essays

on reading theory

In The Reader, The Text, The Poem, Louise M. Rosenblatt claims that the reader plays a visible role in the act of reading that contributes to the meaning and understanding of the text. More importantly, Rosenblatt believes that language is “internalized by each individual human being, with all the special overtones that each unique person and unique situation entail” which subjects any literary work to a myriad of possible interpretations, understandings and morals (20). Whether the “literature” be a poem, cookbook or text message, Rosenblatt specifies that the process of reading via one’s “linguistic reservoir” occurs in two ways: efferently (intellectually) and aesthetically (emotionally). An efferent reading, Rosenblatt explains, is centered around what “will remain as the residue after the reading -- the information to be acquired, the logical solution to a problem, the actions to be carried out” (23). In other words, it is the intellectual and thoughtful reaction a reader has to literature. An aesthetic reading is concerned “with what happens during the actual reading event” and it is fixated on “the associations, feelings, attitudes, and ideas that these words and their referents arouse within” the reader (25). The distinction between the two processes in readings lies in the reader’s relationship with the text and what they focus on. It “derives ultimately from what the reader does, the stance that he adopts and the activities he carries out in relation to the text” (27). With this in mind, I will demonstrate the ways different readers exhibit Rosenblatt’s theories of efferent and aesthetic reading to Flannery O’Connor’s short story, “Everything That Rises Must Converge.”

An efferent (intellectual) response by readers to the story title can vary according to Louise Rosenblatt’s theory. Since an efferent reading “is directed outward… towards concepts to be retained, ideas to be tested, actions to be performed after the reading,” a reader will think more critically in regards to the text (Rosenblatt 24). For example, one reader who has an extensive vocabulary or interest in language could think that the sophisticated and eloquent vocabulary of the title foreshadows a story that is highly philosophical but not necessarily realistic. They may also try to make a logical connection to what exactly rose and converged within the story for O’Connor to use the phrase as a title. While, a different reader who is less experienced in linguistic nuances could read the title literally and think that it is a story about “what goes up must come together.” That reader might also understand the title to indicate a predictable and overused plot line, which could cause that reader to think that it’s clichéd, in reference to a similar phrase such as, “what goes around comes around.”

The dialogue spoken by the characters can create different emotional (aesthetic) responses according to different readers’ emotional “reservoirs.” One example of dialogue in the story occurs when Julian retorts to his mother: “‘They don’t give a damn for your graciousness,’ Julian said savagely. ‘Knowing who you are is good for one generation only. You haven’t the foggiest idea where you stand now or who you are’” (O’Connor 680). A reader who also has a contentious relationship with their mother might feel empowered by Julian’s courage and ability to be so bold and blunt towards his mother. They may feel that he was justified in rebuking her and inflicting the indignity through his harsh words. On the other hand, another reader who was raised to believe that all elders should be treated with the utmost respect would feel scandalized by Julian’s choice of words towards his mother. The aesthetic reading of this dialogue can differ for each reader based on their reservoirs as each reader is bringing in their own meanings and feelings to a text as each individual reader “carries on a dynamic, person, and unique activity” (Rosenblatt 15).

Another intelligent reader who is historically savvy might have read “Everything That Rises Must Converge” thinking about the timeframe the story was written and set. They may think that since O’Connor wrote, “‘They should rise, yes, but on their own side of the fence’” that it was alluding to segregation (681). They may also notice that this story was published in 1962, right in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement, and think that this was a piece that fit in with the social change that was happening during that time. Conversely, a different reader could think that metro buses today are not segregated anymore (for the most part), so this story is outdated. They may also wonder why anyone would behave this way, even in fictional literature, since discrimination against people of color is abhorred today.

  Another efferent (intellectual) reading of this story could cause someone who is well-informed on current events to think that “history does not repeat, but it rhymes.” With the recent events of the Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh and the ongoing fight for Black Lives Matter, that reader may realize that people of color are still fighting against subjugation, condescension, and discrimination. This reader may think that we are still in the midst of a civil war. As for someone who is reading this aesthetically (emotionally), they may feel upset, frustrated, and angry that people are struggling to progress and stop hurting others even though we are well over fifty years past the Civil Rights Movement era. This story may bring a lot of pain especially if they have been subjected to discrimination whether it be due to race, class, gender, sex or creed.

