Borderlands Chapter One Required Post

[Alicia Foster]

So after the reading and especially after discussion in class today, the question I have is this:

From a philosophical standpoint, as it is right now, does it seem more effective for a writer to get a point (or several points) across in a narrative as opposed to a mostly-if-not-entirely factually based argument, as have been the previous readings?

As for me, this text seems more accessible, despite the sporadic Spanish/Spanglish and its slang, due to the symbolism and imagery used in Anzaldua's book.

Or, do y'all feel as if the symbolical narrative is detracting from the author's point? 

[xiey]

In my opinion, both the narrative and the more factually based argument can work as a good approach to illustrate certain philosophical standpoints. A narrative like this provides readers a more intimate and direct way to understand the writer’s experience and idea, however, some people may think this is not objective or comprehensive enough since it is so personal.

I do not feel the symbolical narrative is detracting from the author’s point. Like we discussed in class today, I think this is intentional to help build a sense of alienation to non-Spanish speaking readers. Because those readers are who have not experienced with the border effect before, similarly, they may not be able to understand the tension completely.

[Katherine]

Personally, I believe that a lot of previous authors that we have read and discussed this semester were somewhat convoluted, difficult to read and understand, and seemed to be talking in complete circles. I prefer her narrative stylistic approach, because it is easier to comprehend and draw conclusions from her text. I believe that it is more accessible as well, I think people will be able to read and make sense of, it not fully understand, her points brought up in the chapters we are going to read. The imagery and symbolism go a long way for me in making this text easier to comprehend, and a much smoother, uninterrupted read (despite my lack of Spanish knowledge).

[godleskim]

I agree with Katherine, I believe that Anzaldua has done a good job of writing and conveying her message, while still remaining within a philosophical context. It is a lot easier to read and comprehend essentially, and I don't feel as if I am getting lost of backtracking while reading "Borderlands." Other authors tended to speak in circles, and their arguments were disconnected and choppy, but he narrative style allows for reading for complete understanding.

[Aleasha Andrews]

For me, personally I feel as though I am getting (to the best of my ability) what they author is saying, but consequently I do not feel as though the text is conveyed in a way that makes it significant. By this, I mean I feel as though the other readings were more important and more informative because of the structure, whereas with this text I feel as though I am just reading a storybook. In addition, while looking at this text I feel there is more bias that comes along because it is written at such a personal level.