This second week in Olson's book was not as easy as the first. At times I found myself overwhelmed with names and theories and wasn't always sure of what was going on.
I feel like I could summarize a few chapters by saying that writing can never show the true intentions of what the author was meaning and that, as readers, we must be aware that true meanings and expression cannot be conveyed accurately.
I do need to say that the Peanuts comic on pg. 125 gave me a good laugh! I know some people who are so concerned with being understood correctly that they really speak like this.
Chapter 7 had some interesting points as Olson laid out the history of reading. I found the most connection with the history of reading the Bible. Being familiar with the history of reading instruction in America, I know the influence religious texts had on reading education.
"The history of reading is largely the history of attempting to cope with what writing does not represent" (p. 145). I found this statement to be one that made me stop and think for a moment. It reminds me of what some people brought up in class a few weeks ago about students who can decode words, but do not comprehend what they read. It is true that understanding and interpreting writing is a large part of reading. As readers, we do have to cope with the fact that writing does not give expression or full intentions of the author. Anyway, an interesting point.
I also found it interesting to read about the theories about reading. For example, the fact that in Medieval times, individuals felt the purpose of reading was to see the spirit of the text. As a protestant Christian, I also found the parts describing Luther's beliefs interesting. This feud of whether Biblical text should be taken literally or in context is still a debate today. Many theological arguments between denominations is based on this.
Moving into chapter 9: I am intrigued with this thought of written texts being used for memory purposes. I know many times, that is why I write things down: so I don't forget them! I feel I rely on written text more for memory than people in the early middle ages did.
I believe I understand the relationship Olson is showing between pictures, diagrams, maps, and formulas to texts. It was interesting to read about how early explorers created maps with their own mental concepts and images.
I still would like to discuss more about this concept of subjectivity. I was slightly confused by Olson introduction in chapter 11 and would like to talk with others about what they gathered from that chapter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'd say that's a pretty good summary. I felt the same way about the second half of the book--interesting but almost too much to digest.
As far as subjectivity goes, I'm thinking of it in terms of something similar to self-consciousness, to be able to think about what you think. In Homeric times, the stories didn't identify ideas as originating in the mind, but other organs or sources. As this was the case, people didn't have a choice to act but had to act. Olson argues that by acting as a vehicle for speech and thought, writing in a sense created subjectivity. That's what I got from it anyway.
Post a Comment