I spent some time before I decided to write my journal looking at what other people in the class were thinking. Like a fellow classmate, I focused a little bit on the author written preface. I agree with her as well, as she says, “Before even reading a single line of the novel, we are lead to believe that Rowson is genuine and not looking for any kind of fame or success from this novel. ” I asked her if she thought that Rowson did this to gain a little more sympathy for the characters in this novel, and i think we both agree that she uses the preface to help enhance the story.
I must confess i was not all that familiar with the term “patriarchal”, and went striaght to webster and shortly after concluded it to be the “man’s world”. Again, i would have to agree that Rowson is writing in a man’s world, and needed something to dignify herself from other authors. She states in the preface, “…I wrote with a mind anxious for the happiness of that sex whose morals and conduct have so powerful an influence on mankind in general; and convinced that I have now wrote a line that conveys a wrong ideas to the head or a corrupt wish to the heart…” (second to last paragraph in the preface). I feel as if she is trying to distinguish herself, or rather explain herself before we even have a cance to experience what she has written. I again agree with Lindsay’s statement that she isn’t necassarily trying to recieve fame and fortune from this novel, but i feel as though she really wants us to have a pre-dispostioned view of her intrepetation of the novel before we even have a chance to consider it for ourselves.
This made me think about the discussion we had on “what is literature”, and some criticisms of literature. I remember somewhere along the line someone mentioning that literature and its interpretation has nothing to do with the author. Forgive me if i butchered that…please if you remember saying something like that or remember it being said…please comment me the CORRECT thing that was said. But anyway, i feel as though we are being told how to think by Rowson. I’m a little more than half way through the novel itself and i find myself constantly being brought back to a sympathetic feeling for Charolette herself. In chapter 2-5 we are given a sort of background. I was a little confused at first when reading of why were were being told someone else’s background. In fact i think my ignornace has led to ask, “What relationship does Mr. Eldridge have with Mr. Temple and Charolette?”
I am open to any feedback. In fact, i BEG you to comment, and please let me know if you know what the relationship is between Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Temple and Charolette. I think it will help my understanding of the novel better.
Prof. Matt Said:
on February 20, 2007 at 6:25 am
I remember somewhere along the line someone mentioning that literature and its interpretation has nothing to do with the author. Forgive me if i butchered that…please if you remember saying something like that or remember it being said…
We discussed “the intentional fallacy” in relation to New Critical interpretations of texts. Try looking up that term in the Bedford Guide. The New Critics argued that the meaning of a text was not dependent upon an author’s intentions, and should, in fact, be studied apart from them (and from the author’s biography). Instead, they favored a more formal analysis of the text, which they felt was a more objective method of interpretation.
Of course, when an author enters the text as a character or voice, that brings up an interesting set of issues (we’ll see Martin Amis doing this in a different way later in the semester). One way to think about an author’s presence in the text is that the author herself becomes a character, and assumes a persona. As we discuss Charlotte Temple, we’ll want to think about what kind of persona Rowson assumes.
Prof. Matt Said:
on February 20, 2007 at 6:27 am
Also — why not link to Lindsay’s post, since you mentioned it here?