Readers of literature bring their own lives and perspectives to everything they read. Their past experiences and understandings lead them to interpret the things they read differently. The way that a reader approaches a piece of literature and interprets it can be described as a lens, like the lenses in a pair of glasses, through which the reader views the literature in a certain way.
For example, if I view The Odyssey through a Feminist Lens, I might interpret Penelope's actions in resisting the suitors' advances as a hard-fought struggle against a male-dominated society. Her weaving and unweaving of Laertes' shroud proves that women must resort to lies and trickery in order to survive in such a patriarchy.
If, however, I view The Odyssey through what is known as a Marxist Lens, I might interpret the story very differently. I could conclude that by feasting every day at Odysseus' palace, the suitors are simply attempting to distribute the wealth of the upper classes among the people of Ithaka.
To learn more about different critical lenses, please read the document available at this link.
After you read, please respond to the following questions in your comments:
- Why might it be valuable to read a work of literature through one particular lens or another?
- Which critical lens that you read about seems easiest to understand? Try to put the definition of this lens into your own words.
- Which one makes the least amount of sense to you?
It might be valuable to read a work of literature through one particular lens or another because you'll be able to see a new aspect of that story. Depending on what lens you use, you'll essentially get a new story. Each time you use a different lens, you'll see a new side to the literature. Deconstruction seems to be the easiest critical lens for me to understand because it has the least amount of requirements. I find it quite easy to grasp the idea that language means nothing. Psychological and psychoanalytic criticism is the critical lens that means the least amount of sense to me. It makes the least amount of sense to me, not because it's confusing, but because I doubt how accurate it is. How do people know the author's personality? How well is it documented? I'm not sure how much faith I could put into this criticism.
ReplyDeleteCould a reader potentially view the characters through a psychoanalytic lens in addition to the author?
DeleteI do think that a reader could potentially view the characters through a psychoanalytic lens. Though I do think it would be even harder with a character instead of the author. The author is a real person with real connections and influences. A character is a fictional being that has not actually lived a life. When someone reads a book, I believe we almost always use a psychoanalytic lens with the character. We make inferences as we piece together what kind of person the character is, what kind of person the author made them.
DeleteI agree with you about the psychological and psychoanalytic criticism. I personally can't tell what sort of person the author is by reading a book made by the author. Also could you look at a character with multiple lens at once and try it that? An example I would think of using is use the one you understand the most and the one you understand the least and try it that way?
DeleteYou should also do some research on the author instead of just analyzing them through the book. You want some background information. I think that it's quite difficult to look at a character with multiple lens at the same time because you can't fully analyze them. Yes you can use one lens, understand it, then move on. I feel that's the best way. Going easiest to hardest does seem like a good way to go about using multiple lens.
DeleteI agree that in many cases research will be necessary. To get to "an understanding" of the text there are many factors that you will need to consider that take you beyond just reading the book to read it. Keep that in mind as you move forward with your reading. Be willing to go beyond the text itself to find meaningful ways to interact with it.
DeleteWhen reading a story through a different lens you get a different meaning behind the book. You see it from a completely different aspect and learn something new. I think the reader-response criticism is the easiest to understand because that is how I read and many others do. We read the book and make connections to our own life. I think of this as just reading because you will have an opinion about the book, good or bad and you will do your own thinking about the book which is what this lens is. I think that deconstruction makes the least sense because there is a message that the author wants you to learn from the book. There are themes that the author portrays through the book so this idea, that we cannot know what the meaning is because there is no way of knowing, just blows my mind. We are taught to find the themes and understand the themes so this goes against the basis of teaching.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the deconstruction lens seems to take away the message from the book.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMost definitely without the message what is a book, what is a story? There is nothing there if there is no message or theme.
DeleteWhen reading a novel, it can be beneficial to view it from a different point of view because different people think about things in different ways. You may pick up information that you may have missed the first time you read it or understand something from a different perspective. By doing this your opinions and views can be greatly altered. I believe that the easiest lens to look through is the Reader-Response Criticism lens because you are able to just read and allow your own experiences and your own knowledge affect what you feel and what you think about the novel. You don't have to put yourself in anyone else's shoes in order to gain their perspective. The New Criticism lens makes the least sense to me. I don't understand what shoes you are trying to fill, what the reader is suppose to do in order to obtain the different lens.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that different lenses you can catch more information. Have you been aware of all these different lenses? Will this open your eyes and start reading in a different lens? Why or why not? I also agree that the Reader-Response is easy and helpful to read through.
