I have noticed in myself an unusual occurrence. When I read texts before they are due to be discussed in class, I don’t get as much out of them as when I go back after class and review them again. I think I am having an emotional reaction to Reading for Meaning In The Field.

For example, when I read Shakespeare, I notice myself feeling tense and frustrated. I think of Shakespeare as Drama with a capital “D,” not drama with a little “d.” I am intimidated by the subject matter having never had a Shakespeare class–not even in high school, nor in college up to this date. However, when I read certain plays, or parts of plays again after class, I don’t feel as emotionally frustrated by the material and having to learn the language and rhythm of the texts.

I noticed the same thing with my readings in other classes. I get more frustrated as time passes prior to class because I want to figure out every phrase and what it means and how it connects and get all of the pieces of what the author is talking about! I want to be able to Speak Intelligently and Write Clearly about the article when I maybe only understood bits and pieces.

In the heat of the moment, it’s hard for me to remember that some people spend years (or whole careers) trying to understand and apply the works of particular authors.

Donna’s phrase last week in class, “read for what clicks” helped me not to get so frustrated this past week; however, I am amazed at how much less emotional tension I feel now when I look back at the readings for last week. Still, there is some remaining frustration because I feel as if I should be grasping things more quickly and more fully than I am. It’s not that I doubt myself completely. I know I can do it eventually. Collin’s reading strategies are helping too.
I think the Universe really gives us those experiences we desire. I wanted a challenge–to grow and learn–and now I have several opportunities! It’s tons better than being bored or not challenged enough.

Update 10/5/05 3:01 pm: I just found this quote in Burke’s Grammar of Motives: “In reality, we are capable of but partial acts, acts that but partially represent us and that produce but partial transformations” (19). Makes sense to me that if I consider reading an act, then I really can’t expect my understanding to be a “total act,” when Burke says, “Theological notions of creation and re-creation bring us nearest to the concept of total acts” (19). Puts things in perspective now doesn’t it. :-)