Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Tea room
>
Text analysis
date
newest »
newest »
Please note, I am not having a dig at her, I like her, I just don't understand this way of thinking. I suspect it is because I was bought up analysing the bible, which is a very closed-reading approach to text.When reading the bible, the intentions of the authors are ignored. I don't care what Paul was thinking, instead I am trying to understand how the text might apply to my life.
I tend to treat all works of literature in the same way. The author becomes irrelevant (except for additional context) the moment the work is published.
Another example. We are reading "Get Drunk" by Baudelaire.
One passage reads:
Get drunk and stay that way.
On what?
On wine, poetry, virtue, whatever.
But get drunk.
This passage was part of an old exam question. Questions such as:
According the the poem, one must get drunk on, a) water, b) work, c) wine.
The answer is, in my mind, all of those things. The point of the poem is that one should get drunk on whatever they want, as long as it helps them ignore the passage of time.
Another question asks, "In the three categories, wine, poetry, virtue. In which category would the follow words be put: beer, love, music, drugs, literature".
I cringed. The poem did not have categories, it had examples. But here is an examiner writing a question, they must have believed what they wrote. They have the degree and the experience. What am I missing? Why are they taking things so literally?
My two cents.The question regarding the first passage is a simple reading comprehension question, I think. In which case, given the passage you have provided, the answer is false for the reason your professor gives. This is not the kind of question that permits interpretation.
Given what you've provided in the second passage, and only what you've provided -- I have no context in which to place this passage -- the question, despite their multiple choice format, may be designed to prompt thinking and discussion rather than designed to elicit a single correct answer. If so, such questions are some of the best questions to ask. Is love like virtue or wine or poetry? Metaphorically it could be all of these. Literally it is none of these, unless the answer lies elsewhere outside the passage you have provided.
On the other hand, if this question were given on an exam, in which you were permitted to choose one answer, and only one answer, without any follow-up explanation as to your reasoning, and, once again, the answer does not exist elsewhere, then I would say this is not a good question and invalid as a test question. And I would criticize the question itself.
https://britlitwiki.wikispaces.com/Al...Above is one of the references offered in our discussion of "The Wasteland." It suggests a few attitudes about the relationship of modernism (at that time, the current language usage) and the history of language. May have a few thoughts to slip into your thinking on the subject, Cass.
Patrice wrote: "Cass wrote: "I have come to a point where I disagree with my professor, in a very polite way of course (I like her a lot, but I can't agree with her). I am studying a course in French Literature. I..."To clarify, I mean that I couldn't say that they were there or that they weren't.
The correct answer, in the prof's opinion, is to say "there were no mosquitoes.
I think the correct answer is to say "we don't know if there were mosquitoes or not."
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "My two cents.The question regarding the first passage is a simple reading comprehension question, I think. In which case, given the passage you have provided, the answer is false for the reason ..."
Thank you, this is how I think as well.
On a strictly truthful basis, I agree, the correct answer is "We don't know if there were mosquitoes or not." We would only know for SURE if the text said "There are mosquitoes," or "There are no mosquitoes."
In general, I believe--and firmly---that the reader brings himself to the text and what he sees in the text with even the faintest hint of what might possibly be there ... can legitimately be read as being there if it's not specifically excluded by the text.
In your example... as there is nothing in the text itself to hint that there MIGHT be mosquitoes, and since the text itself says there ARE flies... then there probably aren't any mosquitoes.
But in my opinion the question doesn't match up well with the text.
In general, I believe--and firmly---that the reader brings himself to the text and what he sees in the text with even the faintest hint of what might possibly be there ... can legitimately be read as being there if it's not specifically excluded by the text.
In your example... as there is nothing in the text itself to hint that there MIGHT be mosquitoes, and since the text itself says there ARE flies... then there probably aren't any mosquitoes.
But in my opinion the question doesn't match up well with the text.
Cass wrote: "I have come to a point where I disagree with my professor, in a very polite way of course (I like her a lot, but I can't agree with her). I am studying a course in French Literature. It has been fa..."This is a little different problem than yours, but I love questions about translation so I'll go on a bit.
There is a problem translating from Greek where the word in Greek can be interpreted in more than one way. Like the word "aetos," which can mean eagle or vulture. Matthew 24:28 is a good example: "For wherever the carcass is, there will the vultures (aetoi) be gathered together." (KJV) Most translations have "vulture" because of the context, but the word "aetoi" in Greek almost always means "eagles," in the New Testament and elsewhere.
The way I tackle this is to ask if the author had the other word at his or her disposal. If the author of Matthew had a word for vulture, then why didn't he use it? There is a word in Greek for vulture -- gyps -- but it does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. Which means that there is an argument for translating aetos as "vulture" rather than "eagle," because the author may have had no alternative.
I would approach your conundrum in the same way. Is there a word in French for "mosquito?" If so, why did the author not use it, if there were in fact mosquitoes there? The reader can think about and imagine the things that might have been there, but there's no way to justify it from the text alone.
Cass wrote: "The fictional universe is what is put there, consciously or unconsciously, by the author — no more, no less. "So if two people are sitting talking, but the place they are in is not described, there is no floor, no walls, no roof, no room, because none of that is mentioned. But they aren't outdoors, either, because there is no mention of any trees, grass, ground, sky, therefore none of those are there. So if this were to be filmed it would just be two people in front of a green screen, and of course they would be naked because no clothing was mentioned, nor shoes, and they're both bald because no hair was mentioned as being there ....
