As a writer, I found the section on affective stylistics most interesting because its cool to think that the way a text is written can mimic, or even moreso, add an extra complimentary layer to the theme/meaning/purpose of the text. I mean, for example, how cool is it, and how logical would it to be to write a first person story about a clean-freak scientist with OCD that writes just as he is: sterile, dry, calculated, and scientific. It wouldnt make sense for a clean-freak scientist to write any other way about his story. I feel like there is even more to be played with here in my own fiction.
What is the difference between reader-oriented, reality-oriented, and experience-oriented responses to texts? Which does a subjective reader-response promote?
A reader-oriented response deals with one's reading experience and how it relates to their personal memories, interests, and experiences. The reality-oriented reading is based on current events going on in the world. An experience-oriented response focuses on the connection between specific passages to a reader's feelings, thoughts, and associations.
In Bleich’s experiment, why did the students’ “meaning statements” correlate with or relate to their “response statements”? What does this show us about objective vs. subjective readings of texts?
Their meaning statements and response statements correlated because each statement stemmed from a part of the text that individual the connected to. No matter for what purpose the statement was for--whether to objectively or subjectively remark on the text--they drew it from the part of the text they related to the most.
How does our own psychology affect our interpretation of texts?
Our psychology affects our interpretation because it can allow us to connect more, or in a different way, to a character or situation than another person without similar psychological experiences. This difference in backgrounds can lead to a difference in readings.
No comments:
Post a Comment