In disagreement with Hirsch

Hirsch highlights the differences between the author’s “meaning” and the work’s “significance”. Of course the only way to know what the author’s intentions are is to have the author explain the meaning. However, why is the author’s meaning so important to their work? The author creates the piece of work properly because he has been inspired or influenced by specific events or people in his life., but once the work is produced and open to be read by the public, doesn’t it grant the readers their own interpretation? As important as the meaning of the work might be in order to appreciate the art they have created, how does it influence the reader? I think you can look at art in two ways; one to appreciate the skill and process of the artist to produce various works, and the other to allow for the art to touch the reader or observer in a special way, but that can only happen with their interpretation of each piece of art work. I think that is what makes art special in that the person appreciating the art can have their very own unique connection with the piece. Art touches each person in a different way, so to read Shakespeare and still not know for sure his intent if anything allows the reader to open their interpretation even more. They can have a truly “pure” experience with the text without having to know why it was created and what the meaning was for Shakespeare. I also think that meaning and significance go hand in hand, the reader finds the meaning only when the text is significant in some way to their lives. Without the readers connection to the text they will not be able to find or understand the meaning of the work.

Looking at the Formalists through Morrison's The Bluest Eye

In the “Introduction: What is Literature?” Eagleton states, “The Formalists, then, saw literary language as a set of deviations from a norm, a kind of linguistic violence: literature is a ‘special’ kind of language, in contrast to the ‘ordinary’ language we commonly use. But to spot a deviation implies being able to identify the norm from which it swerves” (4). This statement reminded me when Toni Morrison begins her novel The Bluest Eye with a narrative from a Dick and Jane reading primer. Morrison repeats the story three times consecutively, the second time without punctuation, and the third time without spacing. In the second narrative form, only the first letter “Here is the house” becomes capitalized, and then following, none of the words are capitalized after that, and it lacks any sort of punctuation. The third narrative form, begins with the same capitalization, but then leaves no spacing in between any of the words, creating a jumbled and chaotic paragraph of letters, “willplaywithjanetheywillplayagoodgameplayjaneplay”. As the Dick and Jane story becomes distorted by the lack of punctuation and spacing so does Pecola’s world. By presenting the Dick and Jane narratives in all three forms, Morrison chooses to question the why and how racism continues to disrupt and destruct the American society. We are able to see the strong desire in Pecola to be given blue eyes, and why she wants to possess qualities of the white Shirley Temple. Morrison also shows how Pecola and the rest of the Breedlove family is affected and hindered from growing individually and in society. Therefore, by knowing the “norm” of writing and “deviating” away from it, Morrison can create her language of meaning.