In chapter 15 “On Closer Examination” Graff discusses his purpose for writing both in literature and in general. Graff states that his purpose in writing is to respond to others views and writing, the “underlying motivation” helps readers engage and examine why what he say is important(185). Graff suggests that one should take a literature work to a discussion in order to see what people say about it, then this will influence and help one determine what to say about it(185). Graff suggests many templates in order to start the writing about literature. The key to start the writing is by discussing the work which will eventually make an argument about it. According to Graff, “literary criticism responds directly to the literary work, summarizing …show more content…
Graff gave an example of the author is directly speaking in the text in Don’t Blame The Eater, by using “I” (189). Another example he showed was in The Cask of Amontillado and in this case when the author used “I” he was not the narrator in this case, but the narrator was a character in the story(189). Graff suggests that one should look carefully at the work to identify the speaker. According to Graff, a tactic that can be used to identify the meaning of a literary work is to look at the conflict in it. Graff writes, “look for the conflict or debate in the literary work itself and then ask what the text is leading us to think about that conflict” (191). Then he suggest asking some questions to help the reader take a position on the meaning of the work. He emphasizes that the meaning of a literary work is always arguable and one should argue for what they thinks it means. He also included some templates to help starts to respond to others …show more content…
The key is doing all the above steps which are very challenging but will lead to the final step which is stating your final opinion on the writing. The understanding of a writing is the most difficult and challenging thing and it is always debatable. Discussing all the opinions of people and their evidence will lead to the final opinion and interpretation of a one. My interpretation of “ For sale. Baby shoes, Never worn” is that something happened to the baby before it got birth, and this might be a miscarriage. The family of the baby bought this shoes for him/her but something happened to the baby that made them decide to sell it. But, one reason that could make this family remember this shoes to sell it is that they are
Co-author of “They Say/I Say” handbook, Gerald Graff, analyzes in his essay “Hidden Intellectualism” that “street smarts” can be used for more efficient learning and can be a valuable tool to train students to “get hooked on reading and writing” (Graff 204). Graff’s purpose is to portray to his audience that knowing more about cars, TV, fashion, and etc. than “academic work” is not the detriment to the learning process that colleges and schools can see it to be (198). This knowledge can be an important teaching assistant and can facilitate the grasping of new concepts and help to prepare students to expand their interests and write with better quality in the future. Graff clarifies his reasoning by indicating, “Give me the student anytime who writes a sharply argued, sociologically acute analysis of an issue in Source over the student who writes a life-less explication of Hamlet or Socrates’ Apology” (205). Graff adopts a jovial tone to lure in his readers and describe how this overlooked intelligence can spark a passion in students to become interested in formal and academic topics. He uses ethos, pathos, and logos to establish his credibility, appeal emotionally to his readers, and appeal to logic by makes claims, providing evidence, and backing his statements up with reasoning.
College has always been a process that introduces students to academic challenges that are not present during high school. So when my professor assigned Gerald Graff's essay, "Hidden Intellectualism", I thought this was his thesis. “Missing the opportunity to tap into such street smarts and channel them into good academic work." (Graff 142) I thought that this was his thesis because it explains the main idea of the essay but I assumed its purpose because of where it’s placed. I am so used to reading an essay in high school where the thesis is located right in the first paragraph. So naturally that is where I look for it. However, with more reading I knew that the following is the thesis, not only because it discusses the main topic, but because it clearly shows what the author was making his argument about. "But [students] would be more prone to take on intellectual identities if we encouraged them to do so at first on subjects that interest them rather than the ones that interest us". (Graff 199) Your thesis is one of the major aspects of a good college paper because it shows exactly what the main claim of the entire paper is going to be about. Three main points to take out of a thesis is, is it your main claim or big idea that directly answers a question about the assignment of the paper. Is it written with the reader in mind with a road map they could follow along easily and lastly when you do go back through revising and reflecting does it makes your thesis clearer.
David Foster Wallace, author of the essay “Authority and American Usage*,” praises and advocates for “good” writers who have a strong rhetorical ability, which he defines as “the persuasive use of language to influence the thoughts and actions of an audience” (Wallace 628). To have a strong rhetorical ability, an author needs to be aware of whom their audience is, in order to present their information in a way that will be influential on their audience. Wallace recognizes that an author who applies a strong rhetorical ability will be able to connect with the audience so that they respond “not just to [their] utterance but also to [them]” (Wallace 641). An author needs to take into consideration not just content, syntax and grammatical structure (their “utterance”) but also how their character will be perceived by their audience. A positive tone will make the author seem more pleasant and relatable, whereas a negative tone connotes arrogance and pretentiousness. That is why it is crucial for an author to recognize that an audience will respond to “them” and not just their “utterance,” as an author’s appearance to their readers can also shape how impactful their writing is.
