Reflection

    “The Yellow Wallpaper” is an excellent example of literature that meets the criteria described by the Norton text. It takes the time to interpret the human condition in ways related to the human psyche as well as the role of the woman in society in the time in which it was written. It explores mental illness specifically related to post-partum depression and the woman’s role on the small scale of the household as submissive to the husband. Through interpretation, the piece gives pleasure to the reader by weaving a complicated web that surrounds a mentally compromised protagonist. Also through the interpretation of the human condition, “The Yellow Wallpaper” attempts to instruct readers on the dangers of ignoring issues of mental health as well as attempting to correct the behaviors that surround a mentality of “man knows best.”

    I would agree with the text that the functions of literature are to interpret some aspect of the human condition and to give pleasure to the reader. I do not, however, agree that literature must somehow instruct or correct human behavior. Every piece of literature has a message, but it doesn’t have a moral, which to me, is what constitutes instruction or potential correction. Of all three functions the text lists, the most important is to give pleasure to the reader. This is the most important to me because I firmly believe that a piece of literature would not be nearly as successful in fulfilling the other two functions of interpreting the human condition and instructing or correcting human behavior if it was not enjoyable for the reader. The reader may never complete reading the piece if they find no pleasure in it. This makes reader pleasure the most important aspect because it opens the door for the other functions to be fulfilled.

Apprehension Over Comprehension

    In listening to Shakespeare purely to enjoy it rather than to understand it, I noticed that it was easier for me to keep the characters straight as well as the prevalence of the iambic rhythm of the lines. I could not see the lines of the play, yet the natural rhythm of the words was far more apparent. This made the experience more soothing. Just as Stephen Brown said in the TED Talk, I did not care so much about the exact meaning behind the words themselves but about the way the words were said and how. I “saw” far more in my mind from hearing the words than I ever have with simply reading them.

    I was also more able to organize the characters by voice and had a good understanding of who was saying what. I have found that I have a hard time keeping characters separate when I am reading plays, whether it is because of the layout or some other reason, and I don’t know why. However, it is easy for me to recognize the voices, and, even if I do not remember their names, I am able to better understand the relationships and actions between the characters.

    I am not totally sure of when the play is set, but I picture the actors in traditional Greek robes and on the streets of ancient Athens on a somewhat dark day. I am not, however, experienced in theatre, and I don’t feel that I have a grasp on the aspects of staging. I would probably put the characters who are interacting and speaking front and center in the stage, at least in the beginning. I would have the characters exit in the directions that felt most natural, depending on where there were doorways or alleys etc. There would also be a few inconsequential characters interacting in the backgrounds of the set.