            To distinguish that there are two processes of reading -- the efferent and aesthetic-- is not to claim that a reader does not experience both simultaneously. For instance, the scene in which Julian’s mother gives Carver a penny because she couldn’t find a nickel could elicit various efferent and aesthetic readings at the same time from various readers. A reader who is socially and politically aware would not only think that what Julian’s mom, a white woman, did was a racial and class slur by giving money to a black person for entertainment; they may also feel uncomfortable and offended by her behavior. They may have also anticipated such a reaction like Carver’s mother knocking Julian’s mother down due to efferent reading. Whereas, another reader who was not familiar with the racism and classism present in this scene (and the entire story) may not have thought to anticipate such a negative reaction from Carver’s mother and may not have felt upset and uneasy by Julian’s mother’s behavior. Logic and emotions are not always divorced from each other and literature can be read efferently and aesthetically at the same time as a reader utilizes their “reservoirs” to understand and react to literature.

            With all the possible scenarios in mind of how numerous people can experience efferent and aesthetic readings of the same text, it is important to remember that reading is “an active, self-ordering and self-corrective process” (Rosenblatt 11). Louise Rosenblatt emphasizes that processing and interpreting literature is not a linear mechanism. Trying to understand and think critically about a text does not always happen in a linear manner. A reader may have to reread a line, paragraph, or even the whole text several times before fully forming a critical understanding of it. This is the same for aesthetic (emotional) reading, as a “reader’s attention is centered directly on what he is living through during his relationship with that particular text” which can affect their experience with the text at different stages of their lives (Rosenblatt 25). By taking readings of O’Connor’s “Everything That Rises Must Converge” into consideration, we all must acknowledge that readers are not “a passive ‘audience’” and will have a diverse efferent or aesthetic reading of a text that is valid and true (Rosenblatt 4).

The Transmedial Adaptation and Growth of The Avengers

In “Transmedial Growth and Adaptation,” Mark J.P. Wolf explains that the two ways worlds can become transmedial, “represented in multiple media,” is through adaptation and growth. In Wolf’s definitions, adaptation is modifying a story that exists in one medium and then “presented in another medium, but without adding any new canonical material to a world” (Wolf 245). While growth is “when another medium is used to present new canonical material of a world, expanding the world and what we know about it” (Wolf 245). The adaptation and growth of worlds across multiple media is dependent on how much of that world’s aesthetic, logic, and infrastructure are “carried over from one work to another or from one medium to another” (Wolf 245). Through the adaptations and growth of fictional worlds, the ways in which the narrative of a world is conveyed and contained is through “multiple forms of mediation… such as text, imagery, sound, [and] three-dimensional shapes” (Wolf 246). One example of a world that has been subjected to transmedial adaptation and growth is the Marvel superhero team, the Avengers. The Avengers exist in numerous mediums, the more famous forms including comics and films. For the purpose of this case study, the two mediums that will be analyzed are the first Avengers comic published by Marvel Comics, “The Avengers” by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby (1963) and the American film produced by Marvel Studios, The Avengers (2012). The relationship between the two media forms of the Avengers narrative show how despite their differing components, the separate mediums share similarities that is continuously engaging the audience and contributing to the growth of the imaginary world. By Wolf’s definition, The Avengers (2012) film constitutes as both transmedia adaptation and transmedia growth of the original Avengers (1963) comic through the various media properties which conveys the narrative of the Marvel universe. 

