A Silent Bike Ride

    This week, I have decided to write on an experience that I had last night.  I realize this may not be as much of a critical analysis, yet I am willing to lose a few points on writing about what happened and how this correlates to The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time.  So last night, I was writing a paper until 3:30 a.m (not for this class) and realized that I had to still take my car back to lot 91 off of Hagadorn and Service Road before I received a ticket from the parking nazis.  I decide to go ahead and get the drive/bike ride over with seeing as I know I wouldn't get up early enough to do it later on.  As I walk outside to my car, I realize how foggy and eerie it is outside, almost a perfect setup for a horror movie.  I silently drive my car back to the lot, as I was too lazy to plug in my music for such a short ride.  As I get out of the car and walk to my bike, the silence was becoming almost defining.  I looked nervously around just to make sure the guy from the Saw series didn't pop out and try to capture me to "play a game".
    I get onto my bike and start the long journey back to my dorm.  Now usually when I ride my bike, especially this late at night, I put my headphones in and pass the time away by obnoxiously singing since no one can hear me, but this time, for some reason, I didn't listen to any music.  As I turn onto Wilson road, I realize that there was not a single soul around.  Not one.  Not even a car light flashing in the distance.  When I realized this, I instantly connected this experience with what Christopher does when he walks down the street, pretending he's the only person in the world.  I decided to try to think his way, pretending that a zombie apocalypse occurred and I'm the last woman standing.  As soon as I started to think this way, I was a tad frightened.  I'm a people person, I love conversations and interacting with people.  The thought that I would never have that opportunity again was slightly overwhelming.  But after passing through the initial crazed hysteria, I realized how calm I felt.  There was no noise, no one to disturb me, no one to upset my day or put more homework in my lap, just me.  And with that came the creation of a small connection between me and Christopher.  I then started to wonder if the author, Mark Haddon, did the same thing: went out for a walk in the dead of the night to try to understand his character just a little bit more.  I wondered how devoted this author was to try to divulge into such a complicated mind in order to make this creation.
    I finally started getting close to my dorm, and saw a figure in the distance, my connection with Christopher became immediately severed.  I thought "phew, another human being, I'm not alone" which was immediately followed by "I hope thats not Jason Voorhees" and began to peddle faster until I reached my safe haven that was my dorm.   I was sad that my "me" time  and my connection with Christopher was cut short.  This experience actually helped me better understand Christopher as a character.

Final Paper Idea

        So, I've been thinking "hmm...what would make a good final statement on this semesters english class" and I believe I have just the thing.  For the final paper, I wish to explore one of these two criticisms for the novel  "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time": either the "Madwoman in the Attic" by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar and how the roles of Angels and Demons have switched within the novel for each character, or "The One Vs. the Many" by Woloch and how the surrounding characters change the perspective of Christopher for the reader.  The reason I am so interested in writing about this book is because we as the reader have to change our perspective on what we think of someone who has some form of autism.  Society wishes to pin them as people who, for lack of a better word, are less.  But in this book, the roles are that society has given are switched, and it is us, the reader, who are lesser then the main character.  By flipping these roles, the reader is forced to acknowledge the superiority of Christopher compared to the other characters.
          This also creates an "Angel, Demon" comparison, where Christopher becomes angelic, while the other characters become demonic because each person is a suspect in Christopher's case.  Also, the fact that each male character has become "Demonic" in a way astounds me.  In Pride and Prejudice, the Angels were all women and the Demons were men.  In this book, some of those roles have switched as well.  Christopher is more Angelic than any of the characters in the book, but he is a male.  What does this do to the book as a whole?  These are the idea's I wish to explore further in my upcoming paper.

Two Tales, One Agenda

'This is me when I was 10 years old. This was in 1980....Then came 1980: the year it became obligatory to wear the veil at school. We didn't really like to wear the veil, especially since we didn't understand why we had to' (3, Satrapi)

'My name is Christopher John Francis Boone.  I know all the countries of the world and their capital cities and every prime number up to 7,057' (3, Haddon)

Even though these stories are similar in the fact that it tells a persons story from their point of view, but how does the delivery differ and what does that delivery do to each story as a whole?


