In Eichenbaum’s essay, he quotes Sklovsky’s Theory of Prose saying “The work of art arises from a background of other works and through association with them. The form of a work of art is defined by its relation to other works of art?” (937). How is this similar to Harold’ Blooms claim in The Anxiety of Influence that all poems are derivative of previous poems?
Eichenbaum quotes Shklovsky again claiming that “in each literary epoch there is not one literary school, but several. They exist simultaneously, with one of them representing the high point of the current orthodoxy. The others exist uncanonized. (948). How does this relate to the Marxist ideas of dominant and emergent culture? How is this related to Deleuze and Guattari’s conepts of minor literatures?
How does the shifting narrative voices in Frankenstein moderate the relationship between the reader and the text? Is Victor’s narrative fundamentally a different relationship with the reader than the narrative of the monster? Why is it framed by a narrative of the captain?
If a reader “puts into execution a different set of interpretive strategies” leading to a “different succession of interpretive acts” (1989), how can any reader agree on the interpretation of a reading?
A weekly conversation between 12 graduate students using Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and its model of monstrous hybridity to explore the equally monstrous, equally hybrid field of literary theory. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Showing posts with label Reader Response. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reader Response. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Reader as Interpreter of Form
Hey Everyone!
I posted my seminar paper on blackboard. After reading the works for this week, I was left with several questions, which I tried to come to terms with in my paper, but I'm still left wondering some things. Does our interpretation of Frankenstein change when we know it was written by a woman? Can we avoid the baggage that we come in with knowing when, in what country, and by whom a work is written? Sometimes, it seems impossible to avoid these associations, so in what way might they change our reading of a work? In some ways, I agree with the formalists that if some part of the historical background and historical context is meant to enhace the meaning of a work then it will make it's way into the work. But not every poem one reads says the year it was written, so does this affect our ability to make sense of certain works? Or is this not important at all?
I posted my seminar paper on blackboard. After reading the works for this week, I was left with several questions, which I tried to come to terms with in my paper, but I'm still left wondering some things. Does our interpretation of Frankenstein change when we know it was written by a woman? Can we avoid the baggage that we come in with knowing when, in what country, and by whom a work is written? Sometimes, it seems impossible to avoid these associations, so in what way might they change our reading of a work? In some ways, I agree with the formalists that if some part of the historical background and historical context is meant to enhace the meaning of a work then it will make it's way into the work. But not every poem one reads says the year it was written, so does this affect our ability to make sense of certain works? Or is this not important at all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)