Generally speaking, I’m not a fan of theories, especially of those that are past their prime. Would knowing about New Criticism and the rest have been beneficial years ago in my early attempts in understanding a whole text? Perhaps, but now, in trying to learn and understand teaching of literature ideas/concepts, these resurfacing theories are like a thin layer of dust that I’d like to wipe away once and for all, but know will always be present, even if not visible.
I have mixed feelings about Scholes’ book. Possibly, because of his writing style, I think. At times, the language is quite academic-sounding to me, such as on pg. 24″……in perceiving the potent aura of codification…….,”and yet other times, his talk is straight forward, “teaching literature should be retitled studying texts.” It doesn’t sound as intellectual but it does provide a clearer purpose. (On a side note, my B.A. is in Family Studies, but the following year, Univ. of Maryland changed it to Family Science. Which sounds better to you)?
In many of our readings and discussions, we’ve mentioned (if not outright) that the current system of teaching English seems “broken.” Gerald Graff discussed the problems within curriculum and Peter Elbow would like greater emphasis on the writing process. Scholes too speaks of rebuilding and discusses his middle of the road ideas. He dismisses the revolution or abrupt change approach as well as the tinkering or reform method. This got me thinking about the D.C. school system and how past superintendants attempted to reform the broken system, but never got too far in instituting change. Now there’s Chancellor Rhee using a revolutionary-like style to overhaul the system. Although, it’s still early in the remaking, she doesn’t appear to be backing down from the opposition, which gives the impression that maybe this time reform will actually occur. My guess is that a university setting would be much more resistant to the overhaul process. So then how textual power is taught still lies with the individual teacher.
Both Blau and Scholes list the three skills: reading, interpretation and criticism. Blau defines reading as what does the text say while Scholes views reading as processing text without confusion or delay. Reading for both refers to text within text, which I understand, but I’m uncomfortable with Scholes use of ‘without confusion or delay.’ So if I reread text to strenghten or cement my understanding at a particular point in text during the first read- through then I’ve delayed my reading process, and what? (Or am I putting too much stress on his choice of words)?
Also, on pg. 11 he discusses his diagram regarding the English apparatus. How does moving composition from the bottom to the othermost margin place a greater value on the subject of composition? Which brings us back to Elbow’s argument and why reading and writing can’t get along. And yet, Scholes’ other comments, specifically that cultural knowledge should either present itself or be told, overlap previous scholars’ ideas.
As for Hemingway, perhaps he’s not a favorite among women because in the few stories that I’ve read, the women are often referred to as girls or hold an inferior position to the male character. Also, the bull fighting theme has masculine overtones and although bull fighting is so entrenched in that culture, I personally wouldn’t mind seeing that act, of inciting a bull and then shoving swords into it till death, banned. I don’t understand man’s need to dominate animals. Anyway, as for the painting, I’m glad it was posted because aside from Impressionist paintings, I’m at a loss. But how does four holes and the gash in the side be deemed “lots of holes” since that was the method Romans used. In reading an excerpt from “Portrait of Hemingway” by Lillian Ross, Hemingway says, ” I learned to write by looking at paintings at the Luxembourg Museum in Paris.” In this scene, he is looking at pictures by Italian painters Titian, Giorgione, Francia, plus Rubens’ “The Triumph of Christ Over Sin and Death.” I’m wondering if Hemingway’s attraction to these stems from his own fears of death and of his writing being misinterpreted. He refers to Mantega’s portrait of Christ as bitter. Is that because Hemingway feels that any attempts at goodness and righteousness will be condemned in a tortuous way like that of Jesus? Or was Hemingway feeling embittered already? Does this even have anything to do with the criticism question? But I did use textual power….right?
Susan