Filling in the gaps
After re-reading certain passages of Anderson's book, I have gained a little more clarity into this course, I think. Up to this point I have not understood what connection this book could really have to the texts that we will be exploring this term. But the chapter on the Gospel of Mark has made things a little clearer (I hope).
I was struck by Anderson's point that Mark's terse style draws us into the text, and helps us engage a little more with it. Instead of answering every possible question, Mark reports events as they happened, leaving gaps, leaving the interpretation to us. I think that these gaps could directly relate to how we will approach the readings for this term. Through the personal styles of the individual writers, we should begin to see their passion for their subject, but also their lack of total clarity. Readers of literature can not always know for sure the intent and thoughts of the writers we study. We can gather only so much information from their style and subject before we have to start making interpretations for ourselves.
And I think I am beginning to see and understand some of Anderson's love for literature. The joy of reading comes not only from dissecting the author's story, but joy also comes from acknowledging the gaps in narrative and information. We find joy in applying our own experiences and personalities to the interpretations of these classical works.
I think that there is much to be said for carefully analyzing texts and dissecting them. There is much to be said for logical argument and discussion. But our literary studies should not stop there. We should be detecting the gaps, and the things that remain unsaid. We should not withold our experiences from our interpretations. Literature is great because there is something in great writing that draws us in and involves us. It would be a shame to read emotionlessly. Scholasticism is important, but there is more to literature than that. Great literature should involve us and stir us. Maybe we disagree with the author, or maybe we agree - but the point is that we engage ourselves with these texts.
I am beginning to see the value of Mark's terse style. HIs style allows us to let our emotions take control. His terseness invites us to interpret and fill in the blanks. How will Dante's style affect me? How will St. Augustine's? What baggage do I bring that will shape the interpretive frame I give to these works? Anderson writes about Mark as an example of involvement, and he writes his book as an example of how his own biases and ideas have changed and strengthened his literay experiences.
We all bring something unique to these texts, something that will help us to interpret what we read and make these books significant to us.
I was struck by Anderson's point that Mark's terse style draws us into the text, and helps us engage a little more with it. Instead of answering every possible question, Mark reports events as they happened, leaving gaps, leaving the interpretation to us. I think that these gaps could directly relate to how we will approach the readings for this term. Through the personal styles of the individual writers, we should begin to see their passion for their subject, but also their lack of total clarity. Readers of literature can not always know for sure the intent and thoughts of the writers we study. We can gather only so much information from their style and subject before we have to start making interpretations for ourselves.
And I think I am beginning to see and understand some of Anderson's love for literature. The joy of reading comes not only from dissecting the author's story, but joy also comes from acknowledging the gaps in narrative and information. We find joy in applying our own experiences and personalities to the interpretations of these classical works.
I think that there is much to be said for carefully analyzing texts and dissecting them. There is much to be said for logical argument and discussion. But our literary studies should not stop there. We should be detecting the gaps, and the things that remain unsaid. We should not withold our experiences from our interpretations. Literature is great because there is something in great writing that draws us in and involves us. It would be a shame to read emotionlessly. Scholasticism is important, but there is more to literature than that. Great literature should involve us and stir us. Maybe we disagree with the author, or maybe we agree - but the point is that we engage ourselves with these texts.
I am beginning to see the value of Mark's terse style. HIs style allows us to let our emotions take control. His terseness invites us to interpret and fill in the blanks. How will Dante's style affect me? How will St. Augustine's? What baggage do I bring that will shape the interpretive frame I give to these works? Anderson writes about Mark as an example of involvement, and he writes his book as an example of how his own biases and ideas have changed and strengthened his literay experiences.
We all bring something unique to these texts, something that will help us to interpret what we read and make these books significant to us.
posted by Christine at 10:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home