I never imagined that so much effort, time and analytical thought went into understanding the purpose of text.  In not being familiar with the academic approach, I found the two entries from John Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism rather tough to chew, swallow and absorb.  What did make sense was Richard’s experiment in giving students poems to summarize, for it is the students who are learning, not the critics, and without knowing the direction the students take, how can reading of literature be effectively taught.  Unless the author writes the true intent, interpretation would be influenced by the reader.  So in that regard, I would have to agree with Robert Crosman in that reading is translation and since translation is personal, there is no “one” or “the” meaning.  Needless to say, I did find the Crosman article an easier read. 

This doesn’t mean though that I  disagree with Hirsh. If he believes that meaning exists in printed words only, thus eliminating intention, well that could apply to some poems and literature based upon the author’s  word selection.  But then if literature is viewed as “equipment for living” than this reverts back to reader interpretation and the emotion and meaning that the words evoke.  So then Hirsh chooses verbal meaning over textual meaning? But then even printed words can have many meaning just like the word meaning has, which started off the Crosman article.  So where does this leave a teacher and (forgive me) but how important are these theories outside of a university setting?  As an undergrad, I don’t recall hearing about these assorted criticisms.  So again I would agree with Crosman that critics should lend usefulness, not authority.

Sure, some poets do use language to sway social values, explore religion, and spout politics, but then we as readers have free will. (I’m not sure about teachers.Who decides what poems/literature are taught?)  Ransom discussed “logical structure” and “local texture.”  But isn’t that subjective too?  I feel like I’m asking more questions rather than solving the truth. It’s so variable.

  On another note, I used annotation with this week’s assignment of poems.  I found it helpful in getting off the literal track I tend to stay on.  And since I had read the sketches on tone, etc., I looked for that as well, and found that I enjoyed dong these “exercises” as a reader.  Actually, as a more in-depth reader.

Susan