When first reading Satrapi's The Complete Persepolis, I had a sense of awe as I realized that I felt more emotion due to the drawings in each panel.  This gave me more of a connection to the main character even though I have not experienced many, if any, of the events she has.  This connection is what continued to drive me to continue reading the novel.  But in "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time", even though the story is still about a person and what happens to them, the tact for this novel is different.  This novel dives into the mind of a teen with Aspergers that has such a disconnect with its readers, that it has actually become just as interesting as the previous novel.  This disconnect perfectly reflects the real life social condition.  Because of this, the novel becomes more believable, therefore more interesting.  Pictures further accentuate the idea of someone who can not express themselevs only through words. The same can be said for the previous novel, only the pictures give more emotion.  Both novels give amazing insight to the minds of two different people by using two different ways of delivery.

Culture Gaps Bridged

"Sarrapi's text is framed dietetically, and externally in her introduction, by injections to 'never forget': it is the defining project of the text.  Arguably the most moving narrative thread in the book is Marji's relationship with her charismatic uncle Anoosh... Anoosh tells her: 'Our family memory must not be lost.  Even if it's not easy for you, even if you don't understand it all.' Marji replies, 'Don't worry, I'll never forget'"(9)

"'In life you'll meet a lot of jerks.  If they hurt you, tell yourself that it's because they're stupid.  That will help keep you from reacting to their cruelty.  Because there is nothing worse than bitterness and vengeance... always keep your dignity and be true to yourself.....don't even forget what I told you'" (150-151)

How does this text breach the racial and cultural gap in order to connect to readers across the world?


       I believe the reason I love this novel so much is because I can connect to it even though it has nothing to do with my culture or background.  I have not gone through having my house being bombed or my friends (not in the war) die just right next door.  But the messages within this text connect perfectly, I just never really tried to explore why it works.  I figured that it must be the comic book style that helped me connect, which is part of the reason, but the message of "never forget" also hits hard throughout.  Every time I go through anything hard or I fail in some sort of aspect, I remind myself "don't forget where you came from, your stronger than this".  This exactly how I relate to Satrapi's story.  This is a message anyone can related to, no matter what culture or background, which is astounding.  The funny thing is, my grandma told me a version of the quote above years ago, "love is deaf, blind, dumb, and stupid.  Don't get caught in that ok?"  It's something that has stuck to me for all my life, and will continue to do so. Satrapi is able to make me realize that cultures are more similar through this message of "never forget".
      Satrapi also uses the theme of "growing up" in order to help breach the culture gap.  This message is something every person goes through during their teen years, no matter what culture during what time.  Satrapi went through different experiences, worse then I've ever been through, but its the fact that we've all been through something, and that event is what makes us come into ourselves as adults, helps us discover ourselves.  Because Marji goes through horrible events and makes mistakes makes her more human then ever, which helps us connect with her as a character.  The graphic novel aspect of Persepolis does indeed help the barrier across cultures, but the messages inside of the novel create more of a bond between reader and author, one that keeps the reader engaged until the very end.

Graphic Novel in the Class Room? Say What?!

"Each cognitive mode has advantages and limitations.  Deep attention is superb for solving complex problems represented in a single medium, but it comes at the price of environmental alertness and flexibility of response.  Hyper attention excels at negotiating rapidly changing environments in which multiple foci compete for attention; its disadvantage is impatience with focusing for long periods on a non-interactive object such as a Victorian novel or complicated math problem" (188)

"When we walked past the Baba-Levv's house, which was completely destroyed, I could feel that she was discreetly pulling me away.  Something told me that the Baba-Levv's had been at home.  Something caught my attention.  I saw a turquoise bracelet.  It was Neda's.  Her aunt had given it to her for her fourteenth birthday.  The bracelet was still attached to... I don't know what... No scream in the world could have relieved my suffering and my anger" (142)

What affect does the idea of "the graphic novel" have on such a serious but comedic book such as "The Complete Persepolis"?

