PragmaticsBuongiorno.
I guess this is pragmatics? Meaning based on context? Study of implications? I'm not too familiar with this area.
The concluding paragraph of my epic literary analysis paper:
In Tobias Wolff’s short story “Say Yes,” figurative blindness accentuated by images of darkness and light suggests that racial equality exists, though most people are not fully accepting of the fact. The husband fails to provide convincing evidence for his implications of racial bias, and consequently presents himself as a racist rather than a realist. He is thus metaphorically blind to true possibilities of interracial romance. Opposed to this view on race, his wife attempts to open his eyes to the truth by reminding him of how actual sightlessness feels like, but as to whether she succeeded or not is ambiguous in the end. The unclear conclusion indicates that the couple’s dispute is an unsolved problem in the modern world as well―no concrete indication disproves equality in all ethnicity, yet we all, secretly or openly, continue to possess racially prejudiced thoughts. Perhaps blindness is the norm today in the world, and others’ perception of our morals is just a matter of how well we convince them of our “sharp” vision. Exactly, as in Wolff’s story―the husband says “Yes” to his wife on the surface, but honestly, he is racist like everyone else. He just does not see.
When we say language, language, language, we think foreign languages, but don't forget English, too, as boring as it is. It's still a language. I like analyzing written language in American (or British) literature, too. I think this topic is more the field of the English department, but there are definitely pragmatic elements to literary symbol analysis.
As you can see, I discussed the physical vs. metaphorical notion of blindness in this short story.
"You're blind."
What can that mean?
Maybe you gouged your eyes out.
Maybe you ran into a pole.
Maybe you lost your eye glasses.
Maybe you didn't realize that the girl next to you was actually trying to flirt with you.
Maybe you impair your vision with alcohol at GA Tech so you don't have to see how ugly the Tech girls are.
Ooooh. Bahaha.
Anyway, hmm.
To be frank, I hate literary symbols. More precisely, I hate the fact that any element in a literary work can be turned into a symbol, regardless of the author's intentions.
You know Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis? One time I got away in class claiming that the apple thrown at the insect-monster in the story was symbolic of sinful temptations. Because apples have biblical implications. Eve was tempted to eat the fruit of knowledge; oh, that sinful girl! So the man throwing the apple at the morphed insect is like him saying, "You sinful, filthy, bastard! Take some knowledge from this fruit of doooooooooooooooooooooom!!"
Bulllllllshit.
The sad and funny thing was, my English teacher bought it. Literary symbols are just... easy targets for mockery.
However.
I do believe that some symbols have consistently possessed significance throughout literature's history.
Like blindness.
Blindness in literature is such a marked characteristic that a reader can't miss it. When blindness pops up in a story, it almost always means that there is another notion of blindess at play--a metaphorical one (According to Thomas C. Foster).
This has been true ever since Sophocles's masterwork Oedipus Rex.
Why do you think Pozzo becomes blind in the second half of Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett?
If you haven't read Waiting for Godot, you should. Here. Now. It's my favorite play of all time. It's what people call "the theater of the absurd." Funny stuff. It has lots of thought-provoking implications, too.
If you haven't read Oedipus, I don't know where you've been all this time.
Go blind yourself for your sin. And go do your ma.
Ok not really, because that's gross. But I do suggest that everyone possess some knowledge about classic literature.
Not just...Twilight or whatever people read nowadays.
Man, I want to read a good book. Maybe over the summer.
I guess this is pragmatics? Meaning based on context? Study of implications? I'm not too familiar with this area.
The concluding paragraph of my epic literary analysis paper:
In Tobias Wolff’s short story “Say Yes,” figurative blindness accentuated by images of darkness and light suggests that racial equality exists, though most people are not fully accepting of the fact. The husband fails to provide convincing evidence for his implications of racial bias, and consequently presents himself as a racist rather than a realist. He is thus metaphorically blind to true possibilities of interracial romance. Opposed to this view on race, his wife attempts to open his eyes to the truth by reminding him of how actual sightlessness feels like, but as to whether she succeeded or not is ambiguous in the end. The unclear conclusion indicates that the couple’s dispute is an unsolved problem in the modern world as well―no concrete indication disproves equality in all ethnicity, yet we all, secretly or openly, continue to possess racially prejudiced thoughts. Perhaps blindness is the norm today in the world, and others’ perception of our morals is just a matter of how well we convince them of our “sharp” vision. Exactly, as in Wolff’s story―the husband says “Yes” to his wife on the surface, but honestly, he is racist like everyone else. He just does not see.
When we say language, language, language, we think foreign languages, but don't forget English, too, as boring as it is. It's still a language. I like analyzing written language in American (or British) literature, too. I think this topic is more the field of the English department, but there are definitely pragmatic elements to literary symbol analysis.
As you can see, I discussed the physical vs. metaphorical notion of blindness in this short story.
"You're blind."
What can that mean?
Maybe you gouged your eyes out.
Maybe you ran into a pole.
Maybe you lost your eye glasses.
Maybe you didn't realize that the girl next to you was actually trying to flirt with you.
Maybe you impair your vision with alcohol at GA Tech so you don't have to see how ugly the Tech girls are.
Ooooh. Bahaha.
Anyway, hmm.
To be frank, I hate literary symbols. More precisely, I hate the fact that any element in a literary work can be turned into a symbol, regardless of the author's intentions.
You know Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis? One time I got away in class claiming that the apple thrown at the insect-monster in the story was symbolic of sinful temptations. Because apples have biblical implications. Eve was tempted to eat the fruit of knowledge; oh, that sinful girl! So the man throwing the apple at the morphed insect is like him saying, "You sinful, filthy, bastard! Take some knowledge from this fruit of doooooooooooooooooooooom!!"
Bulllllllshit.
The sad and funny thing was, my English teacher bought it. Literary symbols are just... easy targets for mockery.
However.
I do believe that some symbols have consistently possessed significance throughout literature's history.
Like blindness.
Blindness in literature is such a marked characteristic that a reader can't miss it. When blindness pops up in a story, it almost always means that there is another notion of blindess at play--a metaphorical one (According to Thomas C. Foster).
This has been true ever since Sophocles's masterwork Oedipus Rex.
Why do you think Pozzo becomes blind in the second half of Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett?
If you haven't read Waiting for Godot, you should. Here. Now. It's my favorite play of all time. It's what people call "the theater of the absurd." Funny stuff. It has lots of thought-provoking implications, too.
If you haven't read Oedipus, I don't know where you've been all this time.
Go blind yourself for your sin. And go do your ma.
Ok not really, because that's gross. But I do suggest that everyone possess some knowledge about classic literature.
Not just...Twilight or whatever people read nowadays.
Man, I want to read a good book. Maybe over the summer.
0
0