The text was composed ‘two-dimensionally’: (1) There is a theme for each verse, so the whole may be read ‘down’ as 5 ‘vertical’ verses (the final fifth verse being written in italics); (2) There is a theme for each line position of the ‘vertical’ verses, so it may be read ‘across’ as 5 ‘horizontal’ verses (i.e., all the first lines as the first ‘horizontal verse’, all the second lines as the second ‘horizontal verse’, and so on); (3) The development of the first four verses is paralleled in the last (italicized) verse, so it also may be read with the fifth verse semantically ‘interlocking’ with the previous four (i.e., interspersed as originally written).
Three for the price of one! Try reading it all three ways – perhaps one will speak more strongly to you.
Actually, I'm rather glad of that, for a few reasons:
1) If I did my job well, there is no “right" meaning at all – dictating a meaning would be pedagogy at best or propaganda at worst.
2) That several meanings occurred to you made it an opportunity for contemplation and discovery of your own perspective on the foregoing matter.
3) I didn't choose that line for one meaning; I chose it because it seemed to have several. There are at least three senses of “given” that work effectively, and there are a few choices as to what exactly “these things” might refer – this is ‘gold’ to me!
Considering this week’s entries and comments, it seems to me the unintended theme was specificity versus ambiguity. One story was particular yet universal; another was detailed yet opaque; another was grounded yet set in outer space; another was personal yet allegorical; my own was internal yet amorphous. These contrasts meant that each of us somehow ‘got’ and simultaneously ‘didn’t get’ each of the entries according to what each individual reader wanted from the story.
Given the holiday occasion of the Challenge, I think the lesson is that even if a particular story is not quite what we as readers want it to be, we may yet be thankful for the story we have.
4 comments:
Author’s Note:
The text was composed ‘two-dimensionally’:
(1) There is a theme for each verse, so the whole may be read ‘down’ as 5 ‘vertical’ verses (the final fifth verse being written in italics);
(2) There is a theme for each line position of the ‘vertical’ verses, so it may be read ‘across’ as 5 ‘horizontal’ verses (i.e., all the first lines as the first ‘horizontal verse’, all the second lines as the second ‘horizontal verse’, and so on);
(3) The development of the first four verses is paralleled in the last (italicized) verse, so it also may be read with the fifth verse semantically ‘interlocking’ with the previous four (i.e., interspersed as originally written).
Three for the price of one!
Try reading it all three ways – perhaps one will speak more strongly to you.
Seems like 3D to me - very interesting. Woven.
Only one thing I didn't get - the very last line. There are many possible meanings, and none of them were obvious to me as the right one.
Actually, I'm rather glad of that, for a few reasons:
1) If I did my job well, there is no “right" meaning at all – dictating a meaning would be pedagogy at best or propaganda at worst.
2) That several meanings occurred to you made it an opportunity for contemplation and discovery of your own perspective on the foregoing matter.
3) I didn't choose that line for one meaning; I chose it because it seemed to have several. There are at least three senses of “given” that work effectively, and there are a few choices as to what exactly “these things” might refer – this is ‘gold’ to me!
Sorry, I can’t help – not too sorry, though.
This post was submitted for The Friday Challenge named “The Second Annual Thanksgiving Challenge”:
See Challenge Posting
See Entries and Comments
See Roundup and Winner
Considering this week’s entries and comments, it seems to me the unintended theme was specificity versus ambiguity. One story was particular yet universal; another was detailed yet opaque; another was grounded yet set in outer space; another was personal yet allegorical; my own was internal yet amorphous. These contrasts meant that each of us somehow ‘got’ and simultaneously ‘didn’t get’ each of the entries according to what each individual reader wanted from the story.
Given the holiday occasion of the Challenge, I think the lesson is that even if a particular story is not quite what we as readers want it to be, we may yet be thankful for the story we have.
Post a Comment