Although the greater picture is that reading is fundamental, the two authors have a few different messages that they seek to communicate to their audiences. “The Joy of Reading and Writing” depicts how reading serves as a mechanism to escape the preconceived notions that constrain several groups of people from establishing themselves and achieving success in their lifetimes. “Reading to Write,” on the other hand, offers a valuable advice to aspiring writers. The author suggests that one has to read, read, and read before he or she can become a writer. Moreover, he holds an interesting opinion concerning mediocre writing. He says, “Every book you pick has its own lesson or lessons, and quite often the bad books have more to teach than the good ones” (p.221). Although these two essays differ in their contents and messages, the authors use the same rhetorical mode to write their essays. Both are process analyses, meaning that they develop their main argument and provide justification for it step by step. By employing this technique, the two authors create essays that are thoughtful, well supported, and easy to understand. In addition, Alexie and King both add a little personal touch to their writings as they include personal anecdotes. This has the effect of providing support for their arguments. Although the two essays have fairly different messages, the authors make use of anecdotes and structure their writing in a somewhat similar
Sipiora states that, "Characters often perceive (or fail to perceive) the context and implications of the circumstances and relationships they are in. Some characters act in good faith, whereas others do not. As we examine literary personae, it is especially important to judge them in terms of how they react to others" (77)
Deep-seated in these practices is added universal investigative and enquiring of acquainted conflicts between philosophy and the art of speaking and/or effective writing. Most often we see the figurative and rhetorical elements of a text as purely complementary and marginal to the basic reasoning of its debate, closer exploration often exposes that metaphor and rhetoric play an important role in the readers understanding of a piece of literary art. Usually the figural and metaphorical foundations strongly back or it can destabilize the reasoning of the texts. Deconstruction however does not indicate that all works are meaningless, but rather that they are spilling over with numerous and sometimes contradictory meanings. Derrida, having his roots in philosophy brings up the question, “what is the meaning of the meaning?”
Parker, Robert Dale. How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies. New York: Oxford, 2011. Print.
He too quickly dismisses the idea of reading on your own to find meaning and think critically about a book. For him, Graff states that “It was through exposure to such critical reading and discussion over a period of time that I came to catch the literary bug.” (26) While this may have worked for Graff, not all students will “experience a personal reaction” (27) through the use of critical discussion.
Within a story that is mostly dialogue, it would be logical to understand which characters are speaking so the reader can understand the interactions of the characters. There are no names given to the two waiters in the café, and there is very little reference to which one is speaking. This makes the reader infer which character knows what key information is being presented. One of the first critics to start the dialogue debate in 1959 is Dr. William E. Colburn who authored Confusion in ‘A Clean, Well-Lighted Place’. Colburn declared, “The dialogue does not fit a logical pattern; there definitely is an inconsistency in the story” (241). At the same time in 1959, a college teacher named F. P. Kroeger wrote, “There has been what appears to be an insoluble problem in the dialogue” (240). These two initial statements have resulted in years of contention and controversy by many other critics.
Meyer, Michael, ed. Thinking and Writing About Literature. Second Edition. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001.
Throughout the next few years, following his first real experience of critical reading and discussion, he came to catch what he calls, “The literary bug” (His own interpretation of understanding the art of critical discussion and reading). Graff eventually chose the profession of teaching. He believed that everyone has the same chance to learn how to unlock the secret world of critical responses and reading. Graff wanted to instill the same process in his students that he once lacked. Many of the students he teaches seemed to have grown up as the same sort of “nonintellectual, non-bookish person I was” (Graff Para. 17), the same type of people who had a fear of books and dread of reading. His main goal as a teacher was to able to share the way he learned to open his mind to literature to the same kind of students that he once was.
The notion of the author has often been disputed when it comes to critical literary studies. The argument centers around one basic question: Should the author be considered when looking at a text? There are numerous reasons given as to why the author is important or why the ...
Roald Barthes’s 1967 critical essay “The Death of the Author” addresses the influence of the author in reading and in analyzing his or her writing, the power of the reader, and the option to ignore the work’s background and focus solely on the work. When critically looking at writing, the author is forced to take sole responsibility for the work. Whether the audience loves or hates, whether critics think it is genius or failure. With this idea the creator’s work has a direct correlation to the creator himself or herself, which according to Barthes seems to take away from the text. In other words, the information not stated within the work defines the work. The historical and biographical elements culminate into a limitation of interpreting the text. Barthes goes on to discuss the text itself appearing as derivative, saying that all texts from a certain era will be read the same due to the cultivation of a culture. The direct intent of the author may be muddled due to the translation from author to text to reader, with the text becoming more of a dictionary than anything else. This point ultimately leads to Barthes’s main point: the reader holds more responsibility to the text than does the author. The complexity of different experiences that come from the author into the text is flattened when it is read. The reader comes blindly and has no personal connection to the text. So much information is condensed and made inaccessible to the viewer. Barthes makes the point that a work may begin with the author, but its last stop is with the reader.
The concept of ‘the Death of the Author’ was proposed by, French philosopher and literary theorist, Roland Barthes in his essay with the same title. He proposed a paradigm shift in the way that authorship should be viewed by the ‘Critic’. In opposition to the classical model of critique, Barthes proposed that the focus should be on the readers experience and interpretation; he proposed the idea of ‘readerly’ and ‘writerly’ texts. Rather than focusing on the author’s intent, his or her past building up to the text and the singularity of his or her intent, he suggested that once a text has been committed to written words it transcends into a ‘tissue of signs’ and ‘immense dictionary from which he [the writer] draws a writing that can know no halt’ [Barthes 1977, 147] and the only thing of importance to the critique of the work would be the experience of the reader. He proposed that ‘the work’ itself is merely a string of words that, without a reader, would be void of meaning. He also suggests that these two polar opposites were mutually exclusive of one another and that ‘the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author’ [Barthes 1977, 148]. The discussion that follows will be based on Stephen Heath’s French-to-English translation of Barthes work from the compilation of essays, ‘Image – Music – Text’, translated and compiled in 1977 (three years before Roland Barthes’ death).
Literature allows reflection. It helps us to shape our own thoughts. It builds on rich histories of thought and expression. Literature represents and explores the ways in which the world is viewed and experienced by people in that society.