Literature: An Object or Piece of Art

"The Affective Fallacy is a confusion between the poem and its results( what it is and what it does).... It begins by trying to derive the standards of criticism from the psychological effects of a poem and ends in impressionism and relativism. The outcome...is that the poem itself as an object of specifically critical judgement, tend to disappear." This excerpt is from the reader response section of "The Dead." I was so caught up when I read this that I was not able to get much from the rest of the section. Essentially this quote says that what the reader believes the work means is completely irrelevant. I was appalled. I have always been told that literature is like a dance, it takes both the reader and the writer to make a successful work.

However in the following paragraph Fish argues that "literature exists when it is read." I could not agree more. A work is just words on a page, but when the audience reads the words they come to life. I feel that it is almost impossible to read a novel/poem without putting our own experiences into the interpretation. This is how critics are able to develop their own assessments of a work. I find this statement similar to the question if a tree makes a noise when it falls in a forest without anyone around. I am of the mind that if no one is around to hear the noise then it does not matter, so if no one is able to read a work and make an analysis using their own experience then the work is just an object taking up space instead of a piece of art.

Realization of Inadequacy

I must admit that the first portion of the work was really difficult to get in to. The story was just about a family and a party, and I could not find any real depth in the story. Halfway through I was able to finally get in to the story. I enjoyed getting to experience the setting through Gabriel's thoughts.
The most influential portion of the work for me was the scene of Gretta listening to the song. This set the scene for the rest of the story. Gabriel was enamoured once more with his wife, but she was caught in misery of the past. I feel that the scene in the inn was a turning point in Gabriel's life because he finally realized that he had not experienced as much as the wife who me he desperately tried to shelter. The irony of this struck me! The author emphasized how Gabriel coddled his wife, but the story comes full circle for Gabriel to finally see that he is not truly above her and does not really possess the right/experience to guide her life.

Literary Skills and the Lie of a Single Truth

I feel very lucky to have had educators throughout the years have taught me to reread, critical read, and analyze texts. I love that Gardner addresses that literary texts do not have a hidden meaning. I have had too many professors that teach a certain work means this and anything else is wrong. I strongly feel that every text has the possibility to mean something different to each reader.
In class the other day, we read My Papa's Waltz. I had always read this work as one about abuse. This was because a professor several years ago gave us the poem to read, and asked us what we thought it meant. The professor then spent an hour lecturing on its "true" meaning about abuse. I finally was able to see the many truths that could be possible in this work. I feel that giving a student credit for their own analysis is crucial to not stunting their literary growth.
This chapter gives an outline of how to become a better reader. I was lucky to posessess many of these skills early on because of my Father and teachers, but many individuals are not so lucky. I believe that a teacher should demonstrate each of the skills listed in this chapter in order to help his or her students further their literary capacity. What do you think? Do you believe that any one work has one "true" meaning?

Names: Sharing is Out of the Question

This week in Gleick's work The Information, the passage about names caught my attention the most. When an individual is expecting they always strive to pick a name that is original, but with so many people in the world the task can be cumbersome. Gleick states "Names became a special problem: their disambiguation; their complexity; their collisions. The nearly limitless flow of information had the effect of throwing all the world's items into a single arena, where they seemed to play a frantic game of Bumper Cars." Also, a little further down on page 388 he states "Impossible as it seems, the modern world is running out of names." These quotes emulate the difficulty of naming a child something original, picking the name for your business, or naming your band.

Our society is not accepting of two groups using the same name because that name becomes the group's "brand," much like Coca-Cola or Nike. In 1919 this struggle was also alive, so telegraph companies prompted their customers to pick a code name (which they had to pay for.) This continues today with the names of artists and actors/actresses. Gleick mentions several famous names that are associated with one face and not to be replicated by another, for example Julia Roberts. The name is actually very common, but an aspiring actress would be prompted to change their name because Julia Roberts (the actress) already exists and there can be only one. Imagine if this were the case with educators. I have had several teachers that have the same name (since we normally call them by their title and last name alone). I could only imagine the uproar that there could only be one Dr. Blah-Blah in the world, so you must change your name in order to become a teacher. The idea seems silly when you look at it that way.

Another debate mentioned about names is the one of using a location's name as the name of a car or some other object, individual, or company. How can a corporation or individual be expected to pick any name in any language for its own if there is to be constant conflict? No wonder we have odd names for browsers, such as Google, Yahoo!, etc... Certain names have been coined and bought to represent a singular item/individual, and I believe that those should be left alone; however, not everyone or everything can be expected to pay massive amounts of money to "own" a name. No one mentions how the jaguar or mustang felt about their name being used by car companies. I believe that it is crucial for more companies/individuals to develop more leniency towards others having similar names. Honestly we are all just human, and there are only so many words at our disposal now! I feel that the majority of society strives to be original, but after such a long existence does that word really have any credibility in society today?

What do you think? Should we all just start coming up with gibberish to appease those that have already claimed a certain name? Does the idea that anyone with any sort of fame can dictate what another goes by have merit?

As a side note, if you have not already looked into remixing in today's society then I recommend it. Even the major industries have made a fortune on remix, so why should names be any different for the average person?

Innovations

I never truly paid attention to the many modes of measurement, but my eyes were opened after reading a few passages by James Gleick. I really enjoyed the references to information as a unit of measure, such as information being "the unit of life" as referred to by Werner Loewenstein on page 9 of Gleick's work. I realize that as technology has advance people have grown to desire more information in a much more urgent manner. If you look out across campus, then you will struggle to find one person without some type of electronic device in their possession. I have realized how difficult it is to have a discussion with anyone without them having to look up what we are discussing or start texting. We would not be where we are now without the innovations of Bell Labs or the brilliant scientists mentioned in Gleick's work. 

Where do you think we would be now without the innovations of the telephone? Computer? Internet? I personally feel that we would have eventually gotten to the level of technological advancement we are now, but not as quickly. The amazing scientists and inventors that have ushered us into the "Age of Information" (as referenced in Gleick's work) have been both a blessing and a curse. The world is no longer one that we can depend on our neighbors or trust what we read because the webs of information are no longer purely factual or non-fictional but they are biased and often untrue.