Difficulty in Reading Salvatori Article on "Conversations with Texts"

In reading this article, the challenges I faced with digesting it began at the outset of the article. I was not quite sure what the quote by Gadamer was meant to relate to the reader, although I understand that it is saying we should have a conversation with the text and to actively question what we read as we read.

As I moved into the article itself, I was struck by the use of difficult, academic vocabulary. Salvatori used words I am not familiar with such as "hermeneutical" and "interlocutor". This made understanding the text difficult, more difficult than I thought necessary. Why couldn't she use more plain spoken English? The vocabulary and the structure of the text is, to me, highly academic and theoretical and is a challenge to understand.

I believe I'm having trouble with the text because this type of reading is foreign to me. I haven't had much experience reading similar texts. Further, the text seems targeted towards teachers of composition who are familiar with the authors Salvatori mentions. Per McCormick, I do not have the literary repertoire (I haven't read many texts like this in the past) nor do I have the general repertoire (knowledge about composition theories). I also do not possess the skillset to interpret the complex language and vocabulary Salvatori presents.

In order to figure out or make sense of this text, I tried to focus on the main ideas of the article and tried not to get bogged down with the details and vocabulary in it. I also read more slowly than I usually do. I think annotation in the margins helps to formulate my own ideas, paraphrasing and interpreting her meaning. I don't think she is proposing anything that different from McCormick, which I also found difficult (although not as difficult) in that she is trying to get students to interact with the readings and have students see the interconnectedness between reading and writing. I tried to read from the conclusion (there really wasn't one) to see if that would help, but it didn't. I utilized the subheadings to understand the overall organization and themes of the article, and that helped to a degree.

It became much easier for me to understand the article once Salvatori started discussing the specifics of her theory, especially when the article moved to discussing the difficulty paper. Re-reading is perhaps another strategy that can help me to better internalize the meaning of the article. Finally, I think one way of getting to the meaning is by letting go of my own self-critical judgments on my perceived inability to understand the text. Once I decided that it was okay to not understand everything I was reading but instead focused on trying to get something out of it (thinking positive!) I found the reading experience to be more enjoyable, akin to solving a puzzle, at least partially.