Okay, guys, am I the only one that couldn't seem to "get into" this book in the beginning? I mean, it wasn't until the "Openness and Constraint" chapter that I finally seemed to be experiencing the text in a positive way. I find the idea of reading as a transaction, or an event, extremely interesting, but for some reason while I was reading Rosenblatt's words, my eyes seemed to get heavy, and then I started daydreaming about other things, until finally I would realize that I was not even reading the words on the page anymore. So, I would have to go back and start again to where I assumed that my break in attention elapsed. Since I'm reading a book about reading, I feel the need to use what I'm reading to reflect on why I couldn't focus on what I was reading and what made the difference around p. 71.
Granted I know Rosenblatt is talking mostly about poetry and predominantly aesthetic texts here, but I appreciated her refusal to take an either/or stance by putting efferent and aesthetic reading on a continuum. I feel that I actually travelled back and forth on this continuum during the journey of several readings of Rosenblatt. Her inclusion of excerpts of poetry almost forces my mind to switch gears into more of the aesthetic end, and then travels back towards efferent when I begin to read again for pedagogical insight.
Rosenblatt describes the event of reading on p.14 as, "A specific reader and a specific text at a specific time and place: change any of these, and there occurs a different circuit, a different event." I really like this idea. I know many friends (and I have probably done it myself) who put the blame on the text - "It's just not a good book" - instead of thinking about all of the variables that come into play while reading. On the other hand, I find students sometimes put the blame on themselves instead - "I just don't get it." I like the transactional theory because when I think about it, reading IS an event, a unique moment in time of certain understanding and connections. So, it's not Rosenblatt's fault or my own that I couldn't really get into the first 50 or so pages, but now that I think about it, I did start reading the fifth chapter on a different day, at a different time, with more experiences and different thoughts on my mind.
Finally, I also appreciated Rosenblatt's courage to address the counterarguments of Hirsch and the New Critics. Viewing reading as simply a task of interpreting the author's intentions not only promotes an elitist way of looking at literature, but also disregards its relevance to our lives. The transactional theory seems to empower readers, allowing everyone the opportunity for self-discovery. Rosenblatt's suggestion to "consider the text as an even more general medium of communication among readers," perhaps even allows for more possibilities of a piece of text. In fact, this is how reading exists in many aspects of life - the Oprah book club, blogging, etc. - for some reason, it just doesn't happen as much as it should in schools. I have to think about why this is for a bit longer and reflect on another post. Does it still have to do with power?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"The transactional theory seems to empower readers, allowing everyone the opportunity for self-discovery."
This is what I like, as well. School is so often about "being right." I like the idea that everyone can participate in this experience because there is not a right or wrong interpretation. A piece of text can say one thing to one person and something very different to another. Students' personal connections add to the discussion and broaden thinking. We want to encourage students to engage, to share, to think, to discuss. Sometimes, they have been told that they are "wrong" so often that they don't feel they are qualified to share their thoughts. This philosophy invites eveyone back inside...even those who have been forced out and feel unwelcome in academic settings.
Well, I think you made a great case for the influence of "circumstance" and readiness and the importance of "the moment" in reading. For you, the first 50 pages did not lend themselves to a coherent synthese, whereas I had the opposite experience. I could manage the beginning and lost my way once I hit openness and restraint. Imagine if we were one reader, we'd be set!
Everything is about power if you even glance a Foucault. I had a AP refugee refuse to respond to Blake's "The Tiger" unless I explained it to her first. She had to know the answer to the poem. Another reason I am thrilled not to do AP; their positivistic minds would drive me insane.
Post a Comment