The previous Response to Course Material was chock-full of new information that I’d learned in AP Lit. This response, in contrast, has fewer new items to discuss. I believe this is because knowing how to analyze literature, as I learned at the time of my previous post, is only half the battle. One must practice applying the concepts learned, and this is what class has revolved around in the past couple weeks.
Syntax is a key component of DIDLS, and analyzing it effectively is difficult. I’ve learned to narrow my scope and hone in on punctuation, sentence length, and sentence rhythm when scrutinizing this characteristic of an author’s work. I enjoy analyzing these characteristics, because they tend to exist more in our subconscious when reading. We tend to ignore them in favor of word choice and detail, which are important but, in my opinion, much less interesting traits. I’m already noticing more syntax elements of things I read on a daily basis, and I have great respect for an author who truly takes advantage of this property in his writing.
We’ve begun reading Albee’s The American Dream, and with it learning about the techniques of comedy and Theater of the Absurd. I find it fascinating because I think it makes a great point about society in general. Its motive is to convince an audience through exaggeration and encouragement of “thoughtful laughter”. I found myself laughing profusely while reading The American Dream, and many times this resulted in contemplation of meaning in the work. This was Albee’s intention. The story is so odd that instead of dismissing it, I couldn’t stop reading. I wanted to know so badly his intention behind it, and this was made clear in the end. Theater of the Absurd is very interesting to me, and I look forward to exploring it more on my own.
I've found that what we practice in class has ended up finding its way into non-class related reading. It's both annoying and in a self-reflecting sort of way, interesting.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoy analyzing syntax but I disagree with your thought that diction and details are less interesting. For me those are characteristics that can have the greatest impact but you can go to a shady place when trying to analyze them. They can be so objective, making their meaning different for every reader, something I like but also struggle with when I want a definitive answer. That is why I like syntax because I feel like it's a more finite technique that still carries a lot of meaning. I was also surprised by how much I like The American Dream, and like you, a lot of my laughing came from my analysis of Albee's intent.