DeleteIt may be valuable to read works of literature through different lenses so that you can see different points of view and think of it in a different perspective. I think the hardest reading lense would be deconstruction because when I read it it said that it is by far the hardest to understand when reading. It gave an example of when stories don't have very tidy endings you can't just assume you know what happened because according to this lense the works of literature mean nothing. I also think that the history criticism one would be hard for me to understand because I am not great with history and politics and that type of thing. I think the easiest one would be the reader response criticism because it talks about the visual things you see in you head while reading line for line and when I read I already have that happening. I make my own experience out of it and that's what this criticism is.
ReplyDeleteAnother way to look at deconstruction is that words only have meaning because we give them meaning. You can call an object, for example, a "chair," but if you call it something different, does that change what it is? If I called it a "gonkulator" instead, would it still be the same object?
DeleteYes it would.
DeleteIn speech team, if a chair is called a gonkulator, then it is a gonkulator, not a chair.
DeleteIt is better to read it through a certain way because it will help understand the situation better. If you read it through all of them it might not make sense to you or the reader. I read Feminist Criticism and the definition is. It is the way you see it through your eyes. Like you either see it in a girl's perspective or guys and it kinda sexual. The Marxist Criticism makes no sense to me.
ReplyDeleteI do not find it easiest to see a book through the feminist lens. However, I do think Marxist is a difficult lens to understand.
DeleteYes Marxist is very diffuclt but I thought that Feminist Lens was the easiest.
DeleteDo you think, as a guy, you would be able to view a work of literature from a girl's perspective?
DeleteIt could be very valuable to read the books through a different point of view because you can get a lot more out of it other then you normally get. After looking at the critical lens's I noticed that Feminist criticism seamed particularly easy because it sounds as basic as it gets but destruction sound like the worst to try and understand.
ReplyDeleteI think it is because you can get the most out of what you read. If you read with only one lens, then there are aspects of the story that you are missing. By reading the story with more than one lens, you can get the most out of the story. I understand the Psychological and Psychoanalyst Lens. My definition of this lens is analyzing what the characters' and the settings' moods. For example, if the characters are in a battle, I read really fast because the mood of the story is tense. The Lens I can't see is the Structuralism.
ReplyDeletei agree
Deletethink that the historical lens make the most since. History has already happened so i see it as the most logical. I also think its very easy to compare a story to history because most often they are intertwined. i find that structuralism is most complicated.
ReplyDeleteVery logical and I see your point. Well done.
Deletethanks
DeleteCan you think of an example of a work of literature you've read this semester that seems impossible to understand without also understanding the historical background? How are the plot of the book and history intertwined in that example?
DeleteIf you look a book through a different lens, you can have a better understanding of the book, and possibly what it would be like if you were in that persons situation. I think historical lens is the easiest to understand. I think this because it is very easy to do research about the time the book was wrote, and what happened in that time period, and apply it to what I have been reading about. The most confusing lens is deconstruction. I believe there is a meaning to novels, and that language has a meaning, and is not just letters put together in groups.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your most confusing lens, but I disagree with what you named as your easiest lens because I am not much of a history person and I think it would just be a hassle to look things up as your trying to enjoy a book.
DeleteIf you look a book through a different lens, you can have a better understanding of the book, and possibly what it would be like if you were in that persons situation. I think historical lens is the easiest to understand. I think this because it is very easy to do research about the time the book was wrote, and what happened in that time period, and apply it to what I have been reading about. The most confusing lens is deconstruction. I believe there is a meaning to novels, and that language has a meaning, and is not just letters put together in groups.
ReplyDeleteWhy is deconstruction the hardest for you? What don't you get? Is it just hard or did you not read it?
DeleteA lot of people were confused about the deconstruction lens. Why do you think it's most difficult for you? I agree with you that there is meaning to the novels and the language does as well, good point.
DeleteA lot of people were confused about the deconstruction lens. Why do you think it's most difficult for you? I agree with you that there is meaning to the novels and the language does as well, good point.
