Chandler, Fish & Eagleton

Chandler, Fish, and Eagleton can all be connected to the ideas we have been discussing in class. All three of their writings in some way can be tied into the idea of categorizing things into genres due to our prior knowledge and references to the subject. "Genre provides and important frame of reference which helps to identify, select and interpret texts (Chandler). In his writing, Chandler describes how the viewer or reader knowing about the genre helps them identify and interpret the text, just like in the next quote Fish is saying that as soon as his students knew they were looking at a poem, the features they were looking for in the poem category became familiar and they were then able to identify with the poem. "My students did not proceed from the noting of distinguishing features to the recognition that they were confronted by a poem; rather, it was the act of recognition that came first- they knew in advance that they were dealing with a poem- and the distinguishing features then followed" (Fish). In the past few classes, we have been talking about what we would typically expect from a certain genre and how Chandler attempts to both explain and question our expectations. "From the point of view of the producers of texts within a genre, an advantage of genres is that they can rely on readers already having knowledge and expectations about works within a genre" (Chandler). Fish's' writing ties into our discussion by expressing how his students expected particular qualities just because they were told that they were looking at a poem. "As soon as my students were aware that it was poetry they were seeing, they began to look with poetry seeing eyes, that is, with eyes that saw everything in the relation to the properties they knew poems to possess" (Fish). Besides the discussion we have been having around our use of prior knowledge in regards to genre, we have also touched on the point Chandler made about genre not being natural or set in stone. "David Buckingham argues that genre is not simply "given" by the culture: rather, it is in constant process of negotiation and change" (Chandler). Chandler uses Buckingham to help us let go of the idea that categories is a natural thing. Fish describes this as well, discussing how differences between two categories is a result of what we do to interpret them, not something that naturally there. "...but my point is that the differences are a result of the different interpretive operations we perform and not of something inherent in one or the other" (Fish). Similarly in Modern Literary Theory, Eagleton states "Literature, in the sense of a set of works of assured and unalterable value, distinguished by certain shared inherent properties does not exist" (Eagleton). Another topic we have touched on in class is the idea of being part of a community that takes part in the structures and properties of genre. Again, all three authors can be connected by this idea. "Gunther Kress defines a genre as 'a kind of text that derives its form from the structure of a (frequently repeated) social occasion, with its characteristic participants and their purposes" (Chandler). Chandler uses this definition to set forth the idea that being part of a social community and taking part in occasions affects ones idea of genre and the interpretation of texts. Fish describes the affect of being part of a social class. "...no one's interpretive acts are exclusively his own but fall to him by virtue of his position in some socially organized environment are are therefore always shared and public" (Fish). Chandler and Fish both recognize that when an individual interprets works, they are assisted by social factors. Eagleton recognizes this as well. "We may disagree on this or that , but we can only do so because we share certain 'deep' ways of seeing and valuing which are bound up with our social life, and which could not be changed without transforming that life" (Eagleton). From all three of these writings I was able to get to the same or at least similar messages and points even though they may have been expressing them through different discussions.

One situation I can draw on from everyday life where social expectations are critical in interpreting the situation is when you are clapping your hands. If you have just finished watching a movie, your child's school play, a concert, or have attended any other social gathering where recognition of a particular person or group is appropriate, then the common thing to do at the end is to applaud. The audience would clap in appreciation, admiration, and to compliment those who are deserving. In order to understand the concept of applauding at the end of these occasions, you need to understand the social expectations of the situation. Also, the same hand gesture can be interpreted in different ways according to the social situation. One may clap their hands when they are laughing at a funny joke or to get someones attention. These are all different situations where a person would have to understand the expectations to see why clapping your hands is the common action. You would have to understand that you wouldn't clap your hands when someone is sad, but rather when something is funny. You would have to understand that an applaud is expected at the end of plays, concerts, etc. and if you did not clap, it may come off as rude.