Opening up to "On Close Readings"

In "On Close Readings," Peter Rabinowitz talks about how close reading is not the only way to read literature. He states that close readers tend create a "distortion" of  works because they want to read however they want to . Rabinowitz says that there are many ways to read a piece. It depends on authors, genre, periods of time, and culture. You have to modify your reading style each time you read a different piece. 

I strongly agree with argument of Mr. Rabinowitz. I agree that you have to approach different type of literature in different ways. You can not use the same "template" for each piece. I would read and interpret differently my Twilight book from my Romeo and Juliet. The plots,setting, time periods, and even language is different. However, they are both pieces of literature. 

The Modifications to Fiction

John Barth, American novelist, in his piece "On Minimalist Fiction" gives us the new modifications to fiction. He entitles these type of works as minimalist fiction. He states the minimalist fiction is the most simple type of fiction. He says that minimalist fiction is stripped-down of all of its elements: vocabulary, syntax, rhetoric, and non-emotive tone. Also minimalist fiction has minimal material: characters, exposition, action, and plot.

When reading this piece it was hard to tell if Barth was towards or against minimalist fiction. Yet he is somewhat defending it when he quotes Hemingway, " You could omit anything if you knew that you omitted, and the omitted part would strength the story and make people feel something more than they understood..." I think he used to line to say that even though minimalist fiction can be lacking in many elements that you still get the whole perception of a piece. As well as, missing a part can mean that the reader can interpret or put the missing piece however they feel like. 

No More Reading Fiction....It's Dangerous

In his piece, "On the Dangerous of Reading Fiction, Thomas Jefferson expresses his distaste towards fiction. He uses a metaphor to describe fiction as a "poison [that] infects the mind." Jefferson makes this analogy to explain how he feels that fiction destroys the beauty of reading. He feels that when people read fiction that it results in "a bloated imagination." However, there are a few exceptions. The exceptions are pieces that model real life stories and have moral values integrated. He states that such fiction can be a "pleasure" to read and is a better "improvement" than unrealistic fiction. 

Even though Jefferson is one of the American founding fathers and he is the major author of the Declaration of Independence, I have to disagree. Fiction for me has always been a "happy place". Reading fiction takes me to a different world where anything is possible. Through out middle school years, my nose was always stuck in fiction books. I have read about princesses, wolves, vampires, zombies, ghosts, babysitters, and so many others things. I probably did not gain anything important, however they are just fun to read. It is fun to read about something different. As a student, I have a repeating schedule everyday. So being able to pick up a book and read about humans that transform into wolves is just a nice relief from reality. 

Putting words to Poetry and Prose

Poet, T. E. Hulme in his piece, "On the Differences between Poetry and Prose", points out the major difference between poetry and prose. He states that prose is a more concrete type of writing and less visual. However, he describes poetry as "visual concrete" form of writing. In his ending lines, he uses a metaphors to describe prose and poetry. He states that poetry "is a pedestrian taking you over the ground"; however, prose is " a train which delivers you at a destination."

What I think he meant in those lines was that poety is more of an  artist. Poetry helps you paint a picture in your head easier than prose would. Poetry does so through smilies, metaphors, personifications, and etc. Prose, on the other hand, goes straight to the point. It does not extend to give description like poetry does.  For example, in the piece says that describing a ship "coursed the seas" paints a better picture than the ship "sailed". In my opinion, Hulme was a bit bias. He didn't make prose seem horrible but boring. However, he did speak about poetry with admiration. I suppose it is because he is a poet himself.