Describe Foster and his writing style.
Foster’s writing style is witty and engaging. The title of this book might scream dry, boring, and difficult, but it’s exactly the opposite. In fact, it is one of the more accessible books about reading literature that I’ve read. It may be the only accessible book about reading literature that I’ve read, for that matter. How to Read Literature Like a Professor comes complete with a list of recommended reading in the appendix. In fact, I plan to read as many of his recommendations as possible, since his use of these works as examples. It is constructed in such a way that the reader can dash off a chapter here and there without much of a time commitment.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
How to read literature like a professor - part 4
Are there differences in the types of readers who would like this book?
One thing's for certain: after finishing "How to read literature like a professor", you will either praise the author for opening your eyes to the pleasures of literary analysis, or curse him for making you think too much. That's because Thomas C. Foster, a professor of English at the University of Michigan at Flint, gives his readers a lot to consider. The short answer one comes away with is that nothing is as it appears to be. Symbolism is key. Weather, for example, is not just weather. Rain can be cleansing, cold is harsh but clean, wet is earthy and animal. In case the reader doesn't quite get what Foster is saying, he succinctly states his meaning in a single, boldface sentence. "Myth is a body of the story that matters" reads one. "The real reason for a quest is always self-knowledge" is another. My favorite is, "There's no such thing as a wholly original work of literature," a theme that is repeated on several occasions. According to Foster, everything any author has ever read influences what he writes. Using the western film as an example, he suggests, "What's it about? A big showdown? High Noon. A gunslinger who retires? Shane. A lonely outpost during an uprising? Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon - the woods are full of them . . ." Not that he blames writers for lack of originality: "You can't avoid [repetition], since even avoidance is a form of interaction. It's simply impossible to write . . . in a vacuum."
One thing's for certain: after finishing "How to read literature like a professor", you will either praise the author for opening your eyes to the pleasures of literary analysis, or curse him for making you think too much. That's because Thomas C. Foster, a professor of English at the University of Michigan at Flint, gives his readers a lot to consider. The short answer one comes away with is that nothing is as it appears to be. Symbolism is key. Weather, for example, is not just weather. Rain can be cleansing, cold is harsh but clean, wet is earthy and animal. In case the reader doesn't quite get what Foster is saying, he succinctly states his meaning in a single, boldface sentence. "Myth is a body of the story that matters" reads one. "The real reason for a quest is always self-knowledge" is another. My favorite is, "There's no such thing as a wholly original work of literature," a theme that is repeated on several occasions. According to Foster, everything any author has ever read influences what he writes. Using the western film as an example, he suggests, "What's it about? A big showdown? High Noon. A gunslinger who retires? Shane. A lonely outpost during an uprising? Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon - the woods are full of them . . ." Not that he blames writers for lack of originality: "You can't avoid [repetition], since even avoidance is a form of interaction. It's simply impossible to write . . . in a vacuum."
How to read literature like a professor - part 3
How has this book helped, informed, or otherwise intrigued you?
Foster is obviously very intelligent and very passionate about literature. So it was interesting, and informative, to watch him read so much into things like the weather, sex, meals, illness, baptism, and more. There have been many times I've read a book and just *known* the author is trying to impart more than I am taking away from the prose, and I hear about symbolism in literature, yet I have very little success finding it on my own. Certainly this would not be of much value to a literature graduate student or professor, but for the rest of us this is a great introduction to getting more out of our reading (or viewing, as the author also touches on film, though to a lesser extent).
Foster is obviously very intelligent and very passionate about literature. So it was interesting, and informative, to watch him read so much into things like the weather, sex, meals, illness, baptism, and more. There have been many times I've read a book and just *known* the author is trying to impart more than I am taking away from the prose, and I hear about symbolism in literature, yet I have very little success finding it on my own. Certainly this would not be of much value to a literature graduate student or professor, but for the rest of us this is a great introduction to getting more out of our reading (or viewing, as the author also touches on film, though to a lesser extent).
How to read literature like a professor - part 2
How does "How to read literature like a professor" compare mythology and other ancient literature to current literature?
If Tom Jones is going on a journey, he must be following a quest, especially if he has a place to go, a reason to go, challenges, trials, and a "real reason" for his journey. And, if the character seems familiar, he or she probably is based on a character we've seen in literature before. The idea for the story is really not a new idea: that no book is really original, that all literature is based on previous patterns, archetypes and recurrences. There's only one story with millions of permutations, which means readers continue to meet the same old friends, whether it's a female character who's remarkably like Ophelia or Anna Karenina...or an old man who reminds you of King Lear...or a young lad who reminds you of Huck Finn.
