Reader Response

I am an adamant believer that there is no absolute correct way to interpret a text. Yes, the author did have an intended meaning, and probably separate from that a very personal meaning. However, as we read text ourselves we derive our own personal meaning from it based on our past experiences, our lives, and our culture. "The Dead" can be interpreted multiple ways and as long as the interpretations are backed up by information from the piece, they can all be equally valid. While I may have interpreted something from "The Dead" a particular way, another student can have a completely different opinion and still technically be correct (again, as long as they back up their arguments with textual information).

The Dead Pt. 1

Though I was not quite looking forward to reading Joyce, I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed "The Dead." The major theme that stood out to me was the juxtaposition of a life well lived but terminated early as compared to a poorly lived life that lasts longer. At first, Gabriel is obsessed with control. His feelings for Gretta come not from his love for her, but his need to control her. Once he realizes that he has never really possessed her heart, he begins to ponder his own life. He realizes that he has never experienced what Gretta's true love has experienced. Even though her former lover is dead, it almost seems as if Gabriel is jealous of his position. It raises the question of whether a long life lived unhappily is really more successful than a short, passionate life.

Meme Madness

Gleick really interested me with these readings, especially the chapter on memes. He said that it made people feel uncomfortable to be "vehicles" for ideas because it makes them feel like they aren't in control of their thoughts. I read an article by philosopher Sam Harris in which he explains why he doesn't believe in free will. He argues that though we can recognize our thoughts, we are powerless over what thoughts occur to us and lead us to make the actions that we do. Gleick quotes Mozart at one point: "In the night when I cannot sleep, thoughts crowd into my mind... Whence and how do they come? I do not know and I have nothing to do with it." Once this idea is accepted, many more emerge. Where do our thoughts and ideas come from? What really is an idea and what is its nature? These are questions we can not yet answer, but it is certain that an idea, or a meme, is something, and it can be a lot more powerful than any individual or group.

Codes as Language

Gleick's view of the African ritual of communicating with drums is interesting and thoughtful. Though these people were seen to be uncivilized, and yet they had discovered a method of communication that far exceeded the supposedly more advanced inventions of the Europeans. It took a long time for the Western world to catch onto this idea and have the ability to send messages far distances. With the invention of the telegraph and Morse code, messages could be easily transmitted from far away; a revolution after letters had to be sent across seas.

The question arises of whether or not we consider these types of "codes" actual language. Morse code can not be spoken, but rather the marks made symbolize other marks that symbolize spoken language. Though this may not seem like an important question, what we decide to call these codes can give them and the people who use them creative power.

What is reading?

I found it very interesting how Manguel talks about the different theories about how we read. Since people didn't understand how eyes and light worked, there were several different theories on how we are able to read. Aristotle believed that you took the words into your "innards" which included important vital organs and which he believed to have control over the brain. Perhaps even more entertaining is the theory of the Greek physician Galen, who ventured that there might be a "visual spirit" that lives inside our eyes and then crosses the gap between our eyes and the page in order for us to see the words written there.

I guess I understand why there was so much speculation around how we were able to transform little lines and curves into something intelligible; something that actually means something--and we can comprehend it. Even though we now have the technology to understand how we really read (unfortunately there are no spirits living in our eyes), the concept is still magical. A little child successfully reading a book for the first time experiences the same wonder and amazement that Aristotle must have felt when he was constructing his theory. This, I believe, is why books are still a relevant medium.

A History of Reading Reflection

In chapter one of A History of Reading by Alberto Manguel, I find it very interesting how he dissects words and letters into their most basic form; simply the forms they shape on the page. This should be common for children or learners of a new and foreign language. However, I believe this is a phenomenon we generally take for granted. To actually learn how to say a word based simply on lines on a sheet of paper is incredible and took thousands of years to develop. This, too, places Latin alphabets apart from their Asian counterpoints, where pictorial representation is key. Without these letterforms, I think it’s easy to pay too little attention to the artistry of the written language itself which is not only beautiful, but can tell us a lot about how our ancestors view language, which in turn shapes how we view language in the present and the future.