Key concepts Edit
I am not only interested in how we assign value to text, but who assigns value to the text. With phenomenology being an experience of a single reader and learning to see and respond to words. That single reader is usually belonging to another subcategory or group of criticism. With the many different categories of theory and criticism, who then is responsible or is entitled to assign this value? Each side of the category has their own intentions when reading and filter out the value they want.
Significant Questions Edit
Is it possible to discuss literature without falling into a discussion of theory? Edit
Rita Felski gave reference to the "tools we have honed," which to me all the classes we have participated in so far to be graduate students in this class. We cannot unlearn what we know at this point, so the question is how do we "Return to the point of innocence?" The answer in the article is Ricoer's advice, "combine a willingness to suspect with an eagerness to listen." This is not an easy task for me to even wrap my head around, much less, even know how to put into action.
Rita Felski poses this question to readers at the end of her Introduction. Although this is arguable, I do not believe that it is possible to discuss literature without falling into a discussion of theory. Even in casual conversation, when someone is making some sort of assumption, there is usually a theory behind it. I would say that even among uneducated and untrained eyes, theory still falls into conversations about literature, mostly theory that would fall into Reader Response.
Since theory is a way to try and explain something. It is difficult to not talk about literature and include theory. There are just different levels of theory, based on the education of that reader and the group they are in while the conversation is taking place. Even pleasure readers will take some form of opinion on what the text meant to them.
Wordle based on the "Introduction" to Rita Felski's Uses of Literature.