Keep It Simple

| | Comments (3)
"If writers want us-all of us-to notice something, they'd better put it out there were we'll find it."

Foster's words on pg 205 exemplify the typical persons idea of a good read.  Unlike this class, where close reading takes precedence over simply enjoying a novel, I find it much more enjoyable to have all the necessary facts blatantly obvious, not hidden in numerous similes, metaphors, and comparisons.  I think that this is one of the reasons why many students dread reading novels for school.  They realize that they will have to basically tear apart all the parts which they had liked when put together, but will grow to despise as they are forced to constantly analyze them.   


Georgia Speer said:

Rebecca, after reading your blog I can agree to an extent, it can be frustrating to those that now have an understanding of how to close read. They may find that it may despise some literature after they analyze it further, but I feel that they may also come to appreciate it much more. I know for example with the reading that we have done here, especially this last play, The Skin of Our Teeth by Wilder, I would have totally chalked this play up to someone just being totally off of their rocker. I would not have really read into it as we all have come to learn to do. I found more an appreciation for it, whereas I do not think I would have before learning more on close reading. I would have just assumed that someone was way out there in writing this, and not relate it to satire in relation to humanity. I do agree that if a writer is writing for the audience to receive their message than it needs to be obvious, I would say unless a person has taken a course like this to and is educated on looking further into literature than the writer is simply writing for themselves and the few that may interpret their code. Otherwise many will miss the boat, I had wrote a similar response on Chris Dufalla’s blog about this as well.

Robert Zanni said:

I agree with you too, Becca. I think that having to tear apart novels is a total waste. Not a waste, but it takes away from the reading. I too want to be able to read a novel and have everything right there for me. I think though, that close reading does take away from reading a book. I want to read a book for the plot and the characters and the story. I don't want to read it to see what the author is trying to relate to humanity like Wilder did with The Skin of Our Teeth. I thought that the play was just way to confusing in the sense that in the beginning they were talking without having the alphabet, but had coffee and not the wheel. Then in act two they had been around for thousands of years? Anyways, I agree. Close reading kind of takes away from reading a novel.

Rebecca Marrie said:

Georgia - I would beg to differ on your arguement. I did not close read this play, and I thoroughly understood and enjoyed it. Though close reading is helpful in many cases, in this play, it is unnecessary. It was a simple read without large amounts of intricate writing.

Rob - I completely agree with your stance on close reading. I guess it's not for everyone. And with your response to the confusing content of the play, I too was confused at first, but then realized that this was simply because I was not used to combining ideas from different time periods in history. We were trained to learn events in chronological order from the time we were young. To upset the order of the the events, or actually combine them together, is rather rare. However, once I overlooked the unrealistic content of the play, I just decided to "go with the flow" and enjoy Wilder's innovative plot.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.


Recent Comments

Rebecca Marrie on Keep It Simple: Georgia - I would beg to diffe
Robert Zanni on Keep It Simple: I agree with you too, Becca. I
Georgia Speer on Keep It Simple: Rebecca, after reading your bl