To Laurel:
Ok Laurel, thanks for agreeing with me, but I'm going to have to against YOUR post.
Laurel has stated that there is no such thing as over-analysis of a piece of literature. Since literature is: "creative writing of recognized artistic value" (Google Definition), than I will go so far as to say that news articles from the Onion (a satiric newspaper) count as literature.
Last year some of you may remember that we analyzed an article from the Onion. The article is funny when you read it...simple as that. I feel that what we did in class was OVER ANALYZE IT. We completely tore that article up. People were coming up with the strangest ideas and the whole time I was thinking in my head...."NO." Do you think the writer of that article meant for his/her article to have some deep meaning? Sure you can find some hidden meanings but when you go so far as to make a conclusion that no one else reached, you over analyze. I still stand by my idea that any level of analysis strengthens the mind, but I ardently disagree that there is no such thing as over analysis. Big whoop, wanna fight about it?
Jamie Chan
How do you know when what you read is excessively analyzed? I disagree with the ones who say that there is no point or there should be but not too much. Now that statement is just little hypocritical,don't you think? Everyone has there own opinion and when you make that opinion about a certain content wouldn't that be considered analyze. Now tell me what do you consider over analyze, when a complex text is given to you. I would say you would try your best to figure out the text. That is the "art of literature," as stated Gerald Graff. By analyzing a text you are giving it possibilities. So why just stop when you have one possibility when you can have many which will eventually pull you closer to the truth.
Like would but sooo boring if "cigar is just a cigar."
ew typo
Life*
I agree with Sigmund Freud's argument when he says that, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" to some extent. I do believe that sometimes you can not over analyze something because it is very explicit and right in front of your face. However, analyzing a work can help you understand a piece of work and even if you use the tiniest bit of analysis, you can still open your mind.
I would have to disagree with ROb when he said that he disagrees with you having to use an extensive vocabulary in order to have a good analysis. He says that, "having a good analysis is about creating effects", but he is somewhat contradicting himself because in order to create effects, you must be able to use critical vocabulary words.
Post a Comment