  The first time I opened this book, I was completely taken aback, our teacher has us reading a graphic novel...awesome.  But what I didn't realize was the complete and utter seriousness of this novel.  When one thinks about a comic book, its exactly as what Hayles describes as Hyper attention, something that catches your attention but allows you to notice the world around you at the same time.  But with this graphic novel, the first time I opened the book, I refused to put it down until I was half way done and I realized I really needed to go to bed.  This book took deep attention, something you wouldn't think a graphic novel would be able to achieve.  But how does this novel accomplish that?  I noticed several times throughout the novel that I found myself smiling, and even laughing, at many of the things that transpired.  But I also found that on a few occasions I was ready to cry or be angry at some of the events that transpired.  I believe it is the complete ability to switch between comedy and tragedy that caught my attention and made me want to continue reading.
    Another idea that I noticed within the novel was the complete and utter disconnect between events.  Numerous times throughout the novel, there would be an ending to a chapter that would be upsetting and you would think the author would continue on commenting on that event.  Instead, the next chapter is named, and usually starts out with some form of a joke or the start of an entirely new event.  This disconnect is what takes this graphic novel from "Hyper Attention" to "Deep Attention".  The fact that this is a diary of a young girl going through war is enough to catch attention, yet the fact that you can feel the disconnect of feeling of each chapter is really what takes it to another level.  Think for a second, a person who wants to make a novel about a young girl suffering in war would do just that, tell about her suffering.  But this author took the life of a person was able to convey the idea of her experiences and what she needs to do to move on, part of which is disconnecting from those horrible experiences.  Many would have me believe that because this is a graphic novel, it is not worthy of being within a class room, but the idea's within this book, to me, are just as important then the novels we are required to read today.

Jane Needs Brains

"Perhaps the zombie attack on Austen’s novel is telling us that the novel is neither alive nor dead but undead. We are living in a time when what counts as “life” is in significant scientific dispute, and in the heyday of zombie computers and zombie banks, zombie this and zombie that. Why wouldn’t we also be living in a time of zombie literary forms?"

"But no sooner had she grabbed the handle of her weapon than a chorus of screams filled the assembly hall, immediately joined by the shattering of window panes.  Unmentionables poured in, their movements clumsy yet swift; their burial clothing in a range of untidiness.  Some wore gowns so tattered as to render them scandalous" (PG. 16)

        The critical review, "Zombie Renaissance" gives an interesting view on what the zombies do to the novel "Pride Prejudice and Zombies.  It states that the novel, at some point was dead, and somehow was revived by the action and gore thrown into the ordinary pages of this novel.  I would have to highly agree with this critical review.  I do not want to say Pride and Prejudice is dead, because to me, any novel that has made it this far in time still deserves some recognition, yet the heaviness of the novel along with the run on lines and seemingly unimportant conversations, make this a very tedious book.  Therefore, I believe that for a time, this book was in hibernation, a state where no one really truly enjoys the book (unless they're one of "those" people) or no one decides one day "hey, I should buy Pride and Prejudice to read" even though it is a must read.  When zombies took over the novel, I hesitate to say that the book is "alive" again, only because it is not the true book, word for word.  Therefore the idea that the book is "undead" is brilliant.  

