Explication of a Central Passage
“But whereas Seth sets up a hypothesis about both the content of the text and its source [] and reads on to confirm his hypothesis, Kara’s reading proceeds as a series of content paraphrases []. She continues to interpret the text a chunk at a time, paraphrasing linearly with little attempt to integrate or connect the parts. She reacts positively to the text [] and, despite her initial confusion with ‘glibness,’ she seems satisfied with her simple reading []” (Haas & Flower 128).
In this passage, one can see the author establishing differences between the ways that people read the text in question. They handle it in different manners, manifesting different motivations and context that their readings entail, and how they relate to those of the authors. While Seth takes this into account, Kara almost completely dismisses it. There would thus be a difference between those readers, such as Seth, that see reading as a meaningful and constructive act, and other students, like Kara, who are only interested in the information that they may obtain from the text.
The former student’s reading provides a more meaningful and context-rich experience that is closer to the ideal. He attempts to interact with the text in a significant way, while Kara only attempts to decipher the information that is contained therein. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, while Seth-s procedure is obviously more complex, Kara’s is still a valid mode of reading. They are only separated by different paradigms and ways of working, but it is important to analyze both of them in order to understand the true functioning of humans’ search for meaning.
Discussion Questions
What parameters, if any, can or should one use to establish the correctness of a text’s reading?
Are there times when just looking for information in a text is useful, or should one always have to take the context into account?
Works Cited
Haas, Christina & Flower, Linda. “Rhetorical Reading Strategies and he Construction of Meaning.” College Composition and Communication 39.2 (1988): 167-83. Print.
