Mr. Walter has done a great job of stirring our thoughts around with these recent readings (as of the last three weeks). No extra credit is needed!
I wish to provide in this blog the reason for textual intervention and reader response. What happens BETWEEN the reader and the writer is the reader’s response, whether it is a reader response theory or a postcolonialist theory, or subconscious hypersexual theory or whatever. The thought of the reader not responding, to overstate the obvious, is impossible. Rare are the days we just enjoy the novel without fitting the writer into a particular category or school of thought. Pope mentions Fish. I believe this is Stanley Fish, the one who critiqued the reader experience in Paradise Lost, speaking of prolepsis- the delay of action as if it were so, intensifying anticipation. In this case, he is referring to the fall of humanity. It’s as though Satan appeared to them in the garden as a tempter before the temptation actually happened. He argued that Milton set it up that way. It is at this juncture, though, that we, as Pope, examine another aspect of the reading experience: the culture (185). We are products of our society, subculture, or ethnicity. This is why we are trained and counter-trained to examine parts of literature in a traditional way (a white way, which I thought was utterly ridiculous) or within a “black, women or minority” perspective (185). That is the beautiful and hideous nature of de-/re-construction, collage and textual intervention. As a culture, we have become restless. Certain groups of readers actively look for alternative perspectives or hidden aspects within a text. The point is , whether its traditional or oppositional, both interpretations are done because off societal underpinnings. These, according to Fish, as Pope mentions, are “interpretive communities” (185). Pope says that readers bring in their present history to evaluate text through a filtered lens (186). Writers too use their culture and set of experiences to the forefront with any body of work. Consequently, I do not understand why the departments of Anthropology and English are continually separated. I think the gap is closing quickly, and rightfully so. America is more and more pluralistic.
This brings me to Mark Twain. So much of his work was/is considered offensive. Here is how culture works: Huckleberry Finn was divisive in society’s response to it. Some have rewritten to make it more user-friendly while others choose to permit it as freedom of speech or reality. Quite frankly, I believe Samuel Clemens intended for us to be speaking about unity, division, race relations, ethnocentricity, and so-on for many years to come. He too was teasing us about the ugliness of our own culture in the Restoration (Is that the right term?). And therefore, I, too, am pulled in both directions. I am offended at about how passive Jim was; and 2) We do not have a right to rewrite the novel. Let it offend us. It will improve our culture. What are your thoughts?
awolewel 