I consider myself passionate about all literature; however, I have a particular interest in some post-modern analytical frame works, particularly Structuralism and Post Structuralism. No matter how much I try to avoid it, I really love analyzing literature through the lens of language and how it is exemplified throughout any work of literature, regardless of the time period it was written in.
During my first post (which I was quite unhappy with) I tried a bit too hard to try and analyze Taming of the Shrew through a lens that I truly do not enjoy. The post seemed pretty elementary to me and I remember not enjoying writing it. I tried to write a post that was simple and easily to understand; I often feel intimidated reading Shakespeare because I feel I don’t have the “proper” lenses to analyze from. I feel that all I can do is spit out an analysis that comes from Sparknotes. So, during the post, I kept repeating to myself that this is written in the 1590s, Mike, stop trying to be Derrida, this is WAY before his time. So, I ended up writing a really basic post that was poorly written and devoid of any passion.
However, as we have analyzed Shakespeare’s plays thoroughly and intellectually, I’ve realized that all the plays we have read to date have a TON of structuralist implications. Shakespeare’s plays have so much to do with the power of language. Early in the semester, I tried to avoid what I am most interested in and analyze the plays from a lens that I simply do not enjoy; it showed in my first post, which stunk.
My two most recent posts, I focused on language and metafiction, two aspects of literature I enjoy greatly. I found the posts much better and I enjoyed writing them much more. My passion for Shakespeare died down when I tried to avoid my literary interests because I simply did not think they existed within Shakespeare’s time; however, they do! Therefore, I’ve realized that even though I may predominantly see literature through the lens of contemporary literature, Shakespeare is incredibly ahead of his time and one can certainly analyze his works through a variety of contemporary lenses.
One theme which I seem to be insinuating throughout my two latter posts is how one must acknowledge that Shakespeare’s plays are meant to be adapted into a theatre production; they are not solely works of literature that only exists on the page. It’s important to always keep in mind how the audience plays into the construction and analysis of the plays. I have been thinking for my final paper if I can do an analysis of how theatre and metafiction in its relation to language change the meaning of particular scenes and conclude it with some sort of post-structuralist interpretation . I like to think of my last two post as a starting point for my final paper if I can relate meta-fiction and language in one paper.
I think my blogs show two important aspects of my literary analysis: 1. I cannot escape postmodern theoretical frameworks and 2. I need to trust my literary instincts and write about and focus on aspects of Shakespeare that I find enjoyable rather than what the audience would find “correct.” My first post has really shown me the effects of writing about something I do not enjoy; I tried to write what you and the class would want, rather than writing for myself. I’ve learned that no matter how intelligent I may be(come) I can never write about literature if I don’t enjoy doing it; it is inevitable that it will come out dry and boring to read.
I really enjoy reading the replies to my post (as does everyone, I’m sure.) It is always nice to hear someone remark nicely about a claim you’ve made about such rich texts. However, I think the posters are often too nice. It may be hard on my mental well-being, I think I learn more when people disagree with what I am saying or at least point out how I can improve my post/analysis. Honestly, I’m waiting for someone to rip up and bash one of my posts; that will be the post that I learn the most from.
Aside from that, I still think the posting is really beneficial to my understanding of what we read. I don’t consider any of my interpretations “understood” until I can verbalize or write it. So, many times I will be reading literature and I think I have a great idea in my mind; I try and write it down and it ends up awful most of the time. So, I think forcing me to verbalize my opinions helps me generate my ideas and force me to make them legitimate. I also feel that blogging is essentially a draft for a future draft. I treat posting as a vehicle for me to try and formulate a variety of my ideas; whichever post comes out more well written often turns into paper topics and I often use my posts to help me generate future papers.