If Tom Jones is going on a journey, he must be following a quest, especially if he has a place to go, a reason to go, challenges, trials, and a "real reason" for his journey. And, if the character seems familiar, he or she probably is based on a character we've seen in literature before. The idea for the story is really not a new idea: that no book is really original, that all literature is based on previous patterns, archetypes and recurrences. There's only one story with millions of permutations, which means readers continue to meet the same old friends, whether it's a female character who's remarkably like Ophelia or Anna Karenina...or an old man who reminds you of King Lear...or a young lad who reminds you of Huck Finn.
How to read literature like a professor - part 1
What sets How to read literature like a professor aside from other books?
Some students think there must be some well-kept secret to understanding literature. Either that, or teachers must be making up all this stuff about theme and symbol. There couldn't be that much to a book after all: symbols, important images, connections between this book and others. Of course, literature professors don't make this stuff up. Professors and other readers only see symbols and archetypes because they are there. They are not hidden, not really. You just have to have eyes to see, and those literature goggles are developed through years of reading. And, it's not just any reading. We must read Shakespeare, Homer, Aristotle, Twain, Chekhov, Milton, and all of the other literary greats. We grow in our literary skills as we use them.
Some students think there must be some well-kept secret to understanding literature. Either that, or teachers must be making up all this stuff about theme and symbol. There couldn't be that much to a book after all: symbols, important images, connections between this book and others. Of course, literature professors don't make this stuff up. Professors and other readers only see symbols and archetypes because they are there. They are not hidden, not really. You just have to have eyes to see, and those literature goggles are developed through years of reading. And, it's not just any reading. We must read Shakespeare, Homer, Aristotle, Twain, Chekhov, Milton, and all of the other literary greats. We grow in our literary skills as we use them.
What is the What - Part 5
Is there a passage that is particularly meaningful? Is it a high point in the book?
There is one passage that I find particularly meaningful - and also a high point in the book. This concerns the death of Tabitha and also her upbringing during her youthful relationship with Valentino and their adventures in Nairobi. I always found Tabitha as a blunt and interesting woman. I was sure her rebelliousness would sure get her into trouble and in the end I was nonetheless correct. When Duluma warned Achak about Tabitha I ultimately believed in what Duluma said about her. He said that she had an abortion with their child and that she was a mean and nasty person, as well as "easy" because she has been with so many guys. I found Tabitha to be a catalyst for disaster and that soon she would pay. Her death made more sense when Valentino spoke of the week they spent together in Nairobi because of their performing arts excellence
There is one passage that I find particularly meaningful - and also a high point in the book. This concerns the death of Tabitha and also her upbringing during her youthful relationship with Valentino and their adventures in Nairobi. I always found Tabitha as a blunt and interesting woman. I was sure her rebelliousness would sure get her into trouble and in the end I was nonetheless correct. When Duluma warned Achak about Tabitha I ultimately believed in what Duluma said about her. He said that she had an abortion with their child and that she was a mean and nasty person, as well as "easy" because she has been with so many guys. I found Tabitha to be a catalyst for disaster and that soon she would pay. Her death made more sense when Valentino spoke of the week they spent together in Nairobi because of their performing arts excellence
What is the What - Part 4
Why does chapter one impress, intrigue, or confuse you?
The beginning of the chapter immediately intrigues me. Achak Deng is being held hostage in his own apartment, while two strangers raid and steal things from his and his roommate's apartment. It makes me realize that you can not really trust anyone but yourself and of course immediate family. In the beginning, when Tonya - one of the culprits - comes into Achak's apartment claiming that her car broke down, Achak questions her answers - in his mind, of course. First she asks if Achak has a phone because she needs to call the police because her car broke down - Achak wonders "Why does she need to call the police for that?" then later on when he welcomes her into his apartment, she asks him to leave his door open because she will only be a minute, which, again, does not make any sense to him, or anyone else reading I'm sure. Yet Achak does what he is told because, he quotes, "It does not make sense to me to leave the door open but I do so because she desires it. This is her country and not yet mine." The second sentence also intrigues me. What does he mean by it? That he is inferior to the natives of America? Even if he was not born and raised here, we are a free and welcoming country.
The beginning of the chapter immediately intrigues me. Achak Deng is being held hostage in his own apartment, while two strangers raid and steal things from his and his roommate's apartment. It makes me realize that you can not really trust anyone but yourself and of course immediate family. In the beginning, when Tonya - one of the culprits - comes into Achak's apartment claiming that her car broke down, Achak questions her answers - in his mind, of course. First she asks if Achak has a phone because she needs to call the police because her car broke down - Achak wonders "Why does she need to call the police for that?" then later on when he welcomes her into his apartment, she asks him to leave his door open because she will only be a minute, which, again, does not make any sense to him, or anyone else reading I'm sure. Yet Achak does what he is told because, he quotes, "It does not make sense to me to leave the door open but I do so because she desires it. This is her country and not yet mine." The second sentence also intrigues me. What does he mean by it? That he is inferior to the natives of America? Even if he was not born and raised here, we are a free and welcoming country.
What is the What - Part 3
Discuss if you found yourself changing your mind about the book and/or the assignment.
