After Blake

After class today I wanted more. I know the Blakean notion of innocence to experience will continue to label the ideas we refer to in class from time to time but cannot we not dwell just on the experience? I feel like jumping right into talking about Blake to better explain the grand significance of reading as child does have relevance to what learning is but I really want to stop just before we get there. Intertextuality, the sublime, structuralism and biographical accuracy all come from dwelling solely on the experience. Of course, some would say because something is learned from the literature but why not stay there and praise the experience. I feel like cataloguing the experience with innocence takes away from what one thinks about immediately following a reading as the experience. It takes one away from their thoughts and thrusts the Revelation of the "lesson" to be more significant than all others. I may be completely out of my league in trying to separate experience from innocence but I know I'm not alone. If experience an innocence cannot be separable from one another in an overall theme than neither can hope and expectation be. Hope and expectation are two very different things and seldom it is than humans keeps them separate. What I'd like to say about them is that expectation supersedes hope in reading. When the "experience" of reading sets in we're"expected" to learn something not "hope" that we do. Thus experience invokes expectation and innocence demonstrates a hope of something. I want to stick with the notion of experience before taking about going into anything else. I suppose Sancho Panza might operate in a similar way before the end of the novel. He might expect his master to do something before he hopes he does in due time. Maybe that's what I really wanted more from class today. A little willing skepticism about Sancho's "learned" motivations.