Something just occurred to me. Since kindergarten, we've been warned against judging a figurative book by its figurative cover. With our discussions of Anne Bradstreet vs. Edward Taylor's work and the canon in general, it seems to me that we have been juding literal books by their literal covers. I don't think it's this deals with Bradstreet's gender as much as it does with the actual content of her poetry. She writes of emotions; such fluffy and trivial things these "emotions" are...right? Well that's what has been enforced upon us in our general education. "Only stern, professional works impact history and inspire the reader." I feel that this is the subliminal message that has been stealthily imposed on us for years.
This example was brought up in class: The Little Prince. Although filled with small drawings, the book is considered to be one of great philosophical value. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry makes a point of explaining life's most valuable lessons through the eyes of a child and his lovely flower. Now, take 1984, for example. Each page is filled with tightly packed text. Orwell manifests and imposes his mature content on the reader. Our trained minds immediately recognize this book as an "authoritative" one.
This pattern exists because we have been taught to follow rules and regulations. We are expected to interpret language similary to those responsible for us. Is there any way to break this cycle?
(Sam Maliha)
2 comments:
Well first, I think that if we do try to break away from this pattern, it'll be extremely hard. After all, the actions and thoughts that we make today are largely based on those we made in the past. Old habits are hard to break.
I guess that we'd just have to try to thinking in a way completely different from what we've learned. Unfortunately, that's all I can really think of...
Well, I'm not necessarily sure that we've been trained to recognize only "stern professional works" as legitimate. I read, enjoy, and learn from 1984 not because it is "authoritative" or considered to be good, but merely because it is good. Likewise, I've been moved by very informal, "unprofessional" works as well.
The difference between The Little Prince and 1984 is one of audience. Although The Little Prince certainly carries keen insights within it, its primary audience is children, which causes other audiences (like us) to sometimes overlook the gems hidden inside of it.
Post a Comment