        First off, Seth Grahame-Smith chooses zombies, something that we as a culture can truly relate with, but also something that ironically fits the book and its characters perfectly.  Austen put forth many characters that seemed to drone and move as society wished them too.  Others fed off societal norms such as Lady Catherine, one who continuously tried to throw her rank in others faces.  The fact that this resembles zombies in so many ways does not appear as a coincidence to me.  Others have asked, "why not vampires?  Or werewolves?" and the answer is simple, it wouldn't fit the book.  Werewolves would go amazingly in a book where there are groups of people that stick together, or packs.  Vampires could almost fit, but this book is about the underclass, not the upper.  By putting in Vampires, you overrule the feeling of the underclass that Austen originally intended.  But by putting zombies, mindless creatures that act on the need of one thing, brains, it creates a reflection of the society and its norms and makes us compare the humans and zombies with each other. 

Wait....Did You Say Zombies?

"And when she was nervous-- as she was nearly all the time since the first outbreak of the strange plague in her youth-- she sought solace in the comfort of the traditions which now seemed mere trifles to others.  The business of Mr. Bennet's life was to keep his daughters alive.  The business of Mrs. Bennet's was to get them married" (8)

"She was a woman of mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper.  When she was discontented she fancied herself nervous.  the business of her life was to get her daughters married; its solace was visiting and news" (45)

How does the author of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies take what Austen created, and turn it into a world full of action while introducing more sarcasm into the novel?

           I would like to first start off by saying I just couldn't resist.  This is suppose to be a literary interpretation, but I find myself vastly in love with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and went "awwww" when I couldn't click to the next page.  But what made it so very toxic?  Yes, the action and the random encounter of zombies did help, but I also believe that the style of the novel helps by taking a more sarcastic tone.  By doing this, the book actually revealed more to me than the original Pride and Prejudice, which is amazing to me.  For instance, in the quotes above, I stopped and thought to myself, "wait...they're seriously making fun of Mrs. Bennet here, that didn't happen in the other book."  But when I took a look into the passage, I found that they indeed made fun of Mrs. Bennet, but in a more subtle way, something I was never able to catch.  This happened several times just within the few pages given.  The favoritism given by Mr. Bennet is enhanced, the ball is torn apart by zombies, where Darcy first gets a real glimpse into Lizzy, something that only happens in Pride and Prejudice when she first talks to him.  I am truly astounded that the author was able to take this very difficult novel and understand it enough to zoom onto particular events, some of which I was unable to comprehend, or were too drowned out by the long run on lines that seemed to never end.  I am immediately picking up this book and reading it, but funny thing is, not just for the zombies and action, even though that is a very big part of it, but because I actually think this book might help me understand Pride and Prejudice just a little bit more.

Social Standards Set to a Moral Bar

"The quality of humanity is to be judged by moral and humane standards, Austen suggests, not by social status; but like her own temporary snobs, Darcy and Emma, she pays full attention to their social status first" (125)

"'I do, I do like him,' she replied, with tears in her eyes, 'I love him.  Indeed he has no improper pride.  He is perfectly amiable.  You do not know what he really is; then pray do not pain me by speaking of him in such terms'" (375)

In what way does this literary strategy of "Social Status First" affect the overall feel of the novel and its characters till the end where morals become the prime judgement of character?


    Throughout Pride and Prejudice, the struggles between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy are the highlight within the book.  But what effect did having the "Social Status First" on the reader and their opinion of characters such as Mr. Darcy?  At first, as I was reading, I felt the need to hate Mr. Darcy.  His abrupt opinion of Elizabeth quickly made Mr. Darcy an antagonist of many within the book.  But throughout the book, small moral details become known of Mr. Darcy that slowly makes me as the reader fall in love with him as Elizabeth does.  To me, this enhances my love for Mr. Darcy and creates the "love hate" relationship Elizabeth has for him as well.  The connection made between Mr. Darcy, Elizabeth, and the reader then becomes stronger.
    The feel of the book then becomes stronger for the reader, there is more invested in the relationship between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy.  For me, I wanted Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy to work out, but the high standards to which Mr. Darcy raised himself made it appear as if it would not be possible.  But then piece by piece, Mr. Darcy's morals started coming to light.  Mr. Darcy trying to protect Mr. Bingly, helping Lydia by securing her into a more legitimate marriage, helping Mr. Bingly get back to Jane.  All of these add up to make you want to love him more for his sincerity and then his love for Elizabeth. The use of this makes you feel as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, wondering "wait, you actually love him? But he's awful!"  But when Mr. Bennet understands what Mr. Darcy has done for the family, he then falls in love with him as much as we have.