I do not know what it is about this book, but it takes me quite a while to get through it. I am usually an above averagely fast reader, especially when the book is extremely intriguing (like Kite Runner) but I do not see the difference with What Is the What because it, too, is intriguing... but I sometimes find myself lagging to finish the book. I think sometimes the book goes off in sequences that are too long and I seem to lose interest. Maybe I find it challenging because it focuses more on the war more than I would like. True, Kite Runner did mention the war quite a few times, but it was also interesting and not that much input into the mechanisms of war. Also Achak's kindest to Michael (TV boy) irritates me, because of the TV boys first impression. I hate how he dropped the book on Achak. I almost lost interest in the book just because Achak wanted to speak with TV boy even though he has been so rude to him.
I do not know what it is about this book, but it takes me quite a while to get through it. I am usually an above averagely fast reader, especially when the book is extremely intriguing (like Kite Runner) but I do not see the difference with What Is the What because it, too, is intriguing... but I sometimes find myself lagging to finish the book. I think sometimes the book goes off in sequences that are too long and I seem to lose interest. Maybe I find it challenging because it focuses more on the war more than I would like. True, Kite Runner did mention the war quite a few times, but it was also interesting and not that much input into the mechanisms of war. Also Achak's kindest to Michael (TV boy) irritates me, because of the TV boys first impression. I hate how he dropped the book on Achak. I almost lost interest in the book just because Achak wanted to speak with TV boy even though he has been so rude to him.
What is the What - Part 2
Show where you were drawn into the novel and where you were pulled away from the novel
I was drawn into the novel during the time Valentino was about to find out if his parents were still alive. The build up towards this section felt like a movie a little on the cliche side, but still interesting . First it starts out with Valentino (called Achak in Kakuma) getting summoned to his house where he meets a woman who tells him that his parents are still alive in Marial Bai. This starts out with the whole family (or live-in family that has accepted Valentino and a few other "unaccompanied minors") eating a very rare dish that is found in Marial Bai, except Valentino does not recognize where it comes from because he hasn't had such food in years. Then the woman gets introduced as a midwife who has traveled many miles helping pregnant mothers along the way. She then says that she found another woman, a woman in a yellow dress - which in the past is always referred to Achak's mother because she always wore a "yellow dress". Then she starts to say that the woman in the dress lost a boy many years ago and then later on in the passage we find out that Achak's parents are alive and are still looking for their long lost son. Yet he does not visit them yet due to the Nairobi trip, as his family believes that he will not survive.
I was drawn into the novel during the time Valentino was about to find out if his parents were still alive. The build up towards this section felt like a movie a little on the cliche side, but still interesting . First it starts out with Valentino (called Achak in Kakuma) getting summoned to his house where he meets a woman who tells him that his parents are still alive in Marial Bai. This starts out with the whole family (or live-in family that has accepted Valentino and a few other "unaccompanied minors") eating a very rare dish that is found in Marial Bai, except Valentino does not recognize where it comes from because he hasn't had such food in years. Then the woman gets introduced as a midwife who has traveled many miles helping pregnant mothers along the way. She then says that she found another woman, a woman in a yellow dress - which in the past is always referred to Achak's mother because she always wore a "yellow dress". Then she starts to say that the woman in the dress lost a boy many years ago and then later on in the passage we find out that Achak's parents are alive and are still looking for their long lost son. Yet he does not visit them yet due to the Nairobi trip, as his family believes that he will not survive.
What is the What - Part 1
Why does chapter 24 impress, intrigue, or confuse you?
The part where Valentino tries to "recycle" his ration card, I find is very pointless because he does not get to accomplish it anyway. The only thing he gains from his experience is that he meets Thomas who tells him to go into a truck that will go to his destination, only to be informed that the truck is full of sick and dying people going to be dropped off into the Lopinding hospital. Another experience here is when he gets off the truck and meets Abraham, a doctor who specializes in making plastic body parts to replace the ones people have gotten blown or burned off from mines and such. Later on Val gets robbed of his things for his stupidity. I see little importance in this passage. It only makes me disappointed to have this passage here because it is another hardship that Val encounters - being in a truck full of dead and dying passengers and getting robbed of clothing and money is very depressing.
The part where Valentino tries to "recycle" his ration card, I find is very pointless because he does not get to accomplish it anyway. The only thing he gains from his experience is that he meets Thomas who tells him to go into a truck that will go to his destination, only to be informed that the truck is full of sick and dying people going to be dropped off into the Lopinding hospital. Another experience here is when he gets off the truck and meets Abraham, a doctor who specializes in making plastic body parts to replace the ones people have gotten blown or burned off from mines and such. Later on Val gets robbed of his things for his stupidity. I see little importance in this passage. It only makes me disappointed to have this passage here because it is another hardship that Val encounters - being in a truck full of dead and dying passengers and getting robbed of clothing and money is very depressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)