You may remember that I made a Google form to ask students what the “major take-away” of the class was and what question(s) remained after the discussion.
I give the responses below; at this point, I leave the lessons to be drawn from the responses implicit.
| What was your major take-away from the discussion yesterday? | |
| 1 | My major take away from yesterday’s discussion was not necessarily the specifics of what we spoke about, although that was also interesting, but more so an understanding of how to ask better questions. |
| 2 | I enjoyed talking about how the author’s work could be interpreted in both literary and philosophical senses. The interpretations one obtains from each, as we saw yesterday, are diverse yet simultaneously deep and thought-provoking (given someone takes the time to analyze the text/the text’s philosophy). |
| 3 | It became clearer to me how alienating it can be for an author to narrow his focus when addressing the reader. |
| 4 | How to deconstruct questions. What Socratic teaching really is. |
| 5 | Explore every aspect of a question analyzing eat word for its superficial meaning and any detonations or connotations that might be associated. |
| 6 | My major take away from the discussion was that I can better answer or at least discuss questions by asking questions about the underlying assumptions beneath those questions. I also learned that following the questions that stem from the original has applications in answering other, seemingly unrelated questions. |
| 7 | My major take away was that I read very impartially. For example, I do not feel very connected to the “you” the narrator describes being a male reader. However, I do not think I would feel anymore connected if “you” was addressed to be a blonde 18 year old girl. The “you” in the book has just become a name to me like “Mike” or “Jessy.” I did connect with the whole “books you’ve never read” and “you don’t expect much from life.” However, I think that it’s only a matter of probability that I would relate to one of the many descriptions of the reader that the narrator gives. Calvino’s style has not really been working for me. |
| 8 | I found most interesting the discussion on how to engage audiences. Particularly, the point on how details not necessary to the plot or point you are trying to make are key to engagement the audience. Certain details can alienate, and other include the audience depending, and thus some people relate better to the work while others don’t. |
| 9
10 11 |
I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion of Calvino’s strategies in addressing the reader. I’ve always really liked when an author or narrator addresses me—I’m a sucker for fourth-wall breaking—and this was the first time I’d ever examined it critically. Furthermore, I found the distinction of who Calvino’s “you” addressed. Finally I really, really appreciated your tangent about political correctness. It was very well put, and expressed a lot of ideas I felt were true but never had actually put into words. |
| 12 | Language can never be completely objective. We as readers interpret the words put down by the author in the context of our own lives, so the message is slightly different for everyone. Thanks to our similar cultural contexts, the message will be very uniformly received, but there will still be that variation. |
| 13 | The major take-away was that asking questions and interpreting answers is different than memorizing information. The level of creativity and insight required in the former task is much more demanding than the simple mental effort involved in the second. The second should be focused on and developed in an effort to train the mind as a whole.
p.s. Mr. Ritter talked about this kind of thing in PDS class. Maybe y’all should confer since he’s all about tech and searches and stuff. |
| 14 | that “deconstruction” or Socratic questioning are useful or even vital methods for defining your interpretation of a text/situation and tend to yield insights not only about the text but also about the human condition and more prominently about yourself |
| 15 | Asking the right questions and deconstructing questions by considering the underlying premise of a question |
| 16 | To analyze the questions we are asked and then take it a step further and analyze our own answers.
Mostly to figure out what goes on in the world around us through active questioning and to inquire about the world rather than take everything at face value. |
| 17 | That if I hope to arrive at truths from reading, I must constantly question. Whether it be the intent of the creator of the work or how his work affects me, I should always respond the the work with careful analysis to help me discover new truths. Much knowledge can be gained from reading, but it is seldom superficial. Through questioning, I can discover truths that I would never have found in simply reading the text. |
| 18
19
20 |
Deconstruct the learning process we’ve been taught. Don’t just know to ask penetrating, debatable questions, but know what the question itself already assumes. (Ie. Does it assume that you are engaged?)
Grow accustomed to one word (like “you”) having the capability of referring to multiple identities. Perhaps in the past teachers have tried to better our characters, but so subtly that it went over my head. Yesterday, I noticed that you very clearly integrated a moral lesson, how to be compassionately politically correct, and even told us that you did so. Very much reminded me of the Cat and the Coffee Drinkers from seventh grade Riddell. And a bit of Calvino in how he very blatantly tells you what metaphors he’s using. Very cool. |