Cass wrote: "This passage was part of an old exam question. Questions such as:According the the poem, one must get drunk on, a) water, b) work, c) wine.
The answer is, in my mind, all of those things."
I would say not all, but any. Or none of those but something totally else like love. Just get drunk on anything or any combination of things that you can get drunk on.
Everyman wrote: "Cass wrote: "The fictional universe is what is put there, consciously or unconsciously, by the author — no more, no less. "So if two people are sitting talking, but the place they are in is not d..."
@Everyman, my argument exactly. That particular comment, above all else, is the one that has me second guessing my intention to continue studying french literature with her (she teaches 4 other courses that I would like to enrol in).
E.g. Clothes were not mentioned, maybe they wore none. Maybe this was a society of naturalists.
I tend to prefer authors that are scant on details like that. I do not like being told the colour of the protaganists hair - unless it is paramount to the story. Otherwise I like to be free to envision any colour that I choose.
Likewise, if mosquitoes have not been declared absent (or present) I feel it is my right to envision the room in the way that I feel closely matches the author's intention. In this case it was a poor coastal village in Manitoba, and the class was in a one-room school house with open windows. It was hot.
The author is good at her craft, she described the situation well and I can feel the unpleasantness of the afternoon, the sweat dripping (though sweat was not mentioned), the clammy uncomfortable heat (though comfort was not mentioned) etc etc.
@Thomas, Thank you. In answer, I would suggest it is because, I feel, that the author did not need to mention every insect present, it was enough to mention the flies, and then we can imagine the presence of mosquitoes, ants outside, sandflies, or whatever else we wish. As long as it helps us come to the place in which the author is trying to take us.In this case, a hot unpleasant school room, in a poor village.
Yes, and that part I have come to terms with. The answer she gave me was excellent, as far as getting a good grade in her class.But her comments seemed to be about more than just the test/assignments, and that was what I am really trying to wrap my head around.
I know I tend to really think outside the box as far as meanings go. In an email she mentioned that she enjoyed my speculations, but I get the impression that she found them in no way persuasive. To her the text did not have the layers that I saw.
I thought I would ask here, because this group is full of people who take pleasure in analysising texts, and many of whom are educated in some area of literature.
In the text, there are no mosquitos. In the actual room, the question is meaningless, for there is no actual room, this being a work of fiction.
Cass wrote: "@Thomas, Thank you. In answer, I would suggest it is because, I feel, that the author did not need to mention every insect present, it was enough to mention the flies, and then we can imagine the p..."I see what you're saying, but I don't think you're analyzing the text when you do this. You're interpreting the text, which is perfectly legitimate if that is your assignment, but it's different from analysis. I think you've shown how hard it is to test an interpretation -- it is a rather subjective affair.
You have got me there. I don't understand the difference between analysis and interpretation.
Cass wrote: "You have got me there. I don't understand the difference between analysis and interpretation."Perhaps it helps if you think of "textual analysis", Cass. "Close reading" usually (always?) means "what does the text say." Roger's comment @19 especially applies.
Interpretation may go beyond the text, to include meanings and contexts ascribed by the reader. (Will the "fictional room" have walls? Is such inherent in the word "room"? Might it well be "intellectually honest" to imagine other insects besides any named are also present?)
There is a passage in, L'Enfant Morte, by Gabrielle Roy, in which a classroom is described. The (new) teacher is trying to find out some information about a student who is not present. The passage reads "From the back of the classroom arose above the buzzing of the flies, a voice I did not here at first". It is the only mention of any insects in the passage, but the school is a little one-teacher school in a poor coastal village in Manitoba, Canada. Google tells me that mosquitoes are jokingly known as Manitoba's provincial bird.
The textbook asks:
True or false. There were mosquitoes in the classroom.
I know we will face questions like this in the exam, so I asked my professor what should be written. In my opinion, neither true nor false is adequate. I cannot say "True, there were mosquitoes", because I cannot prove it. However to say false is wrong too, the passage does not say that there were not mosquitoes. In fact, I suspect there probably was mosquitoes.
I asked my professor, because I know we will face questions like this in the exam. She gave me a good answer, and I know now how to respond in an exam situation, but I am curious in general - is her answer considered correct, because it bothers me.
She responded:
The text mentions flies but not mosquitoes. Therefore there are no mosquitoes.
You say, 'nothing precludes mosquitoes from being there'. Not so. Remember that this is written as fiction, even though it is semi-autobiographical. The fictional universe is what is put there, consciously or unconsciously, by the author — no more, no less.
You can speculate about what might be in a real room, and you can make an educated guess as to what might be assumed to be in a fictional room, because this is what fits the normal definition of what such a room would contain (windows, door, ceiling etc.), but a true/false exercise would not ask about such things. If the author does not mention that there are mosquitoes in the room, then you cannot put them there.
She is well-educated and teaches half a dozen units on french literature, but I find myself running into problems with interpretation. I have more examples, but I won't clutter this post. I would love some thoughts on text analyisi.