It's a Woman's World

"What precisely does it mean, for a start, to 'direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex'?  To write another woman a romantic poem?  To fantasize about making love to her?  To share the same bed with her?  To live with her for fifty years?  To bring her to orgasm?" (3)

"'My dear Jane!" exclaimed Elizabeth, 'you are too good.  Your sweetness and disinterestedness are really angelic; I do not know what to say to you.  I feel as if I had never done you justice, or loved you as you deserved.'" (164)

       In the Introduction and Excerpts from the Literature of Lesbianism, the subject of lesbianism within the history of authors, such as Jane Austen, has become uncovered in an attempt to find the history of such a subject.  But the author also brings up the fact that there are still many questions as to what makes a "lesbian" author.  Does Jane Austen, specifically Pride and Prejudice, fit this idea of lesbianism?
        There are many female characters within this novel.  Jane, Elizabeth, four other sisters, and Miss Bennet, and thats only naming within one family.  But there appears to be a lack of male character presence within this book except for Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Bennet.  These male characters almost seem to be the backdrop in comparison to the women voices within the novel.  Because of this, I want to say that there is no real lesbianism within Pride and Prejudice.  Now, to play devils advocate with myself, I will say that the relationship between Jane and Elizabeth is the closest one can get to argue for the lesbian point of view.  They are constantly speaking to each other in confidence in bed, Elizabeth is constantly praising Jane, and they always are together, more so than the other sisters.  But to me, theres no fine line between sisterly love and lesbianism, but a big fat one that shows that it shouldn't be even relatable.  If they're sisters, why can't they lay in the same bed and talk about boys all night?
    Also, there is a very strong female voice in this novel, more so then in the actual society.  We get the women's point of views, rather than the mens.  This gives me a feeling that the women have to stick together.  They can't talk in confidence to men about womanly things because, in that society, it was unheard of.  The only way, it appears, that a reason a woman has to talk with a man is because of a social event, or in the act of trying to woo him.  Otherwise, they speak to their women friends.  Does this make it a more of a lesbian novel due to the fact that society puts a line between the men and the women?
   I can see the undertones of lesbianism within Pride and Prejudice, but they are so small that I find it hard to try to argue for the lesbian point of view and focus on the relationships of the women as women who just wants a close friend.

It's A Mans World

"How any one could have the conscience to entail away an estate from one's own daughters I cannot understand; and all for the sake of Mr. Collins too! --Why should he have it more than anybody else?" (Austen, 160)

Desdemona "I do perceive here a divided duty./ To you I am bound for life and education;/ My life and education both do learn me/ How to respect you; you are the lord of duty;/ I am hitheto your daughter. / But here's my husband; /And so much duty as my mother showed/ to you, preferring you before her father,/ So much I challenge that I may profess/ Due to the Moor my lord" (19-20)

In both Othello and Pride and Prejudice, the women are suppressed by duties given by society.  Yet in Othello, Desdemona is more silent then the ever vigorous Elizabeth.  In what ways does this enrich or hinder Pride and Prejudice as well as Othello?



              Of course, there is no complete answer to this question, because it depends on the reader.  But for me, I keep wondering, what if the roles were switched?  Would Desdemona marry Mr. Collins because of her duty to her family, would Elizabeth punch Othello as tried to snuff out her light?  With a women being as headstrong as Elizabeth, it is obvious that her character enriches the story since her being headstrong is what caused her to attract Mr. Darcy's eye.  But could there also be a fault?  I have yet to find one and therefore can not answer.  But, with her being headstrong, there is still the importance of the role she plays in society.  If she does not find a husband, she will have to stay with her family instead of heading out in her own.  As a reader, I constantly found myself thinking "If you don't find a husband, (insert horrible consequence here)", and because of that I myself felt suppressed by the society within the book.  The restrictions given to Elizabeth and the tiring social antics made me feel as if I was Elizabeth herself.  This in fact did not happen for me with Desdemona, instead I felt fear for her life, but not a connection that I could be "like" her.  This, for me, hinders Othello due to the lack of connection to me as a reader, whereas with Pride and Prejudice it was a great enrichment.

