She Never Could Decide

Even though I ride the fence, the problem is that one doesn't really have any other option. Who are we to discount history and its impact on the writing, while in the same moment, who are we to base all our interpretations on it as well when the author did not intended the work to be read historically. The fence is a really awful place to be.

Of course, as you said, we shouldn't assume but I find that as readers, we can do nothing but. We all bring our prejudices to a work, regardless of how open minded we think we are. Even if the author's history is completely irrelevant to the story, if we know even just a little piece of their life, it is magnified when we read.

Val, as you know I agree with the supplying of biographical information on an author before studying their work since I gave a mini-lesson on Mark Twain last semester for ED 327. And I just realized how important our thoughts on this critical theory are in reference to our teaching. Most high school curricula don't really require students to get into literary criticism at all, so you would think that it wouldn’t affect us too much as teachers of English. But, after reading your blog I realized that what we learn in this class will affect what and how we teach our students, making it even more important that we realize what lenses we wear when looking at literature, so that we can better teach our students. Thanks Val!

I am glad that you brought up the reference to Dan Murray's class, because an author's history became an important part of the class at one point. Vanessa is right, the fence is a terrible place to be. I think that we really need to take a biography and history of an author and his/her culture into account, but the interpretation of the literature becomes magnified once we know where the author came from. My eyes were opened wide once I knew that Gilman committed suicide and was suffering from depression. That really takes a spin on the story, which to me, gives me a new way to read "The Yellow Wallpaper" in the first place. Keesey says that we will always have our own interpretation, but we need to stay within the boundary of the author's society and background. Basically, it keeps us from making far-fetched criticisms.

"Sure, the happenings could be based off of the author's own life, but it should NEVER be assumed."

I'm in complete agreement with you Val. I'm not the education (future generations of youth should be praising the heavens) but I do write. I don't want my life explored to find the meaning behind why I wrote about a main character who drowns due to overextended swimming, not their lack of ability or intent to do so. (Yes, I'm a swimmer - I do write to what I know, but that isn't the point - does that knowledge make my story any better? Nope, people with interesting stories and intent can still write bad text.)

Actually, to expand on this comment:

I am glad that you brought up the reference to Dan Murray's class, because an author's history became an important part of the class at one point. Vanessa is right, the fence is a terrible place to be. I think that we really need to take a biography and history of an author and his/her culture into account, but the interpretation of the literature becomes magnified once we know where the author came from. My eyes were opened wide once I knew that Gilman committed suicide and was suffering from depression. That really takes a spin on the story, which to me, gives me a new way to read "The Yellow Wallpaper" in the first place. Keesey says that we will always have our own interpretation, but we need to stay within the boundary of the author's society and background. Basically, it keeps us from making far-fetched criticisms.

We also need to look at the society, as well as Gilman. An autobiography is very important toward a writers background, but for someone like Gilman, we also need to look at the stress on rest therapy, and the emphasis on depression before it was ever called depression. Gilman is very complex, because she did not consider committing suicide until her 70's, but at the same time, she knew about chloroform and many other things that really makes one wonder.

The work itself is very important Val, but for the most part, there is not one type of criticism that is better than the other. While one may feel that a Mimetic Criticism is far better than a Formalist Criticism, both are very effective in providing not only two separate arguments, but actually the same argument if they are both useful. The question that we really need to be asking is "Which one is necessary?"

Actually, to expand on this comment:

I am glad that you brought up the reference to Dan Murray's class, because an author's history became an important part of the class at one point. Vanessa is right, the fence is a terrible place to be. I think that we really need to take a biography and history of an author and his/her culture into account, but the interpretation of the literature becomes magnified once we know where the author came from. My eyes were opened wide once I knew that Gilman committed suicide and was suffering from depression. That really takes a spin on the story, which to me, gives me a new way to read "The Yellow Wallpaper" in the first place. Keesey says that we will always have our own interpretation, but we need to stay within the boundary of the author's society and background. Basically, it keeps us from making far-fetched criticisms.

We also need to look at the society, as well as Gilman. An autobiography is very important toward a writers background, but for someone like Gilman, we also need to look at the stress on rest therapy, and the emphasis on depression before it was ever called depression. Gilman is very complex, because she did not consider committing suicide until her 70's, but at the same time, she knew about chloroform and many other things that really makes one wonder.

The work itself is very important Val, but for the most part, there is not one type of criticism that is better than the other. While one may feel that a Mimetic Criticism is far better than a Formalist Criticism, both are very effective in providing not only two separate arguments, but actually the same argument if they are both useful. The question that we really need to be asking is "Which one is necessary?"