Louise Rosenblatt’s distinction between reading primarily for the experience one enjoys during the reading process which she calls aesthetic, and reading in order to take something away from text, (I assume learning facts or a method of performing a task such as “how to”) entitled efferent, certainly paints a clearer picture than the conclusion made by the Indiana University “that literary discourse is a noncasual discourse.” However, she points out that some works fall on “a continuum between poles” (153). While I think of an aesthetic book as one that I choose to read, whereas one that is assigned for a class, even if I find it aesthetically pleasing, as efferent, it seems to me that most discourse falls somewhere on the continuum, rather than at either extreme pole. Widdowson’s statement that “the language of a literary work should be fashioned into patterns over and above those required by the actual language system” negates a lot of discourse from the literary cannon, while including other less important works. (154). Then again, patterns could be pulled from any discourse. Does anyone else better understand this point?
Gossip as Literature
I found D.W. Harding’s comparison of gossip to literature quite fascinating. It makes sense considering the first form of communication was verbal, rather than written. Was it Aristotle that placed verbal communication above written? Britton states that it is “whenever we play the role of spectator of human affairs” that we are “in the position of literature” (154). In other words, we are listening to a story, whether fact or fiction, much as we would read a written story or piece of literature.
posted by Sharon @ 9:59 AM
0 Comments
