Fish, Frye, Poulet, etc.

These three authors really resonated with me, thought they are very different. I guess viscerally I really connected with Poulet. I like the images, the idea of losing oneself in a book, and becoming the character. It is a very idealistic view, that a reader can actually let go of his own consciousness and completely become someone else for the space of time that he is reading. The escapist quality is very appealing. It made me want to go read a good book, to pay attention to the experience of reading for a change, and whether this did actually happen. But then, perhaps that would be over analyzing. If I am paying attention to what is happening, to how I experience the act of reading, then there will be a part of me that is separate, observing, thus I will not be completely absorbed in the act of merging my consciousness with the author. Anyway, I liked it. I aspire to be that kind of reader. But it does seem to be on the opposite end of the spectrum from critical reading, where the reader's job is to pull something out of the text, to examine it carefully in order to achieve a better understanding. Poulet's act of reading is very in the moment, engaged with the text, author, act of communing, etc. I see it as the difference between visceral and analytical. I think it is important to focus on this sort of interpretation. It is, for many people, why we read. We read to see as others see, to feel as others feel. In many instances, my first reading of a text is very much this sort of reading. Later I go back and analyze, extract, play with the text to see where else it may lead. But Poulet's way of approaching a text is vital to my actual enjoyment of literature.
Fish was also appealing, though in a slightly different way. I liked the feeling of validation, that there is no wrong way to read something, no real misunderstanding, just different interpretations. The other part of his approach that drew me in was the practical application in the Milton poems. Perhaps it is just my predisposition to enjoyment of Milton, but I liked the fact that he showed the ways various people can interpret the same poem differently. I liked his assertion that the question we should ask is not what interpretation is correct, but why there is a disagreement, what this ambiguity means. The idea that works of literature "are not meant to be solved, but experienced" reminded me of Poulet. I agree with this, but it is difficult to follow in practice, beyond the initial response. I want to find the deeper meaning, to "solve" the poem's mystery. To figure out the secret that is hidden in the text. Hmmm. I will have to think about this some more.
Northrop Frye was also appealing, though at some moments rather off-putting. The comparison of literature to art and music is thought provoking, but I would like to have seen him pursue that line of reason more. The idea of spatial and temporal ways of experiencing art was a nice way of breaking things down. The analogy he makes that I find interesting but somewhat problematic is that narrative is the rhythm of literature, the musical, more temporal aspect, but the apprehension of the meaning, of the author's "pattern" is the more visually artistic, spatial aspect. In a way, this kind of fits in with my earlier observations with the way I read, though. The temporal, narrative part of reading is by nature fleeting and in the moment, visceral, subjective, perhaps more reader response? Aha! Well, maybe I am stretching things a bit. But back to Frye. Another analogy I liked is his assertion that we have to "back up from a painting if we want to see composition instead of brushwork." This criticism of New-critical style analysis is certainly valid. I like close reading, and find it invaluable, but I realize that in close reading, I often lose sight of the big picture, "lose the forest for the trees" to mix metaphors a bit. Hmm. Metaphors...Interesting how that second picture metaphor just crept into my discussion of literature...I wonder what Lakoff would say about that? OK, back to Frye one more time. It is comforting, for me, somehow, to think that these basic archetypes are behind everything, tying all of literature and humanity together, somehow. The Jungian influence is easily apparent here. To see things as connected, as subconsciously going back to these fundamental experiences underlying all human existence, is ultimately and appealingly unified. People from different cultures, of from the past, are not really that different, seen through this interpretation. Everyone has these basic archetypes, the hero myths, the creation myths, etc. We are all part of it, even if different cultures explain things in different ways. This may not have been Frye's intention, but hey, what is authorial intent, anyway?