DeleteBy reading literature through a different lens, you can look at ideas and situations differently. This allows you to really understand the book and the message behind it. The Historical lens seems to make the most sense to me. By becoming familiar with the location and time period I believe it gives you a better connection to the book. I don't think the deconstruction lens makes much sense. Trying to understand a book from that perspective seems to take away from the overall message.
ReplyDeleteThat I think is also another easy one to grasp and would help make the book more understandable. I agree with the deconstruction because there is no message from the book then.
DeleteI am glad we can agree on the deconstruction lens.
DeleteI didn't think about the historical lens that way, you made me rethink about how that works, thanks. I agree with what you said about the deconstruction though, it is a weird way to look at it
DeleteGlad I could help.
DeleteUsing different lenses to view a piece of literature can help the reader get a better and deeper understanding of the story. I think that historicism is the easiest to understand. I use this lens naturally in many things that I read. Deconstructionism seemed the hardest to understand. Perhaps it was the way that it was worded but the explanation of deconstructionism was very confusing.
ReplyDeleteSo when you use historicism do you compare the piece of literature to historical events? Or is it about checking the historical accuracy
DeleteWhat about this story do you connect to? I connect to the story through text-to-self because I'm a Native American, do you use the lens of historicism because you've had someone of the same experiences as True Son?
DeleteViewing a book through a different type of lens can be very helpful. Doing this is almost like putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. You get to see the world (the book) how they see it. By using a certain lens you have the opportunity to learn much more about the world and the people in it, while it may even change how you feel about something. To me, the historical lens was easiest to understand. I think it’s basically saying that current events at that time have a big influence on people’s feelings, actions, etc., and these things impact the whole story. However, the hardest lens for me to understand is the deconstruction lens. There’s basically no meaning to the book if you say that you can’t ever assume anything or even know what the message is.
ReplyDeleteIt is valuable to read a work of literature through more than one critical lens because it give a person different views on the same literature. It allows a story to be broken down and understood in a completely different way giving a new concept to look for and compare off of. For myself, I think that the Psychological and Psychoanalytic Criticism lens is the easiest lens to understand. This is because a person can view a story through the eyes and mentality of the author and might allow a person to see what the author was going through or how they perceived their work. The critical lens that made the least sense to me was the Structuralism lens mainly because of the idea of needing some background to be able to use it.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The structuralism lens does seem hard to understand because of lack of background knowledge.
DeleteIt is important to read a story through a lens because it allows the reader to see a different side of the story that can help show a deeper meaning in the novel itself. The easiest lens for myself to understand is Archetypal lens. I find this the easiest because I like patterns and can usually spot them easy. The hardest one for me to understand is marxist lens because there are many requirements all doing with the social aspect of life in different time periods
ReplyDeleteHere's an interesting application of Marxist Theory: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/27/sure-they-look-blue-but-are-the-smurfs-closet-reds/?page=all
DeleteWhat do you think?
I agree with your lens that you don't understand, I'm not very good with it either
DeleteIt is important when reading a work of literature to broaden your mind and look through differents critical lenses. Once you are able to do this, you can see many more aspects and meanings behind a book, rather than just the one you were seeing before. Although I am not a feminist, I think that I can understand this lens the most. This lens is seeing the empowered-women side of things. It is interesting, even though I am not a feminist. The lens that makes least sense to me is the deconstruction lens.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the one that made the most sense was the deconstruction lens. Do you think you'd still think you could read through the lens better if you were a feminist?
DeleteWhy do you think that you could understand the feminist lens the best?
DeleteWhy might it be valuable to read a work of literature through one particular lens or another?
ReplyDeleteI think that it is important to read literature through specific lenses to have a thorough understanding of the piece. Seeing it through different points of view allows us to analyse what the author was trying to say.
Which critical lens that you read about seems easiest to understand? Try to put the definition of this lens into your own words.
I find it easiest to comprehend reader response criticism,which essentially from what I have read is examining how the story affects the individual reader. Providing their own personal references in their mind to better understand the text.
Which one makes the least amount of sense to you?
The one that makes the least sense to me in New Criticism. I am not sure how to look at the text through this lens. Is it comparative to existing literature? or what the author was thinking?
