Writing and reading can be defined in many ways. To me, the
purpose of reading and writing is dependent on what the material is about. But
in order to read and write, you need to have a text. Roland Barthes said, “A
text is made up of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering
into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation.” I liked how Barthes
worded this statement. Text is made up from different cultures. Everyone is different,
so every piece of writing will be too. Harris also states, “A book (or other
piece of writing) is a text, but so are movies, plays, songs..,webpages, - and
the like.” He considers webpages to be text, which makes blogging a piece of
writing. This is why I like Joseph Harris’ idea of rewriting. My rewrite of a sentence will be different
than anyone else, which makes my writing unique. I also liked the idea of
intertexuality. “Intellectuals almost always write in response to the work of
others.” To practice rewriting, I decided to rewrite the quote. “Intelligent
people almost always give a response and their opinions when reading a piece of
writing.” I had a problem with that statement though. I like to accept
literature how it is and not really think about my own opinion of it. When I am
reading a novel for a class, I think writing essays about it afterwards ruins a
little piece of the novel. However, we
are doing this with our blogs. I have to read other people’s blogs and respond
to what they have to say. It isn’t my favorite thing to do, but it makes me
think a little more about the material we read. The purpose of writing is to respond
and think intelligently about a piece of material. Sullivan would also agree
with Harris’ rewriting stance. Rewriting gives a person the freedom to express
their opinions in a way they couldn’t before. To summarize this section of
Joseph Harris’ book , “You come to terms with a text by translating its words
and ideas into your own language, making them part of your own prose – not only
re-presenting the work of another writer but also, at times, actually retyping
it as you quote key terms and passage from a text.”
The problem with just taking a piece of literature without trying to think about it is that to actually take it in, you need to think and relate each idea into the narrative that moves along as you read. An example, I would say, of this is that of everybody I've talked to that has read Life of Pi has an opinion about the ending without thinking too much about it. Just because you didn't set aside time to think about a text doesn't mean your interpretation is the same as everybody else's, which is what I find makes art so interesting.
ReplyDeleteYou could also say that even reading a text, literature included, is rewriting it in way, as you are recasting it in your own understanding. My reading of "tree" for example might conjure a different image than your reading of "tree."
ReplyDeleteGood inclusion of source materials from the texts here, Cassandra.