The fundamental quality of literacy is having the ability to read. Letters and sentences are learned first, and after practice, these words come together to form stories and ideas that the audience can relate to. In a way, everyone is literate. "Text" is a word used by Foster to describe not only paragraphs but any level of art. It's true, not everyone is literate in the conventional sense of reading, but any audience member can be moved and interpret meaning from other texts.
Take for example a painting, an artist's goal may not be political, or address the human condition, but it may be to make the audience understand something, it may be to force perspective, and it may be to just arouse some emotion. If the artist succeeds and the audience is moved in some way, he has proven their literacy.
Of course literacy in the conventional sense can't be reduced to merely reading. Kindergarteners can read, but that's not to say they have developed the mental facets of literacy quite yet. Foster mentions parallel meanings often found in classic works. Literacy is the ability to pick up on the implicit meaning and understand what role it plays in society. Just recently I have started to comprehend unspoken meanings and parallels buried in literature, so surely I haven't been fully literate since I was 5. Literacy is understanding to the best of one's ability, what an author is stating implicitly, not just what's in black and white.
Essentially, literate people find themselves reading between the lines and comparing the events of a novel to the ones found in real life. After all, a novel is a way of gaining perspective on the real world, not just to get lost in a fictitious one.
2. It is interesting that literacy is associated so closely with parallel meanings. One may not need to be exceptionally literate to understand literature which almost deconstructs the concept of literacy being essential to understanding parallel meaning. If a five year old can sit and point out the common relations between the classic “quest” stories Foster discusses early on, then literacy is not always based on the level of thought one obtains throughout their years of learning. Obviously, though, higher levels of thought lead to deeper and more thoughtful connections than a five year old can make between children’s tales.
ReplyDeleteDean,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more that literacy encompasses much more than merely the ability to read. To expand on this idea, I believe that one can possess the ability to read yet still be illiterate. Literacy, as you have explained, deals with understanding an author's underlying purpose. Writer's communicate their ideals through analogy, metaphor, religious reference, etc. Without a semi-sophisticated approach to works of literature, it is nearly impossible for the reader to understand what a text truly means. It's so much more than reading the words on the page. So many are able to read, but miss out on the exciting journey of discovering hidden meanings and references.
James—I like the idea that even though someone can read and write that they are still illiterate. I believe that being able to read and write plays into one’s literacy, but it is only the half of it. The ability to read and write is only the foundation of literacy. The “”reading between the lines” and picking up the “implicit meaning” is what builds up literacy and makes it whole. What would be the point of Foster’s, "How to Read Literature Like a Professor", if there was nothing more to literacy? With his book Foster is teaching his readers how to look for deeper meaning in the simplest things—that’s what it takes to be literate. I think Dean describes it perfectly by saying, "a novel is a way of gaining perspective on the real world, not just to get lost in a fictitious one," because finding that deeper meaning in the weather or heart disease or sex does help readers gain perspective on the real world concepts and ideas.
ReplyDelete