I think that many people naturally do the reader-response because that's how many of our teachers taught us. Why do you think this is? As readers, what do you think we can gain from the lens?
DeleteI agree with you, Jade, in thinking that new criticism is one of the most difficult lenses to understand. The document does not explain how to use the lens very well but I think it has to do with how and what the author was thinking when they wrote the literary work.
DeleteI agree with you, Jade, in thinking that new criticism is one of the most difficult lenses to understand. The document does not explain how to use the lens very well but I think it has to do with how and what the author was thinking when they wrote the literary work.
DeleteThanks Stephanie, that would make more sense for it to be about how the author is trying ti write it and not how we are trying to interpret it.
DeleteIt is better to read it through a certain way because it will help understand the situation better of someone or something. If you read thhrough all of them it might not make sense to you or the reader. I read Feminist Criticism and the definition is, t is the way you see it through your eyes. Like you either see it in a girl's perspective or guys and sometimes it comes across as seductive. It all comes down to perspective. The other thing I read was The Marxist Criticism which didn't make too much sense to me, but though I was confused, by the way it was written, I could tell that that point of importance of reading literature like that was shown.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you on understanding the "Feminist Criticism" the most. It seems easy to get down, since it's based on perspective of equality. I didn't truly understand the "Marxist Criticism" either, like you! Very confusing, kind of like the "Deconstruction" lens.
DeleteWhen you read a novel through different lenses, you get different perspectives on the story. By doing this, you almost get an entirely different story because you are looking at it from a very different point of view. This means that your favorite characters from one lense, might be your least favorite from a different lense. Historical criticism seems to be the easiest lense to understand. I personally am not a history guru, but I know plenty of people who are and this lense would be easy for them to understand. This means that they are connecting the story to historical events and understanding what social, economic, political, or cultural norms were at the time period and being able to relate them all to the story they are reading. New criticism sounds the most difficult to me. How can the distinction between literary genres not be essential? It seems like they’re almost trying to read the novel without emotion and only science of sorts?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your stance on new criticism. I feel that it is important that people realize the difference between the genres and if that doesn't exist, what's the point of different genres?
DeleteThere wouldn't be a point in having different genres, you are correct.
DeleteReading literature from a different lens is important to get a better understanding of the novel. Although it seems that most people don't understand deconstruction I think it seems to be a somewhat easy concept. It's just saying that you can't know what the writer was thinking when writing the story because there is no possible way to know without actually talking to them. Some say it takes away the message of they book but I think it's trying to say that there was no message in the first place. Although I will admit it sounds like a pretty cynical view. Structuralism confused me the most out of them all
ReplyDeleteA lot of readers get caught up in trying to determine what an author intended with a particular piece of writing. If you interpret a work of literature a certain way, but that is not what the author intended, do you think it makes your interpretation invalid?
DeleteI think all literature is made to be interpreted by each individual. Although it may be different than the author, I don't think it is "wrong". I think the author should want people to make their own interpretations on their work.
DeleteIt's valuable to read through a particular lens because of experience of reading through that lens. It feels like you are reading a brand new book compared to if you read it through another lens. Also I would say the easiest lens for me to read is Archetypal lens. It's where you use images or a certain type of character in a story. They are easy to spot because they are the character that stands out the most. It is like books with Greek mythology in them. It is easy to spot and tell what it is. However the lens that I don't understand at all is New Criticism.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's valuable to read through a particular lens, but what exactly do you mean by experience? What do you consider an experience? I also think that Archetypal lens are easy. How exactly do characters stand out the most? What Greek mythology books have you read with characters that stand out? Have you read a lot of mythology books that have an archetypal lens? What do you find easiest to spot in these kind of books? How exactly do you you tell what it is? Which part of New Criticism is the most confusing for you?
DeleteI agree with you when you say it's easier to read in Archetypal lens. This also works for me. Does archetypes work in other topics besides Greek Mythology. Do you think it would be easier to read other things besides that with archetypes?
