The Reddick reading does a good job in wrapping up the semester in a neat package by summarizing what expository discussion is through negating other theorists' definitions and conveying to readers what it isn't. By the end of the reading, we are left with Reddick's conclusion that expository discourse cannot be defined because of varying factors, three of which I thought were emphasized most throughout the article. The first main point I found was that the theorists writing about expository discourse take the knowledge of their chosen field for granted, and thus write with the preconceived notion that their readers already know what it's all about - leaving "lay readers" like you and me in the dust with a head full of spinning logic. The second point of emphasis is that because of this preconceived notion, expository theorists then hold to subcategorizing that which has already been written by further trying to explain what expository discourse is - giving the lay reader more pause and theory to ponder. The third (and in my opinion, most important) main point piggybacks off of the first two in that the concept of perception seems to throw a wrench into the inner workings of texts about expository discourse, disproving that supposedly clear, categorized texts on this particular topic can only be perceived or interpreted the way the theorists intend their readers to perceive or interpret them.
There were a few quotes that stood out to me regarding this concept of perception:
- "It is not reality that we can foreground but our perception of it" (214).
- "Since interpretation is necessarily interactive, since it depends crucially upon what the interpreter brings to the text, whether or not any particular text will actually promote or enhance understanding for any particular lay reader will depend upon whether or not that reader interprets it in a particular way, and that, in turn, will depend upon what that lay reader brings to it" (217).
- "To borrow from Wordsworth, expository discourse, like all the mighty world, is half perceived and half created by its interpreter" (222).
Based on the quotes above, would you say that we as individuals interprete or perceive readings about expository discourse differently? Or do we hold the same set of ideas about expository discourse as other fellow students learning about the field? If we do have different perceptions, are these the only kinds of texts where we may interpret something differently from our peers?
I'm glad you mentioned this quote: "Since interpretation is necessarily interactive, since it depends crucially upon what the interpreter brings to the text, whether or not any particular text will actually promote or enhance understanding for any particular lay reader will depend upon whether or not that reader interprets it in a particular way, and that, in turn, will depend upon what that lay reader brings to it" (217)- I think it really sums up the essence of reading and writing-a writer who poses a theory or idea, and a reader who tries to make sense of it all. It's ongoing, but that's what is what I found is so great about expository writing.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I definitely do not think we all interpret readings in the same way-if we did all this blogging would be incredibly repetitive and dull:P. I think that we all come to the same general consensus in some cases, but the way we arrive at our conclusions varies. Like we've been discussing in class, it all has to do with your own truth-our values and beliefs really do effect the way we read, whether we want it too or not. The good about it though as that we call learn from one another this way. A lot of times I find myself thinking, "Hm, I never thought of it that way" during class discussions and it really opens my eyes to new concepts-its pretty neat when you think about it! And I don't think this is only true with expository writing, I think we see in a narrative-especially with our preferred genre, freelance, even blogging! Happy this was our last reading assignment, I would agree that it was very 'fitting.'
I think we definitely interpret AND perceive expository writing differently from each other, in class or elsewhere. We were all pretty clueless about the term at the beginning of this class, and now we have all come to a pretty similar conclusion about it. So, I would definitely say that we all read and understand differently.
ReplyDeleteI believe we all have own interpretation of expository discourse because of our unique backgrounds and experiences. I think for the most readers relate written text to their own lives, and I also think our personalities are so distinct that each reader brings something different to the same reading. This is often demonstrated when students talk about a reading assignment in class and everyone has their own opinion on the writing, even if we all agree on something in particular. When we were talking about the DuPlessis reading, most of us were confused by what we read, but everybody spoke about their confusion from their perspective, and used the context of their reading experience. I don’t think anyone in the field has the same set of ideas about expository discourse because no one can really even define it. The only thing most of us can agree on is that it is a type of writing; the rest of it is up to our perception of the writing.
ReplyDeleteI think that we interpret all texts differently based on our own background and life experiences. And I’d have to say that I interpret things differently as I continue to have more life experiences. A lot has happened to me in the last two years, both professionally and personally. So I think I’d have a different reaction to reading something—whether expository or narrative—today as opposed to two years ago. And I’m sure I may have different interpretations in another two years. I’m not saying that my interpretations are always drastically different, and I’m not saying that I’ll interpret everything differently. But there are some things that I may view differently based on what point I am at in life.
ReplyDelete