Week 1: Journal 1

Reader-response theory is, abstractly, the idea that the reader’s experience with or surrounding a text has more bearing on its true or canonical meaning than the author or publisher’s intent. Applied in a pedagogical context, it’s basically when a teacher directs her attention towards the student’s understanding or perception of a text as opposed to trying to espouse the intended themes or context of the writer. In Gilyard’s work, this theory becomes the primary basis for his argument that the upbringing and requisite literacy of a student has a profound influence on their reading of a text. His example, Chang Chun Tao, has a radically different view of black artistry and black artistic productions based on his upbringing and socialization in communist China.

Canon formation seems a bit daunting as a term, but is ultimately exactly the sum of its parts: the formation or creation of a literary canon or continuum. What canon formation usually refers to is the byproduct of a pedagogy (e.g. reader-response theory) or means of teaching or understanding literature. “Canon,” or a normalized understanding of something, is created by students and teachers who take what they learn or experience with a text in the academic space and expand it to other forums. Gilyard again uses this term to reference how a pupil’s views are tempered by her experiences and requisite knowledge going into a text.

Post-structuralism is the first real “tricky” term here, largely because of its overuse in academia (you can file it next to “post-modernism” and “Marxism” in the stores of pretentious academic canon). Put simply, post-structuralism is an academic movement that rebelled against the idea of concrete understandings or bindings, both formally and informally. Post-structuralists were in many ways the NWA of the academic world: they rejected and criticized everything. The relevant idea to glean from the post-structuralists here is their rejection of the author’s intent. This rejection is most notable in Roland Barthes 1967 essay “The Death of the Author,” as well as in the 1969 essay “What is an Author?” by Michel Foucault and my personal favorite “Simulacra and Simulation” by Jean Baudrillard (if you want a long trip into the pretentious academic canon…)

Week 1: Journal 2

Substructuralism (or “substructuralist,” the word Gilyard used) follows closely in line with post-structuralism, but refuses to be classified the same way. Think butter and margarine. While post-structuralists generally reject all but a few concrete ideas (one of the most prominent being “to hell with the author’s intent!”), substructuralism is more dialectic (jostling with different sides and opinions to reach Capital-T Truth), while post-structuralism takes the Camus route of throwing their hands up in the air and saying “Sisyphus loves the bolder![1]”

Grammatology, in the context of Gilyard, is the affirmation of the Derridian thesis[2] that language and writing serves more as an affirmation and presentation of the writer’s world view than just a rote reproduction of language and grammar. He also argues that the basis of all philosophical and metaphysical thought is literacy. What Gilyard uses this idea to do is reify his thesis that the understanding of black texts as well as the way texts are taught has as much to do with the people receiving the lecture as the one giving it and the one about which the lecture is being given.

Derrida’s Of Grammatology basically theorizes that the best and most complete way to understand philosophy and metaphysics is through the works of writers, poets, and other artists, not academics reproducing others’ work and elaborating in footnotes[3]. What’s interesting about Derrida’s thesis is how closely it relates back to the idea of linguistic relativity (discourse shapes reality) and how its applied in a racialized context. If the word “black” is given an inherently negative connotation, how are “black” people meant to view themselves? Dialogicality, plainly, is the ability of a text to “communicate” or have a “conversation” with another text. What this means is that an academic text defending an ideal or theory must not only defend that theory against the onslaught of new writings produced post-publication, but also refute and accentuate the arguments of post-works in the field.

Outside of academia, dialogicality speaks to a text’s ability to truly encapsulate and make sense of a time, place, or occurrence. For example, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus poses dialogicality or is dialogic because it specifically communicates and refutes ideas of African primitivity and religious simplicity. It could also be considered to be dialogic because it presents a view of post-colonial Africa that jives (for lack of a better word) with Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s A Grain of Wheat. Gilyard uses the term to similar effect, speaking to the “dialogicality” of different texts that Tao either enjoyed or didn’t.

[1] Meaning that nothing really matters outside of the rejection of long-held and largely canonical believes. The subversion is the Truth/meaning.

[2] As if Baudrillard and Barthes weren’t French or pretentious enough.

[3] Though it’s important to note that Derrida didn’t seek to devalue the power of the Academy (especially considering he was well-within it).