Prior to reading "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" I
would have never believed that each piece of writing is central to one story
but now my opinion has changed. I would agree with both King Solomon and Foster
in this regard. I have learned from this book how to analyze pattern and
style in writing, and now that I can do this I realize the connections in
nearly every story I have ever read. Foster in this idea is not claiming
that every piece of writing is the same, or even that all writing
encompasses the same ideas. Rather, he is saying that all writing is alive -
literature as a whole lives which means it is one huge story that never ends.
Every work is a piece of the story. When a reader accepts this idea, he or she
realizes how it enriches both reading and writing. This concept connects all
works and allows a reader to evaluate previous readings and apply them to
current readings. The reading experience is heightened as the reader can find
patterns from book to book. For example, in chapter ten I read about the
symbolism of rain and snow, and I made a connection to the Book
Thief by Markus Zusak. Foster wrote on how rain falls from the sky in
a clean and beautiful manner only to create mud when it lands. In the
Book Thief, Max dances outside in a bomb raid because he is at peace.
Bombs fly towards the ground in a spectacular show of light only to leave
destruction upon impact. I made this connection through patterns that I found
not in two stories, but in one - literature.
Dear Alec,
ReplyDeleteYes, at first this seems like a preposterous statement--there's only one big story all stories hail from; but another way to consider this is through the archetypal lens. This focus more on those "patterns" of meaning you were talking about. Really fascinating stuff!
Mrs. Mac
Alec,
ReplyDeleteI find your statements thought provoking, however I do not agree with the generalizations you made about literature being part of one "story".
Although literature can share similar patterns, symbols, and the like, how can one determine whether all literature is connected? Doesn't each reader bring their own experiences and biases to every piece? Resultantly, it cannot be determined whether all literature is connected because each person interprets what they read differently based on their limited prior knowledge.
For example, your inclusion of "The Book Thief" is your interpretation. For some, the bomb raid may symbolize the start of something new instead of destruction. Your statement highlights how one's literary experience may not fully align with the author's true intention.
Is there one right answer based on the author's intent or are there many based solely off of each reader's interpretations? Is there one big story or are there many that cannot be molded into one category? Questions like these prove literature is a medium through which individuals are faced with the human experience and allows for conversations that, just like life itself, have no end.
Lauren,
ReplyDeleteAlec is actually tapping into Foster's idea about "One Story." It is a really important concept from the book itself. I think it makes a lot of sense when you strip away the small details and look at patterns and human themes. Perhaps you haven't gotten to that part in the text yet; Foster makes a pretty good argument for the one story.
Mrs. Mac
Alec and Mrs. Mac- I also agree and admire Foster’s take on the idea of pieces of literature being intertwined in such a way. The idea of “one big story” also seemed absolutely ridiculous to me at first, but once Foster elaborated, it really made sense. It’s by far my favorite part of this book, as it caused me to realize the deep interconnection between works of Western literature. This book as a whole supports that- all of the examples of patterns and symbolism are repeated again and again throughout many genres and stories. Literature truly is a giant web of stories that are united by similar themes, literary tools, character tropes, etc. Now that I realize this, I suspect that it will be easier for me to pick up on patterns that I’ve seen elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty impossible to deny that all literature is intertwined in some way. The literature we refer to all has pages and they all have words. They have the same makeup, and they are the same as I am to anybody else. With that being said, I do not think it is always fair to generalize literature just like it is not fair to generalize people. Harry Potter is not the same as Where the Red Fern Grows. They are in the same family but they serve different purposes. I can see what everyone that has commented above me is saying. I know this is not what is being said, but the statement, "A book is a book is a book" is not true.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is astounding that all literature can be connected so easily in the mind of a veteran reader. Even a not-so-experienced reader can view the main plot points of a tale and begin to piece together which type of story they fit; reading Foster’s book definitely aids in developing this writer’s eagle eye. When the layers of depth imbued into stories become visible, the read becomes much more than a reader could ever imagine. The most awestriking part of this process is that the depth can lead to personal revelations that the writer never intended to occur. The way I read a book and interact with it may be completely different than how you connect to it, and that is the true beauty of discovering all a book has to offer.
ReplyDeleteThe analogy I am about to use is embarrassing and silly, but, like what I am about to discuss, its form does not matter, its content does. I am sure you remember the Avatar the Last Airbender episode where Aang gets lost in the swamp and encounters and bonds with the native people. They (Foster), through a in through the swamp (How to Read Literature Like a Professor), teach Aang that even though every tree in the swamp is different, they are all simply roots and forms of the large mother tree. Literature is like the swamp. It has many trees (books and stories) that take all shapes and sizes, but ultimately they are all a part of one big, growing heart, literature.
ReplyDeleteFoster shows us that all stories are small parts of the whole. This discovery of the archetypal lens is disappointing for some, but for others it is exciting and eye opening.
The analogy I am about to use is embarrassing and silly, but, like what I am about to discuss, its form does not matter, its content does. I am sure you remember the Avatar the Last Airbender episode where Aang gets lost in the swamp and encounters and bonds with the native people. They (Foster), through a in through the swamp (How to Read Literature Like a Professor), teach Aang that even though every tree in the swamp is different, they are all simply roots and forms of the large mother tree. Literature is like the swamp. It has many trees (books and stories) that take all shapes and sizes, but ultimately they are all a part of one big, growing heart, literature.
ReplyDeleteFoster shows us that all stories are small parts of the whole. This discovery of the archetypal lens is disappointing for some, but for others it is exciting and eye opening.