DeleteBy experience I mean experiencing the book. If you look at from one lens then another you can see some small changes or even big in the book. This makes the book seem different so it's like reading a new book or a parody of the book. That's what I mean by experience. Also the character just pop out to me. They have this feeling of importance in the book. As for Greek mythology book that I have read? I have read many books including Percy Jackson and Hero's of Olympus are the mains ones. In them Percy Jackson of course stands out but also do the other characters like Annabeth. The easiest thing I find that pops out is the gods. Since there are the main 3 they pop out. Then the items pop out like Riptide in Percy Jackson. Also I believe Archetypal can work in other books besides Greek Myth book as long as there you know some information about it so it stands out. Also I am not much of a poetry person so almost anything poetry confuses me.
DeleteIt's valuable to view works of literature through different lenses because they allow us to achieve a deeper understanding through a viewing it though a different perspective. The critical lens which I found easiest to understand is reader-response. When I read, I naturally make connections from the text to my live. The lens which I found most difficult to understand was deconstruction. I don't agree that language has no meaning therefore the text has meaning. We as students are taught to identify the themes of literary works and explain how the author portrayed them.
ReplyDeleteI think that many people struggled with the deconstruction and I understand why. I also naturally use the reader-response lens because that's how I was taught in school. What are some recent connections you have made?
DeleteI agree with the reader response being the easiest to understand because it is our natural reaction when reading to simply form our own conclusions. However I did not find Deconstruction to be very difficult to understand. It is a rebellion against literature tearing down any form of meaning and creating bizarre letters in the form of communication.
DeleteI don't understand why an individual would ever need to use the deconstruction lens. It does not have to do with getting a deeper understanding of a literary work as the other lenses do. You will always get the same result: the text means nothing. Is this lens necessary?
DeleteIt's important to view a book in different lens' because it gives you different ways to think about what is going on. If you see a book through a lens, it can help you personally understand the book rather than just reading the lines. I like reading through the Reader-Response Criticism lens because it allows you to relate to your experiences. I don't want to read a book and try to see it through their eyes but try to connect ours so I can relate easier. I do not really understand the Psychological and Psychoanalytic Criticism lens because I can't really relate to the authors personality if I do not know much about him/her.
ReplyDeleteI think it is valuable to read through a particular lens because you can really become connected to the book. If a reader just read a book and didn't become connected to it, the book would just be words on pieces of paper. Books are meant to intrigue audiences and if that never happened, they wouldn't be as popular throughout the human population. The easiest lens for me to describe has to be the reader-response criticism. This lens is what I feel like I do the most and to me it means that depending on the readers background and what they have been through, they will se the book differently. It all depends on the reader's past experiences and feelings. The lens that makes the least amount of sense to me is the deconstruction lens. The point of reading a book through a lens is to become connected and if you are deconstructing the book, you see no point in the writing. Therefore, you aren't connected to the book and isn't that the point of books? To become connected? I can't ever see myself reading like that and I would discourage that to others.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the deconstruction lens seems very difficult. Reading through without an attachment would be hard.
DeleteI feel that reading a book that you don't connect to completely defeats the purpose of the book. How are you supposed to learn and actively listen to the story if you feel no connection to it?
DeleteI think reading through a specific lens while reading a book is a way to further understanding of the book. Reading it through a particular lens will enhance your vision of that aspect of the book. I believe archetypal lens is the easiest to follow, because of the class work we did on it. It is easy to follow and a lot of the books that use this have common patterns. The feminist lens is the hardest for me to follow because I haven't ever noticed feminism in a book I have read before, I can't see myself following a book that does.
ReplyDeleteWhat books did we use the archetypal view for?
DeleteWe did a movie project on a hero of our choice, and we are now reading about the hero Odysseus.
DeleteKeep in mind that with some lenses what you will need to look for is for what isn't there. With the feminist perspective some of the things you can talk about are the absence of female characters, or the stereotyping of the female gender.
DeleteI think it is important to read books through certain critical lenses because it gives you full insight on the story. It helps you view the plot of the story from many aspects and helps you understand a character's reasoning behind something. I think the easiest critical lens to understand is the Marxist lens. The reason that is the easiest for me is because it's pretty set and stone as to what can happen, and I think that is pretty easy to understand. The critical lens that I don't quite understand and follow very well in the Feminist lens. I think today in our society, male and female are treated very much like equals, so I don't see a reason in needing this. I can see if you're reading an older book why this lens would be used, but I don't think it applies to today's life.