A Turkish Point of View

"In the 1608 sequel to that masque, the Masque of Beauty, the Moorish masquers are "converted" from black to fair by the virtuous power of the monarch" (150)

"If virtue no delighted beauty lack,
Your son-in-law is far more fair than black" (Othello, 23)

How much of a role did the historical aspect play within the making of Othello?  Could it be that Shakespeare may have been inspired by these historical events and plays of that time?



           There are many lenses to use when reading Othello, but one that I have never even thought of divulging myself in is the historical aspect of Othello (except when it came to the audience).  When reading this criticism of Othello in the historical religious aspect, more doors have seemed to appear out of thin air because it fits into the outline of Othello so well.  What could this mean?  Usually when an author writes, they use things that are most familiar to them, so their surroundings would only appear perfect to use within their creations.  Yet with Shakespeare, it always seems as if there are so many more aspects, that other lenses are masked by the outer picture.  But did Shakespeare do this on purpose? So many of his works appear to be sown into perfection with each word that it is almost impossible not to believe that he included some of these aspects on purpose.  For example, it can not be just a coincidence that the two lines above that speak on "fair" and "black" match almost perfectly as a play on words.  Unfortunately, I have yet to complete my time machine to ask him all of these important questions, but this lens almost makes me want to go back and re-read Othello to try to find many more historical tidbits.  I also found that when the author talked about when Othello was having an epileptic fit very interesting.  I've always tried to figure out why Othello had his fit at the exact moment of finding out of Desdemona's supposed "treachery".  Vitkus explains it as a fantastical fit, where he is replicating the sexual act between Desdemona and Cassio.  I've never thought of the fit in that way, which opens more intriguing questions.

"Your Son-in-Law is Far More Fair Than Black"

"The fabrication of an Africanist persona is reflexive; an extraordinary meditation on the self; a powerful exploration of the fears and desires that reside in the writerly conscious" (1011)

Othello: "Think, my lord?" By heaven, thou echo'st me
               As if there were some monster in thy thought
               Too hideous to be shown.  Thou dost mean something (56)

How big of a role did the color of Othello truly reflect Shakespeare as well as Iago?



            There are many arguments in the world of critics that argue why Iago would decide to try to destroy Othello, whether because of Othello's high station in the army or because of the suspected affair between Othello and Iago's wife, Emilia.  Some even go as far as to argue because of race, which seems to be the most probable, but what role does race truly have in this play?  In all honesty, I almost want to believe that Shakespeare wasn't making a "race" statement, but rather was playing on the idea of the color of roles.  Usually in written works, black means "bad", red means "passion", white means "pure", but in this play, the color roles are flipped.  A white male now becomes the villain whereas the reader/watcher is forced to pity the black male.  By playing on this color flip, it causes the audience to have to reconfigure their idea's on what means what.  But doesn't this also, either by mistake or on purpose, make a statement on race? Does the pity on the moor force the audience to make the audience reflect and question their own ideology?  I think this is what Shakespeare was going for, not the "hey feel bad for a different race" thought, but the "how does it feel to pity someone who is different from you?  Has your mind made conclusions you wouldn't thought you'd make?" idea, which makes him a complete genius.  By evoking those feelings from the audience, they now have to hold the mirror to themselves, exactly how I believe Iago was holding the mirror up to himself throughout the play.

