Defense

While reading Sidney's The Defense of Poesy I was really interested in which words he used to convey his thoughts. for example in one line he said, "as i have just cause to make a pitiful defense of poor poetry, which from almost the highest estimation of learning is fallen to the laughing-stock of children..." i really liked how he used the words pitiful and poor because he then switches the tone by saying that poetry is one of the highest estimations of learning. to me it seems as if he is being very he is being satirical in saying that there really is nothing pitiful of poor in regards to poetry, i almost feel that because this is true of poetry and all forms of literature, yes even what some might consider trash, it can be stated that poetry does not need a defense, because it itself and only itself is defense enough. it is just like the poet (i can't remember his name for the life of me right now) who said that the poem's meaning is the poem, and i really liked that because i think it is all that Shelly and Sidney would have to do is claim that the defence of poetry lies within every poem, or any other piece of literature for that matter.

Literature. After our discussion on Wednesday, my mind was racing in regards to literature.

My First thought was on the topic of instructive literature. We talked about how literature that is not didactic, basically is worthless. If you are reading a piece of literary work that is not shaping the inner workings of your mind, then you are reading "trash" literature. But i guess my question is what exactly is the criteria for a piece of literature to be considered instructional? I feel as if every piece of literature possesses the ability to teach someone something. Everything from comic books to books on literary criticism, can teach the people reading them at least one thing. I think as long as you are reading, you are learning. Why do we have to create this hierarchy for literature? When the hierarchy is created, i feel as if it discourages people from reading. What i mean by that is i know people who might enjoy reading "trash" novels, but because we place them at the lower end of the totem pole, they are not even given the opportunity to explore their identity as a reader. As far back as i can remember, schools gave students limitations on what they read inside a classroom. These limitations consisted of classical and intellectual readings, and as a result left out the "unimportant" genres. In doing this, i believe a lot of kids grew up never appreciating literature, whatever it may have been, because they were never encouraged to read books that sparked their particular interests. If you have a kid who is interested in sports but he is never given the option to read a book on sports, then that might be taking away the chance for him to want to read. Dr. Sexon said that most people don't read anymore, that some people will go for a year or longer without having read a single book, but i think the reason for that is because from the beginning they are functioning off the notion that we talked about in class; if what we read is not didactic, then basically it is pointless. This is why people have fallen away from reading, if someone wants to read for their pleasure, why does that mean that they are not going to be learning from their text? I think this is where the ball has really been dropped...(to be continued)