ReplyDeleteWhile one could argue that we have made strides towards equality, I believe that there still is a sizable gap in gender equality. Take video games for instance. That industry primarily targets a male demographic with what many consider to be sexist and stereotypical portrayals of women. Without applying a feminist lens to these "texts" this problem could go unaddressed and erode any strides towards equality with an audience that passively accepts what it sees as "correct."
DeleteIf you believe males and females are equal in today's world, explain to me why Iowa State has women's tennis, but not men's tennis?
DeleteI feel that reading through a lens would help the reader understand what's going on in a more literary sense. It also helps further understand why the writer puts specific things into the stories. I feel that historical criticism is the easiest. I think this because it basically just shows the conditions and how people were feeling at that particular time in history. I think the hardest is feminist because I'm not a woman and I don't really see things in that view.
ReplyDeleteDo you think it is necessary to be a woman to try and understand things from her perspective? Why would it be valuable to do this?
DeleteNo it's not necessary, and it's valuable so we understand how women feel in different situations.
DeleteIs there a certain lens you prefer to use when reading? Have you seen differences in understanding of a text between you and someone else because of these different lenses?
DeleteI don't typically read in a specific lens but I will start since I'm learning about more. I have not yet.
DeleteReading through a lens can change how you view the book, who is the 'good guy' and who is the 'bad guy.' It can also give you a view on the author and their views on life. It can change the way you read the book, kind of like reading a different book. Archetypal lens is using imagery with the character. It is very easy to notice because they go into lots of detail about one character. Psychological because I don't always think its right. Maybe it is just their opinion? How would we know?
ReplyDeleteReading through a lens can change how you view the book, who is the 'good guy' and who is the 'bad guy.' It can also give you a view on the author and their views on life. It can change the way you read the book, kind of like reading a different book. Archetypal lens is using imagery with the character. It is very easy to notice because they go into lots of detail about one character. Psychological because I don't always think its right. Maybe it is just their opinion? How would we know?
ReplyDeleteReading using a critical lens can be important, because it shows you a variety of different views from which you can see a story. This can help you really understand a book better, because it might be meant for a different lens than you are used to. The lens that makes the most sense to me would be the Archetypal Criticism lens. This lens has us look at things that are used in almost every book, the reason it makes sense to me is because we have been studying an example of an archetype in English recently, which makes it be more presently on my mind. On the flip side of that, the one that makes the least sense to me would have to be Deconstruction. This is when you say that one cannot know what a story means, because it is just words. I don't understand this because throughout our lives english teachers have been telling us "this is what the author meant" so looking through the deconstruction lens would be completely disregarding that life long discipline. While those two are the easiest and the hardest for me to really understand, the other lenses still intrigue me enough to want to look at some literary works in some different ways.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the deconstruction. English teachers have told us this is what the author wanted us to learn but deconstruction contradicts that in every way.
DeleteDeconstruction is really about the idea that there is not "one true" meaning. Because language is so complex, it contains many meanings, some often contradictory. By deconstructing a text, you are looking for the many meanings instead of just one.
DeleteThank you for the explanation. That makes things more understandable.
DeleteIs it possible for many readers deconstruction destroys the "reading for pleasure" asset we strive to instill in young people?
DeleteIt's important to read a book through a critical lens so one knows what it's like through another's point of view. It also would help a person gain a deeper understanding of the story, allowing them to go out of the box in their usual thinking. The easiest lens for me to understand is probably the "Feminist Criticism" lens. It's very straightforward, basically set on the idea that men and women should not be equal, and that men should be the higher power. The hardest to comprehend, in my opinion, is the "Deconstruction" lens. It makes absolutely zero sense to me, because it is described as looking at a story as if it has no true meaning to it. To me, every book must serve some type of purpose.
ReplyDeleteIt's important to read a book through a critical lens so one knows what it's like through another's point of view. It also would help a person gain a deeper understanding of the story, allowing them to go out of the box in their usual thinking. The easiest lens for me to understand is probably the "Feminist Criticism" lens. It's very straightforward, basically set on the idea that men and women should not be equal, and that men should be the higher power. The hardest to comprehend, in my opinion, is the "Deconstruction" lens. It makes absolutely zero sense to me, because it is described as looking at a story as if it has no true meaning to it. To me, every book must serve some type of purpose.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it helps readers get a deeper understanding of the story. What would be some examples of how you think the "Feminist Criticism" lens is straightforward? I also thought the "Deconstruction" lens was confusing.There was no meaning or purpose.