          It is my belief that Iago was not trying to bring down Othello because of something Othello has done, on the contrary, I am one of those who believe that Iago was trying to bring Othello down because he saw what and who he wanted to be in Othello.  Othello achieved greatness by working his way up from slavery to becoming a general and marrying one of the purest and highly desired Desdemona because she loved him for his struggles.  But a question still remains: Does this also reflect Shakespeare in any way?  That is where I hit a road block, because it appears that Shakespeare did this color flip to shake the audience and hold a mirror to everyone, but as to whether that includes himself I cannot say.

Why Such a Formalist Othello?

"The Formalists noticed that narrative literature consisted of two major components: the plot, by which they meant the story as narrated within the pages of the book, and the story, by which they meant the sequence of events in the order and the actual duration in which they ostensibly occurred" (4).

Iago: "The food that to him now is as luscious as locusts// Shall be to him shortly as bitter as coloquintida.  She// must change for youth: when she is sated with his body,// she will find the errors of her choice.  Therefore, put money// in thy purse" (25).

Question:  How much should one focus on the plot and or story?   How about compared to the literary devices?  Is one more important to the other?


When reading Othello, one has to first get through the Shakespearian words and difficulties to fully understand and explore this play.  I have actually had the pleasure of reading this once before, so now I get to try to explore the play more than before.  But to do so, I must ask a few questions, especially the questions listed above.  If I go into the reading, already knowing the plot and storyline, with an eye that will take this play piece by piece for interpretation, will I lose some of the importance of the plot?  How much should I interpret?  What if its completely wrong?  These along with many other questions are what people find themselves asking.  Many have the opinion that interpreting any form of art, be it a book, play, or even a painting, may in fact ruin it.  So we have to ask "how much is too much?".

Othello is meant to be a comedic tragedy (at least from my point of view).  There are many places in this play that mean for us to laugh and mean for us to feel.  When connecting to the storyline, us as readers tend to connect to the feeling of the book.  But what if we said "the plot nor the storyline matters!  Just what we interpret it as!"  That, to m,e would completely destroy the play.  The connection is what makes a story work (partly anyway).  But if we didn't divulge into interpretation, would that mean we would lose something then as well?

 None of these questions will I be able to answer.  I'd have to experiment with a piece that I absolutely love to see if I hate it even more after interpretation.  I also wouldn't be able to answer these questions because interpretation is apart of what I do on a day to day basis.  For me, it doesn't appear as if I lose anything by interpreting, but I also don't interpret to the point of hating a piece, only until my mind has been fully feed with new information.

A Formalist Point of View

"The Formalist focus was on the qualities of poetic language that distinguish it from ordinary practical language" (pg. 4).

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix" ( pg. 2698)

Question: If we were only able to look at the words within the poem/work itself, what would we lose by not digging deeper into the poems history and/or the reason as to why the poem exists in the first place?

         When looking at the first quote, my thought was "Shakespeare", whom always took words that seemed outlandish, and then combined them together to create a flow of poetry that still confuses the highest of scholars.  But when I look at the reading of "Howl", it isn't the flow that stands out to me or the "qualities of poetic language",  but the abrasiveness of the poem by using the most ordinary words.  But because the words are ordinary does not mean that they aren't still poetic or "practical", quite the opposite.  It makes you ask questions, seek answers within the poem itself, and make you realize the anger that resonates through out.  Because of this, it makes the poem deeper, a buffet for the Formalist mind.
         Instead of pretty words, you have rash words that stand out angrily against the page, put together in poetic form.  In the quote above, the commas create a pause that makes the words "madness" and "naked" linger on the tongue.  The second line long like the smoke from a cigarette burning as he states a sad tale of the best minds.  Throughout the entire poem, he takes beautiful yet haunting tales anywhere from the ancient greeks, to hebrew paired with the most abrasive language such as "cunt" and "cock and endless balls".  This can easily be translated into a close reading because of the dialogue, but because of his use of historical tales, can be interpreted into much more.