Beau Kriedermann
Blog Paper
10-13-08

Reading is not something I do in my free time. With 60 hour workweeks and 10 credits of classes, I just don’t have the time for recreational reading. When reading the material for this course I looked at it as a task to check off as completed rather than a chance to grow as a reader. When approaching the material this way, it is improbable to achieve significant growth during the semester. After analyzing reading for my entire academic career, a single half semester is unlikely to make a huge impact on my reading development.

Before the semester started, my stage of reading development averaged out to just above the text-other texts stage. Occasionally, I would think about the text as it relates to the rest of the world and, if I wasn’t very interested in the text, I would sometimes just look at the text only as it relates to me.

The last book I read for pleasure was probably back in eighth grade. Thinking about that fact now seems a little strange as that was ten years ago. Back then I used to read quite a bit. My favorite authors were Robin Cook and Michael Crichton and I made great use of my library card. When reading Crichton’s Jurassic Park I understood the effects of man playing God written in the text. In Crichton’s Rising Sun I thought of racial relations and how it relates to business. I was reading the books I was interested in so I would often think in terms of the text and how it relates to the world.

In high school, reading was reserved for book reports and textbooks. This is where reading became a chore to check off the list. I would find out what the teacher was looking for and I would read that into the text. My reading development level probably hovered around text-self and text-other texts. I wasn’t interested in what I was reading so I didn’t think too much about the text. Just read it and get the work done as quickly and efficiently as possible.

In college I have made more of an effort to think about the text as it relates to the world. I work a little harder to understand the text. Still, if that relation doesn’t appear to me quickly, I won’t do a whole lot to go out of my way to find it.

As of today I’d rank my reading stage development as just a bit above the text-other texts stage. My blog entries contain mostly that middle stage averaged in with some text-self and text-world thinking. My first blog entry dealing with a text shows my thinking in this stage. The entry deals with the acting analysis of Luhrmann’s Romeo & Juliet. I write: “In this scene Romeo goes from excited and hopeful for good news to devastated by the knowledge of Juliet’s death. The movie chooses to extend the part where Romeo first reacts to the news. In the written play there is no break in the dialog from where Balthasar tells Romeo to where Balthasar exits.” Here I am describing the difference between the Shakespeare text and the Luhrmann adaptation which puts this entry squarely in the text-other texts category. I am only describing the difference between the two works and not offering any reasons as to why each artist did things their way. There is no speculation about potential social, religious, psychological, or other reasons for the artist’s choices which would have put me in the text-world stage of reading development.

A few entries later, the first entry for Titus Andronicus, I exhibit the text-self stage. “I didn’t know anything about Titus Andronicus before I started reading it. Now that I know more about it I can’t say I am a fan of it. The actions of the characters don’t seem realistic to me. When Titus kills his son on a whim it just seems like violence for the sake of violence. I just don’t really care about the characters.” My writing here is all I-centered. It is all about my feelings on the play and not about how the play relates to other work or other aspects of the human condition. This can be attributed to the fact that I wasn’t very excited about the reading and therefore tuned out part of the message.

My latest entries had more of a Text-World stage of reading development. Here I am writing about the character of Aaron and his seemingly contradictory love of his son. “Still, it shows a part of him that isn’t seen elsewhere. Perhaps if circumstances had been different Aaron could have turned out more human. He does have the ability to care about something. Maybe it is just easier to be evil than it is to care about your life and end up being disappointed.” I display psychological thinking that isn’t written necessarily written on the page. The entry is about how the character is defined and the political circumstances that made him who he is.

To move to the next stage of reading development I will have to be more conscious of my reading development. Usually I read the words and that’s that. If a text-world centric idea comes to me I would recognize it but I would not be necessarily looking for it. If I were to keep the stages of reading development in mind when reading, I would be more likely to think in terms of text-world because I’d be looking for ideas outside the text.

Though my last blog entries were more text-world centered, I would attribute this more to learning the format of the blog entry rather than becoming a more proficient reader. Every experience with reading analysis will improve one’s skills but after nearly twenty years of reading and writing experience it is unlikely to make a substantial impact in half of a semester. I would say I have experienced a marginal improvement which I am very satisfied with as long as that improvement continues as I advance in my scholastic career.

10-9-08 Ultimate Hamlet

Stay thy hand fair prince.

HOO SED IME FEAIR?!!

10-3-08 Hamlet: In Defense of Mr. Gibson

It seems that just about everyone in the class thought Mel Gibson’s performance in the Zeffirelli Hamlet was laughably poor. I was surprised to see people actually laughing out loud at the movie. I didn’t think it was that bad. It’s no surprise he didn’t win the Oscar for best actor that year but still it’s not as bad as people make it out to be. The performance isn’t memorable for being great or being awful. Gibson was 33 or 34 years old when shooting Hamlet so I don’t think his age is all that unusual for an actor playing a 20 year old character. He was overacting to an extent but I think that could be attributed to the movie being based off a play. Play actors actions are generally embellished so an audience can understand what’s happening. I think the criticism of Gibson’s performance has a large part to do with recent controversies surrounding his personal life. The DUI incident where he made several anti-Semitic remarks coupled with his most recent films of the Passion and Apocalypto that allegedly contain anti-Semitic and racist overtones. Not to mention the homophobia and Anglophobia from the past that was rehashed because of the recent controversies. Gibson has become a punchline. If Gibson wasn’t such a controversial figure and you had just watched Braveheart right before watching this, I think one would be much more lenient to Gibson’s performance. He is so loony in real life that maybe his portrayal of a madman on screen is the most accurate that has ever been done.