DeleteThe "Feminist Criticism" description was very clear on what it was. Overall, it just stated that the men should be the higher power.
DeleteThe "Feminist Criticism" description was very clear on what it was. Overall, it just stated that the men should be the higher power.
DeleteIt could be valuable to read a book through one critical lens because using too many lens can give the story a whole new image. Using one can bring a whole new meaning. The lens that seems easiest would be psychological and psychoanalytic criticism. While reading with this lens, its intended to focus on the authors feeling and state of mind. It would be easiest because finding emotions throughout the plot is simple. A lens that seems the least valuable to me would be the deconstruction lens. If the story ended without completing the story line, it would be hard to not imagine what happened after the book stopped.
ReplyDeleteHow could you find an emotion by a story's plot? What's an example of finding one?
DeleteReading through a particular lens is beneficial because it can give you a view of the story you hadn't seen before. No two lenses are going to provide you the same view of a story. The lens that seems easiest to understand is historical criticism. I find it easiest because you simply look back into the time period of when a book was written to understand its meaning. The hardest lens to understand is the deconstruction lens. It was created by people that claim language means nothing, therefore you cannot understand the "meaning" of a story. This makes no sense to me because without language, communication is impossible to begin with. Every little common understanding of a gesture, symbol, or movement to get a point across can be considered a language, so saying language is meaningless is confusing to me.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading through a particular lens people are able to grasp the same concepts of the story. This is why it could be so valuable, it could also be vital because the reader can look at a story through many different views. When using lenses you essentially you can get many different stories out of just one plot. The easiest to understand would have to be Feminist Criticism because it looks at the relationships between genders throughout a novel. You are trying to find the equal between the genders such as, power in relations, patterns of thought, enfranchisement, etc. The hardest of these lenses to comprehend would have to be deconstruction. The concept itself is not hard to understand, some just believe language has no meaning. It is trying to put yourself in that mindset that is so difficult about deconstruction.
ReplyDeleteI agree that deconstruction would be the hardest lens to read with. I see where you can find feminism as an easy lens because of the relationships of characters in the novel. I thought that the lens that would be easiest would be psychological and psychoanalytic criticism because I find it easy to pay attention to what the author wants me to feel as I am reading. How do you feel about this lens?
DeleteViewing stories through different lenses is essentially looking at it with a different perspective. Whatever angle you’re coming at is a different interpretation. Since not everything a character says or does is always spelled out, we have to figure out why they might have done something or said something. Depending on which lens you look through, it can paint a totally different picture of an aspect of or entirety of a character. I believe the easiest to understand of these lenses to understand is archetypal. I would define archetypal as looking at aspects and themes of a story and analyzing them. You’re analyzing it in relation to other stories, asking “where have I seen this element/theme before?” and in a sense, also asking how it will impact the story. It’s the most straightforward. In contrast, the most nonsensical lens, and arguably not even a lens, is the deconstruction lens. It claims that language means nothing, so we have no way of knowing what a story means. Authors try to convey the ideas in their head or the messages in their head through words, so it has to mean something. Just because one message can be interpreted in different ways doesn’t mean language is gibberish. We attach language to ideas, and we use it as a means of communicating. I don’t see how this lens has a leg to stand on.
ReplyDeleteWhile agree that deconstruction is the most difficult to understand and the hardest to use, I also think it is the most interesting. This lens asks you to completely forget something you know extremely well and to look at the literature through new eyes.
DeleteI find it valuable to read from a specific lens determined on your views and how you take in the information such as the feminist lens. The Marxist Lens seemed the easiest to understand because our thoughts are mainly based on what our beliefs and other things. Archetypal Criticism makes the least sense because it involves unrealistic people and stories, some people prefer factual stories rather than made up lies.
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate more on why it's easy to understand the Marxist Lens?
