Sometimes I Like My Eggs, Sometimes I Want the Chicken

After reading Barry’s sections for this week’s reading, I am now evaluating how I interpret a text: do I lean towards liberal humanism or towards Structuralism? In the metacognitive stint, I realized that I am a little bit of both depending on the piece of literature, specifically the genre. I like my eggs when it comes to poetry because I feel, personally, that the genre is more of a therapeutic device in the aspect of composition and interpretation (reader-centered). If I read the author’s background, researched the events that helped create the work, or read other poems created by an author as a collective work, then my interpretation may be more scripted and artificial because the context will influence my reading. The “organic” and untainted freedoms are gone because ‘close-reading’ is not implemented. So the idea that “[t]he literary text contain its own meaning within itself” in the genre of poetry sits nicely with me (Barry 17). I feel that the broad genre of poetry relates more to human nature (in its essence form) due to the ‘soul’ of the concept, as opposed, perhaps , to non-fiction. Pouring over too much of the external context can pave a path that you necessarily don’t want to follow.

On the other hand, when it comes to such literary genres as science fiction, I lean towards Structuralism when considering the interpretation of the piece. Science fiction can be read both in isolation (which brings more of an entertainment element to the piece) and in context; but it is the contextual interpretation and understanding of a text can be deepened by the socio-political context in which it was written. One of the main characteristics of science fiction is based around social criticism (this can be seen in such Bradbury pieces) and if a reader desires to deepen their understanding beyond the “surface-text”, they need to be knowledgeable about a number of external contextual elements. For example, they should be familiar with the characteristics of the genre (the voyage, sciences, technology, etc.) so they can evaluate the author’s decisions and motivations. They should also be familiar with the historical aspects (the socio-political) of McCarthyism to better comprehend the themes presented in the work. Autobiographical information may also help shape interpretation if they become familiar with the author’s life and his/her involvement in politics, literature, or other institutions that may give him aretē. I guess, in this respect of the science fiction genre, structuralism may be more beneficial for the reader in their understanding of the “larger picture”, instead of the liberal humanism isolation approach. I agree with Lévi-Srauss , in regards to certain literary genres, that some pieces should be approached by understanding that the “individual” piece of literature “from a cycle of” texts composed by an author may not “have a separate and inherent meaning but could only be understood by considering its position in the whole cycle” (Barry 45). So, depending on the genre, I may like my eggs or I may prefer the chicken.