Harris does not have a clear definition for reading and writing as two separate parts. The reader must understand and be able to “rewrite” the author’s points to fully understand them. With this, reading is not just reading, but writing to understand; reading and writing are not separate. The “rewriting” done by the reader not only helps him understand, but allows him to interpret it in his own way through rewriting it. Through rewriting, ideas, in a given piece of writing, can be continually expanded upon, pushing the ideas of the original piece to its limits. This goes likewise for a writer. One cannot just write a novel without rereading it, commenting on it, and revising it to further clarify their point. Similarly to Sullivan, Harris hopes to accomplish an almost conversation through writing. Sullivan likes blogs because he can get a personal response from views on their opinions of his writings. Harris also hopes to make writing more conversational by having the reader think and rewrite what he read, hoping to provide a better understanding for the reader and other people looking for an interpretation. Harris’s means of conversation provides a more formal setting than Sullivan’s blogging, but they both hope to achieve the same goal. Reading cannot simply be reading and mindlessly taking in facts, one must ask questions about the meaning of something or question why something was said. By making writing more conversational, reading becomes more interactive, sparking questions to be asked.
Good point about the very blurry boundary between reading and writing. I don't remember if it was in this class or another that I mentioned a former professor of mine who often wrote about not just reading or writing but of reading<=>writing.
ReplyDeleteThe “rewriting” done by the reader not only helps him understand, but allows him to interpret it in his own way through rewriting it.I think you summarzie the function of rewriting clearly
ReplyDelete