In Literary Theory Eagleton writes about literature and who and what makes literature actually qualify as literature. The literature that is most common and that everyone knows is the literature that was just singled out by a certain class or social group. Eagleton says, "What was emblematic to literature was based upon the tastes and values of a certain social class." This is similar to Chandler because he says that a genre has certain characteristics because of what was popular or very economically positive. In this pattern of making certain things well known and others not, all levels and parts of life are not represented.
Another one of Chandler's main points is represented in the reading of "Fish". The genre that is given to a movie or piece of literature automatically provides a set of expectations for the piece. Chandler says that this means just because of the genre, the way in which we watch a movie or read a text is different. Fish writes the same idea. He had a list of writings for his students in one class just as an assignment, but when his next class came in he told them it was a poem. This automatically gave his class a perspective of where to start thinking about the words and letters arranged on the board. Fish says, "Rather, we have readers whose consciousnesses are constituted by a set of conventional notions which when put into operation constitute in turn a conventional, and conven-tionally seen, object. My students could do what they did, and do it in unison, because as members of a literary community they knew what a poem was (their knowledge was public), and that knowledge led them to look in such a way as to populate the landscape with what they knew to be poems." Simply because of the fact that they were told it was a poem and as an educated literary public we have a way to attempt to interpret a poem the students had a preset notion for their interpretations.
A social situation in which this would also be very obvious would be on a "date". If two people went out to just get dinner with two other friends of theirs it would be a situation of preset notions of simply eating and talking. However, if the same group was going to go out but the two friends were told it was going to be a date, they would act completely different and address the whole situation in an entirely new way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree with the way you tighly parralleled Fish and Chandler. their views on the reputation of a group precceding itself and sometimes automaticaly defining all works considered a part of it is something that seems to follow both writers' rhetoric.
I agree on the fact that Chandler and Fish are on the same level when it comes to genres. Both aurthurs agree on the fact that genres predict how we view certain aspects and the way we react to them.
You made some very interesting points and I concur with many of them. In addition I liked your example with the dating and I referred to it in my post.
I think your dating example is a great example of where the social expectations and conventions are critical to interpreting interaction. Once the expectations of a date are in place the situation shifts and attitudes adjust.
Post a Comment