The first issue of the Avengers comics published in 1963 was the world’s first introduction to The Avengers story. The two noticeable aspects of comics are the words and the images that drive the story. As Wolf says, “worlds often originate in words, because they are the fastest, easiest, most malleable, and most inexpensive elements to use when world-building” (Wolf 251). As explained by Scott McCloud in Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art, there are many different relationships and combinations between pictures and words that affect the reader’s experience with comics. The combination of words and images in the panels of “The Avengers” (1963) are often interdependent, where “words and pictures go hand in hand to convey an idea that neither could convey alone” (McCloud 155). For example, in Figure 1 the image alone does not help the reader better understand the situation within the panel but the words help clarify the picture. While vice versa, the words of Loki’s thoughts alone would make it more difficult to imagine that Loki can actually see what Dr. Don Blake is doing in his office with his patients. Despite the fact that the images alone do not inform the reader of the context of the comic, it helps build a base for what makes the Avengers so recognizable in other mediums, like movies. The base characteristics of the Avengers that originate in the comics like the presence of villains (i.e. Loki), heroes with human aliases (i.e. Thor as Dr. Don Blake), and a team of collaborative superheroes (The Avengers) keep the canonical aspects of the world that are adapted and expanded on in the 2012 film. 

Additionally, one of the many icons, “any image used to represent a person, place, thing or idea,” that solidified the archetype of the Avengers are the colors of the characters illustrated in the comics (McCloud 27). The flat primary colors used in the comics establish a kind of “iconic power” that allowed for readers to quickly and easily identify characters just by the color schemes of their costumes or characters (McCloud 188). For instance, the Hulk is easily identified as the intimidatingly large green character among the Avengers (See Figure 2). Another icon that helps identify the various members of the Avengers are the objects their superhero identities are associated with. In the Avengers comic (1963), Thor is associated with his iconic hammer (See Figure 3) while Captain America is associated with his shield. Such icons in a storyworld are elements that allow for imaginary worlds to become transmedial. The early comics of the Avengers through the power of their words and pictures help build the foundation for the world of Avengers that evolve in the movie.

In order for storyworlds to transform from one medium to another, different mediums employ specific modes and processes to adapt and/or expand on the respective storyworlds. Whether it is separately or in combination, there are basic elements to help create a mediated experience into the Avengers world. Such processes include description, visualization and auralization. Wolf defines the process of description as “adaptation into words,” visualization as “adaptation into images or objects,” and auralization as “adaptation into sounds” (Wolf 247). The interesting aspect of the Avengers world going from existing in comics to motion pictures is the overlapping processes that the respective media uses to convey the narrative of the world. As comics use words, images, and objects while movies use words, images, objects, and sounds the adaptation and growth of the Avengers world through the film enhances the consumer’s experience from their initial encounter with the Avengers comics. 

The 2012 movie adaptation of the Avengers ostensibly utilizes descriptions and visuals to help aid the narration of the world. However, the execution and technological aspect of the words and visuals, along with the additional process of audio drastically changes the way the consumers experience the Avengers world. In other words, it “presents new canonical material of a world, expanding the world and what we know about it” (Wolf 245). The deliberately planned visualization of the story or the mise-en-scene of the movie changes the experience of the narrative by not only providing a new way to envision the costume, makeup, and staging of the characters but it makes the world that the Avengers live in seem that much more tangible and realistic. In the 1963 comics written and illustrated by Lee and Kirby, the sensational dialogue and narration that is often read silently is left to the imaginations of the readers to bring to life. While the movie applies the appearance and voices of actors along with music to make the world of the Avengers more “sensually richer and more immersive” as “they can present a great deal of detail or information simultaneously and use complex compositions, and have a more immediate effect on the audience’s emotions” (Wolf 252). For instance, In the scene shown in Figure 4, along with all the visuals of Bruce Banner and Natasha Romanoff the audience can hear their voices, the ominous background music, and the loud thud of Banner’s fists hitting the table out of frustration. Throughout the movie, the effect of auralization is displayed in “turning words or imagery into sounds, or translating story material into voices, sound effects, music, and ambience” (Wolf 255). 

