Interpreting Text

For me, the most important thing to consider when interpreting text is the historical
context. The time period in which a piece of literature is written will affect the
interpretation of the text. As a 21 century reader we must see the text not only through
our own eyes, but through the eyes of the author and the world that he/she lived in.
Priscilla Williams

Message no. 17
Author: Andrew Belinfante
Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:06pm

I agree with this 100%. I think it is a very valid point to make! There
is no way to interpret a text without an understanding of who the author
is and his/her motives as well as his/her background or the setting in
which he lived. I want to add, to sort of piggyback on that idea, by
noting that it is of equal importance to understand the time it was
written about. It is not always the case that people are writing about
the time period they live in! Also, somebody who writes about the 1920s
but who lives in the 30s, for example, is going to have a different
understanding of the time period being written about than somebody who
writes on the same topic, but who lives in the 1990s.
I really think that other than historical context, author's purpose has
a lot to do with our understanding of the reading, as the audience. To
understand an author's background and overall message is to understand
almost everything about the work. We like to accept universal ideas as a
people and we relate what we read to how we feel. If an author takes the
time to appeal to our emotions, he/she can really relay a specific
message very well.
Andrew Belinfante
andrewbelinfante@gmail.com


Message no. 54
Author: Philip Dozal
Date: Monday, January 26, 2009 3:23pm

I also agree that historical context is crucial when interpreting a given text. When
applying the historical context to the text the reader has a better understanding of the
political, social and cultural issues of the era. The historical context of the text is most of
the time strongly linked with the central theme. If the reader if familiar with the historical
context of the work he/she is more familiar with the standards and identity of the applied
society.

Message no. 89
Author: Theressa Giammarco
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:44pm

I wrote this down in class, but didn't say it aloud and wish I had!
Interpreting a text really is all about context. I mean, think about it,
a lot of times when things are taken out of context in our lives, people
may not understand situations at hand. It seems like this kind of
"contextual issue" happens a lot in relationships. One person may see a
someone else's boyfriend or girlfriend engaged in, say, a conversation
with the opposite sex and "tell" on the person's significant other. Of
course, later, (well hopefully) after explanation it is found out that
no flirting/cheating/nonsense was going on and rather Suzie Q was just
asking how she should go about interpreting the text in her English 400
class.

I found Plato's Republic somewhat unrealistic, and many of his arguments weak.
I agree with Plato about the censorship of violence, especial in the case of children. I
believe that watching too much violence on t.v or through video games is not good for
any child.
However (unlike Plato) I do not believe that the censorship of violence will "magically"
end all violence. Human nature is more complex than Plato made it out to be, and why
people murder each other has more to do with their negative experiences in life than the
myths and stories they read.
Plato believed that wars were caused by the heroic myths people heard. This is
unrealistic. I can not say that our present war with Iraq has anything to do with the myths
and stories that we here in the United States have read.
Wars are fought for so many complicated reasons that run deep in the veins of those who
live through the experience. In Plato's ideal world not even laughter, tears, or fear are
allowed, but it is our emotions that connect us to life.
Priscilla Williams


Message no. 66
Author: Eric Lahiji
Date: Monday, January 26, 2009 11:02pm


Dear Priscilla,
Although I do agree with you that many of Plato's ideas are unrealistic,
some part of me does agree with the idea that wars could have been
caused through myth. The example I will draw on might seem odd but it
goes back to the whole concept of "monkey see monkey do". For example,
if a society has never had violence or been affiliated with war, than
the way the people in that society would react to anger or hate would be
through other means, since they would never know what war is like. The
same goes for other emotions as well. Sure, there are certain aspects of
nature that are innate, such as laughter and crying, but war is a much
more complex idea, just like you said. Being complex I think it requires
some predetermined knowledge of war in order to be committed, such as
through stories, newspaper articles, or in Plato's case through myths.


Message no. 69
Author: Eric Delgado
Date: Monday, January 26, 2009 11:17pm


On the other hand, a society that has never had violence or waged war will be completely
unable to deal with violence if it emerged in their own society or if it was visited upon
them by another society.
You say that certain aspects of nature are innate, and you list laughter and crying,
however, I don't think it's really a stretch to imagine that there are also characteristics
that are innate to humans that are negative in nature such as aggression or greed.
Every society has to deal with the reality of violence and war sooner or later. Any society
that hunts or has to fend off wild animals is accustomed to violence in some fashion, and
its not a huge step of logic to realize that the spear you use to hunt mammoths works just
as well on humans. I think creating a society that attempts to stay ignorant of war is
basically creating a society that is asking to be conquered by neighbors who know how
war works.