WK+2-+DQ

Chapter 2 "Author/ity" 1. If we continue to expand the definition of an author to infinity then what would make a person want to study anything written? In addition, how and where is the line drawn that separates what is necessary to study and what is not?

2. If we could resurrect some of the heavily studied, canon authors and ask them what they wanted us to gather from their works would we still want to study them? Moreover, would we reject their interpretation and still value ours above theirs?

3. On page 26, it is written “a language can be any sign or symbol system that we use to communicate.” What would all be considered a language then? Are street signs a language, or even pictures of sandwiches with their assigned numbers on a McDonalds menu be called so?

Chapter 3 "Reading" 1. Critical theory allows us to essentially run wild with freedom to interpretations. “Even abstract ideas are constructed out of concrete signifiers.” (p. 31, TT) How do we as scholars remain capable of finding meaning and expressing it clearly with academic value while attempting to discuss new works of literature that have not yet begun to say come into their own age in academia? For example, digital poetry, “found” poetry, electronic literature, and other digital art forms have only been in existence for the past twenty years. How will what we say about these texts now shape what academia says about them in the future?

2. Is there such a thing as an entirely open-minded reader (a blank slate if you will)? And if there were, what kind of conclusions would they draw in regards to a piece of literature? Also, is it possible that they may not be able to come to any logical conclusion?

Additional Reading Jim Andrews--ELIT--StirFry/Spas Text [] 1. One paragraph reads “writers must eat too, but why crusade for further perpetuation of the idea of art as commodity, art as a product no different from other things produced to function pleasantly within a market society?” Is art a commodity today? Is art a product? If so, why would the author treat art as though it is not a product?