DeleteThe Marxist Lens seemed the easiest to understand because our thoughts are mainly based on what our beliefs and other things. Archetypal Criticism makes the least sense because it involves unrealistic people and stories, making it not very thrilling at times when it's fake and easy to guess the rest.
ReplyDeleteIt would be valuable to read a work of literature through more than one particular lens in order to show readers something they would not have been able to see. It would give the reader a different view than someone else. To me, the easiest one to understand is the Archetypal Criticism lens. This lens interprets character types, situations, and symbols in a literary work. The one that makes the least amount of sense to me is the New Criticism lens. I don’t really understand what to do in order to see a literary work through this lens.
ReplyDeleteIt would be valuable to read a work of literature through more than one particular lens in order to show readers something they would not have been able to see. It would give the reader a different view than someone else. To me, the easiest one to understand is the Archetypal Criticism lens. This lens interprets character types, situations, and symbols in a literary work. The one that makes the least amount of sense to me is the New Criticism lens. I don’t really understand what to do in order to see a literary work through this lens.
ReplyDeleteIt is very important to view stories through different lenses because it gives us a different view of the story. These lenses let us view literary works from different angles so we can learn more about them. Each lense is made of different literary theories that are easier to understand than others. The literary theory that I feel is easiest to understand is psychological criticism. It explains the author's personality, feelings, and thoughts through the book or literary work. Some Lenses are not as easy to understand as others, like reader-response criticism. This one is a littler tougher to understand because it doesn't follow a certain literary theory, the reader makes it up themselves.
ReplyDeleteIt is very important to view stories through different lenses because it gives us a different view of the story. These lenses let us view literary works from different angles so we can learn more about them. Each lense is made of different literary theories that are easier to understand than others. The literary theory that I feel is easiest to understand is psychological criticism. It explains the author's personality, feelings, and thoughts through the book or literary work. Some Lenses are not as easy to understand as others, like reader-response criticism. This one is a littler tougher to understand because it doesn't follow a certain literary theory, the reader makes it up themselves.
ReplyDeleteHow does one understand the author's intentions from their work?
DeleteIt would be valuable to read a story through a lens because the reader might get a different experience. It's like eating a Pizza Roll and instead of tasting pizza in roll form, one would taste Hot Pocket. That is what a literary lens can do to a story. I find it easy to understand the Archetypal criticism because it is essentially the cliche lens. It means that something that appears in many literary works. It's hard for me to understand the New Criticism because it requires for one to assume what the author felt like when they wrote the literary work.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the book through different lenses it will help you to see the book from different perspectives. Seeing thing from different perspectives can help in your life, not just helping to understand the book. If you think about how other people feel then everyone will get along better. I think that the Feminist Criticism is the easiest to understand. It's about the difference between men and women and how the men take over because the women "can't". I think that new criticism is the hardest to understand.
ReplyDeleteReading through these lens enhances your reading. One can read a book and understand it, but it is completely different when you read in another perspective. One of the lenses that make the most sense to me is Psychological and Psychoanalytic Criticism. How I see it's definition is reading the book and understanding it based upon the characters emotions, their state of being. I simply understand it better than the other lenses. I would say the hardest lens to comprehend may be the Marxist Criticism lens.
ReplyDeleteQ: Why might it be valuable to read a work of literature through one particular lens or another?
ReplyDeleteA: I think that it's important for the reader to relate to the character, and if not that then understand all the different veiw points that happen in the story and then apply it to their life.
Q: Which critical lens that you read about seems easiest to understand? Try to put the definition of this lens into your own words.
A: The Native American lens of it all is very forth coming to me, I am in favor of True Son returning home and the white devils dying, they have no right to come in to kill and steal the Great Being's land. However, I understand why they think that having the white children return to the city would be a good thing. Their parents miss them, but in the time away they've became Indian.
Q: Which one makes the least amount of sense to you?
A: I think trying to understand the things the white people do are harder for me to wrap my mind around because they are a less logical. They hate the Indians because they kill white people, they kill white people because they don't fully use the Earth and all she offers, and they kill Indians because they don't understand their ways.
Lenses are a very important tool for any reader and can change the way someone interprets the themes of the book. Of all the lenses listed in the document, which do you think would be the most important to use for "The Light in the Forest"?
ReplyDelete