To recognize the transmediality of the Marvelous world, the crossovers in the aesthetic, logic, and infrastructure of “The Avengers” (1963) that are evident in the 2012 film must be analyzed. The aesthetic or the “sensory experience of a world” of the comic transfers to the film through the difference elements such as the visualization and auralization of the world as mentioned previously. Such sensory experiences include the physical visual and object of Thor and his hammer, the dramatic music, the wind blowing Thor’s hair and his loud, booming voice which immerses the audience into the world in a way that adapts and expands from the 1963 comic (See Figure 5). “How a world operates and the reasons behind the way it is structured,” also known as the logic” from the original Avengers (1963) story carries over to the film in the essence of the medium. As seen from the comic, Loki and Thor are brothers who are at odds with each other as they play on opposite teams of good vs evil. The movie continues to operate under the assumptions that there will always be a villain that a hero must defeat. One of the most significant aspects of a successful transmedial work is how recognizable the infrastructure of the world is as it has to “retain some semblance to its appearance in its medium of origin.” Although “sometimes only a few representative parts” such as the characters, objects, or situations “are all that are carried over.” The Avengers (2012) maintain “some semblance” to the original comic in that such characters like Ant-Man, Iron-Man, the Hulk, Loki, Thor reappear in the film along with their powers and weapons. The growth shown in the movie that sets it apart from the original comic include the additional characters such as Pepper Potts, Nick Fury, and J.A.R.V.I.S. along with the specific situation of having to find the tesseract before Loki does that helps fans further explore the world and expanding their knowledge of the Avengers world. The similarities between the processes that are used in the comics and movie are what makes the Avengers transmedial. 

In conclusion, The Avengers (2012) film executes an adaptation and growth of the 1963 original comic through the words, images, objects, and sounds that the medium brings to enhance the experience of the world. Due to the fact that the combination of words and pictures has “tremendous influence on its growth,” that can explain how the The Avengers (2012) film has helped expand the world of the Avengers as a whole, apart from the comics. This case study has shown that a world becomes transmedial when a sufficient amount of information from the original world is present and recognized in another medium. Therefore, the transmediality of the Avengers allows for not only an expansion of the world but also the demographic that is exposed to the existence of such a world, even if it is fictional. 

The Role of intersectionality in early childhood education and our democracy

For the purpose of this paper, I interviewed Sharon Smith-Lossiah, an Early Childhood Education and Elementary school teacher located in Savage, Minnesota. She is also a mother to four sons who are either currently attending or have graduated from public schools. She was the only child out of her five siblings who attended and graduated from a four-year university. Along with her role as a teacher, Sharon is studying to obtain her masters degree in Nature and Environmental Education through Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota. As a licensed Early Childhood and Elementary school teacher, Sharon took the opportunity to teach at an international school – the same one I attended – in Busan, South Korea. During our conversation, Sharon shared that she believes that the purpose of education in our democracy is to cultivate lifelong learners and to allow students to be empowered through their abilities. She claims that it is important to provide all students with a chance “to grow independent and learn to collaborate.”[1] According to Sharon, “learning does not always have to be structured and isolated – as long as one is constantly willing to learn, adapt, and interact with the culture they are living under” and those who ought to decide the purpose of education in a democratic system “should start with the teachers, not the government or administration.”[2]

Before we discuss the purpose of education in a democracy, it is important to understand what constitutes as a democracy. Alexis De Toqueville emphasizes that in a democracy, one is “reduced to the taking on trust a host of facts and opinions which he has neither the time nor the power to examine and verify by his own efforts but which have been discovered by abler minds than his or which have been adopted by the populace.”[3] In other words, people of a democracy must trust their leaders in order to have a commonly shared belief and to thrive. It is also said by De Toqueville that in order “for society to exist and all the more so, for such a society to prosper, all the citizens’ minds must be united and held together by a few principal ideas.”[4] That is to say, a common foundation is vital to the success of a democracy but so is equality as “the inclination for each man to have a blind belief in one particular man or class lessens” and therefore, the community functions as a true democracy.[5] Similarly, the institution of education in a democracy must follow the same rules for it to perform appropriately and successfully.

As Labaree claims, “schools, it seems, occupy an awkward position at the intersection between what we hope society will become and what we think it really is, between political ideals and economic realities.”[6] I believe most state their opinion on the purpose of education in our democracy with the intent to speak on what it should be or will become, rather than what it is in actuality. With this in mind, I believe the purpose of education in a democracy is to arm our students with skills and knowledge both in regards to textbook definitions and human development to prepare them to be adaptable, collaborative, and continuously learning members of society. The purpose is also to promote equitable opportunities for all regardless of their class, gender, sex, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, disability, and socioeconomic status. It is important to recognize which groups of people are excluded from quality education and how different intersections of identity play a role. I also believe that the power in which who decides (and ought to decide) this purpose should not be based on a hierarchy but a collaboration and inclusion of all teachers, administrators, and the government. If we are aiming to teach children to learn to collaborate and integrate all aspects of their learning into leading a productive life, it must reflect in the way our community looks and in our policies. My statement in the purpose of education and who ought to have the power to make such decisions are not accurate representations of our current democratic reality – it is addressing the issues in our current educational institution and a demand for the change that needs to occur in order to reach our full potential as an educated democratic society.

