Amy’s Journey as a Reader:

By Amy

A Harrowing Tale of Hope in the Face of Not Being One of the Brightest Students in the Class.

In the beginning. . .

Amy, ignorant and blissful, reads books only for surface content.

Comments are gut reaction and interpretation.

I can’t believe that the doctor would want to tell the girl’s parents that she wants birth control. She went to him in privacy and in need, and he, as a doctor, shouldn’t betray that.

Reaction to the first days of class:

What does he mean, look for contextual justification?! My left-hand pages aren’t what he wants, at all. Maybe

it would help to add page numbers. . .

Shock!

Resentment!

When things begin to change:

Susan Sontag, “Against Interpretation”

Erotics as compared to hermeneutics of art—I can understand that. I’m reminded of standing in the Peggy Guggenheim collection in Venice and listening to art students around me dissecting paintings that I only appreciate as “pretty.” Is this avoiding undue interpretation or failing to recognize how the artist conveys meaning, whatever it is? I think I’m starting to understand.

(Class discussion continues to shed light on the texts. Contribution of other people is invaluable, and alas! Amy still doesn’t realize what it

is to read deeply on her own.)

And then, just as hopes rise… Frustration.

Foucault is still a mystery to me. Looking at my right-hand pages, it seems like everything is still surface

reaction. Who can untangle the deeper meaning when everything seems to have five or six meanings??

..followed by enlightenment.Everything we learn, everything we know is based upon something that someone told us. And every time someone tells us anything, they tell us from a frame of reference affected by everything they have been taught. Creepy. This is the sort of bias we should try to escape to become closer readers; this is the sort of interpretation with nothing but prior biases as a basis that Sontag warns against, and this is the discourse that Foucault dissects.

Progress.Most of what I write is still a reaction to something characters do or say. For instance, I feel sorry for Frankenstein’s monster and think that Frankenstein is nothing but a whiny wimp. However, instead of just trusting my gut feeling, I find examples in the text, such as when Frankenstein sits around feeling sorry for himself while Justine is dying, and when he runs and takes a nap instead of dismantling his creation before it could really come to life. With regard to the question of why Shelley portrays him this way, I still don’t trust my skills of contextual interpretation enough to decide. Class discussion continues to be helpful.

…and the inevitable relapse. I don’t feel like I have anything to say about House of God other than the obvious. Most of my comments are horrified reactions to doctor treatment of patients. I do raise some questions, like “Why are there so many psychiatrists in this book?” but don’t go the extra mile to answer them. Perhaps I haven’t learned how to be a more effectual reader because I’ve relied so much on class discussion.

Hope for the future?