' ' In our trajectory while student, not rare, we hear colleagues complaining of the inacessibilidade of the meanings of literature, therefore? they had never obtained to arrive at the conclusions that the professors desired? e, for being thus had aversion for disciplines that enigma' was considered as one; ' (P. 03). Of this form the professors of had been today formed and continue reproducing this form of education where the literary text is understood as static and univocal. As we verify in Alves Martins: In the truth, important it would be, in the literary reading, the attempt not to neglect the ficcional pact that the game of the language and the imaginary one tries to establish with the readers and that these would only be capable to restore, or to ignore, in its participativo behavior. In the same way, important he would be not to treat as informative or instrucional, charging essentially subjective and opened and closed answers, texts objective as the literary ones (MARTINS, 2006, p.1). We observe that the mediaes made for the professors do not consider the literary text as plurissignificativo that allows some readings, being its directions completed for the participation of the readers, in the act of the reading interaction/text. This occurs due to the unfamiliarity of the contributions of the literary theory for the dialogue of the reader with the text that could assist in the teach-learning of literature, making with that the pupils if felt attracted by the aesthetic workmanship and found pleasure in its reading. As it ratifies Martins (2006, P. 84), ' ' if the literary theory had greater penetrabilidade in classroom, the voice of the pupil, in the act of the literal reception, would not be stressed by the interpretation scripts, for the fiches of readings, the exercises considered for didactic books and the reading already instructed by professor' '.
Comments are closed.