When public education took form in the United States in the 1850s, a majority of the teachers in schools were women. Kathleen Weiler discusses how “one of the key ways in which teaching was made acceptable for women in this early period was to define the school as a continuation of the family. The child was viewed as developing first within the maternal care of the family and then moving naturally to the care of the woman teacher.”[7] Even over a century later, this ideology is still ingrained into our society today. In her interview, Sharon addresses how many still view her role as a preschool teacher essentially as babysitting. This mentality on a woman’s role has been a common view in Sharon’s academic and professional journey starting in the 1980s as many reduced her purpose simply to obtaining a “MRS degree: to find a man.” This is not only belittling women in higher education but shows how “women’s lives and experiences [especially as knowers and producers of knowledge] are devalued.”[8] Referring back to our course theme of Martin’s Productive and Reproductive Processes, if Early Childhood Education is continuously viewed as a reproductive process, that which is private, personal, rooted in the home, family, the physical body, and is female rather than as a productive process which is public, rational, and facilitated by work, true opportunities for both men and women is not possible due to the disparities in how we weigh these processes in our democracy.[9] It is important to keep in mind how these gender dualisms affect not just one group but both, as the lives of women and men in education and society are not strictly separated and in fact, often overlap.

With that being said, if the purpose of education in a democracy is to teach children to be knowledgeable, flexible, and well-developed functioning members of society then I argue that early childhood education is the best place to start. Early childhood education is not simply “babysitting.” It is an environment that encourages young children’s social, emotional, physical and intellectual development. This is true across all forms of public education but especially vital to remember in regards to early childhood education. As De Toqueville said, in a democracy we have to put our trust in our leader.[10] This is the same in schools. Children need someone to trust and to be comfortable developing levels of attachment to their teachers in order to reach their full potential to be kind, empathetic, and diligent people who will one day turn into adults with those same skills and attributes.

In a world where we expect our children to grow up to “take on the full responsibilities of citizenship in a competent manner,” schools must implement “the democratic equality approach to schooling” by preparing “all of its young with equal care.”[11] This paper has reiterated how the end goal for public schooling is to make sure our children can later function in society because we, as a whole, will benefit from it. This echoes the “social efficiency approach to schooling” stated by Labaree, who argues “society as a whole must see to it that we invest educationally in the productivity of the entire workforce.”[12] Therefore, the idea of being a contributing member of society should be more explicitly explained so children will have more personal investment in their pursuit of education. Reflecting back on Martin’s productive and reproductive processes, when you track people on the basis of their gender, you lose social efficiency due to the lack of personal investment. If we truly aim for gender equality, we can do a better job of empowering citizens of our democracy through education as we avoid limitations and restrictions on what they can invest in for their future as a whole.   

As we talk about how important early forms of education are to one’s academic and social development and how one’s gender or sex may play a role, we must notice how other intersections of our identities influence the type of education that are accessible. In reference to Crenshaw, intersectional identity is the multidimensionality of one’s aspects which affects how they are “multiply-burdened” and to emphasize how an analysis of an individual or group’s experience should not be based on a “single-axis framework” as it is a “much more complex phenomenon.”[13] As important as the conversation on gender equality is in regards to education, it is important to take into account other types and aspects of identity that may affect the quality of education that is accessible for people in our democracy. Looking back into the history of discrimination in the U.S., we can refer back to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, “an uprising of citizens insisting that American democracy should finally live up to its ideals.”[14] While segregation in schools were inherently determined to be illegal after Brown v Board of Education passed in 1954[15], in 1961 and now, it still exists due to segregated housing. “Minority families were concentrated in one small geographic area of Seattle” and “school assignments were based on neighborhoods, so elementary schools in the Central Area were overwhelmingly black.”[16] This goes to show how while discriminating one due to their race is considered to be unacceptable and illegal, that other areas of their lives like the location of their home, can still subject them to segregation. It is important to question as we strive for equal opportunities in education, who is being left behind and why? Then it is important to address how we, as a collective society, can work to change that so students can become the productive members of society we want them to be.

