Response to Tuesday Readings

I was doing the reading for Tuesday, and there were a couple things in Critical Theory Today that stuck out to me. Critical theory is something that I was only really introduced to in the last few years, and my first interactions with it were really convoluted and frustrating (thank you, AP Lang). I don't know if anyone else took that AP English class in high school? If not, the basic point of it was to learn how to deconstruct the ideas and arguments of authors and figure out how they made their writing effective; it had a lot to do with analysis, and in general seemed rather pointless to me: why did I need to know how they made it effective, if I knew why it was effective? A quote in Tyson made me think of this:

"...reveal the two-fold nature of our reluctance to study theory: (1) fear of failure and (2) fear of losing the intimate, magical connection with literature that is our reason for reading it in the first place." (pg 1)

I can remember having this exact feeling when I was first asked to analyze - not discuss - literature. The longer I was in the class, though, the more I began to realize the importance of being able to take apart an author's writing. When we understand the how of what makes something effective, we really gain a better understanding of the why as well. We can get a clearer picture of all the factors that combine to give the words on the page the meaning we glean from them, and we can articulate that meaning more fully, as opposed to a general 'I really like this book!' It reminds me a lot of music: you can appreciate music with out understanding the finer details of how its constructed, but often the deeper an understanding you have of the mechanics, the easier it is to interpret a composers meaning and intentions. So it is with literature.