As we deal with issues of inequality, it is important to understand that the intersections of one’s identity plays a role in affecting the whole. Part of the issue in education in our democracy is that we are only looking at isolated pieces of the issue instead of the whole. The fact that advocacy and change in the school and housing system of Seattle was spearheaded by an activist organization shows how the government does not always know what is best for our democracy. As Sharon criticized in her interview, “The ‘No Child Left Behind’ was a disaster. The philosophy of only looking at kids at the bottom and the test scores was bad. The power should not lie with the government, it should start with the teachers who are willing and able to look at the whole child. You cannot do the bare minimum.”[17] If the purpose of education is to provide every child regardless of their identity with equitable opportunities in education, we must constantly question who should have the power to decide what the purpose of education is. The inclusivity that was demonstrated by CORE as they stated that “CORE membership was not a prerequisite for involvement in the boycott and Freedom Schools – if you were interested, you were welcome to join” is evidence that collaboration of all – teachers, administrators, government officials – is desired and necessary for an institution like education to run smoothly.[18]

In conclusion, this oral history informs my approach as a current/future educator and member of this democracy to be kinder to and advocate for all educators, including myself. Despite learning about how education is underestimated as a pillar in our society, I found myself still falling for the bias that it is a reproductive process. As an Early Childhood Education teacher and a private childcare provider, this course and assignment has forced me to reflect on how I approach my career as I prepare to graduate from university. While I love my jobs and hope to continue in this field for at least a few years post-graduation, the societal pressure and idea that this type of work has no real value is a concept that I fear. Due to its “traditional subordinate and inferior status” and idea that “it was something women fell back on and needed to escape,” I was doubting if being an Early Childhood teacher was a viable career or if it should just be stop before I pursue something “more productive.”[19] However, after interviewing Sharon and reflecting on the way women were treated solely because they were cheaper to hire as teachers and that “school was seen as the extension of the home,”[20] I will stop perpetuating the sexist message that has been taught to me from an early age and by those around me. I will embrace the job that I love and excel in, while still being open to other options; not because they are better but because they are just that: another option.

[1] Sharon Smith-Lossiah, Google Hangout Call, October 28, 2018.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Tocqueville, Alexis, & University of Virginia. Democracy in America. (Charlottesville: University of Virginia, 1998), 499.

[4] Ibid. pg. 499

[5] Ibid. pg. 501

[6] Labaree, David F. Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals. (Michigan State University: American Educational Research Association,1997), 41.

[7] Weiler, Kathleen. Country Schoolwomen: Teaching in Rural California, 1850-1950. (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1998), 12.

[8] Jane Roland Martin. Reclaiming a Conversation: The Ideal of the Educated Woman. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Tocqueville, Alexis, & University of Virginia. Democracy in America. (Charlottesville: University of Virginia, 1998), 499.

[11] Labaree, David F. Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals. (Michigan State University: American Educational Research Association,1997), 42.

[12] Ibid. pg. 42

[13] Crenshaw, Kimberle. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. (University of Chicago: Chicago Unbound, 1989), 140.

[14] Singler. Joan. Seattle in Black and White: The Congress of Racial Equality and the Fight for Equal Opportunity. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2011), VII.

[15] Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (Supreme Court of the United States, 1954).

[16] Singler. Joan. Seattle in Black and White: The Congress of Racial Equality and the Fight for Equal Opportunity. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2011), 143.

[17] Sharon Smith-Lossiah, Google Hangout Call, October 28, 2018.

[18] Singler. Joan. Seattle in Black and White: The Congress of Racial Equality and the Fight for Equal Opportunity. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2011), 157.

[19] Weiler, Kathleen. Country Schoolwomen: Teaching in Rural California, 1850-1950. (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1998), 8.

[20] Ibid. pg. 15