When I saw the title of the book I was extremely curious about what the book would consist of and how exactly it would show me how to "read literature like a professor" In addition, there are a couple of other things that I noticed that will have already heightened my interest of the novel. In the beginning of chapter one, foster says "OK, SO HERE'S THE DEAL", this sort of informal introduction to the book (aside from the actual introduction) made me less intimidated of it, and honestly, more open to gaining deep insight into various entities of the books content. Essentially, this simple and forthright approach to the explanation of how "Every Trip Is a Quest (Except When It's Not)" simultaneously geared my approach and overall receptiveness of the proposition.
As I continued my reading I followed the story of the sixteen year old kid in the summer of the late 1960's, and was able to relate, considering I myself was just sixteen a couple of months ago. My initial thought when I began reading the story was "with this analogy, this chapter should be a breeze", and so it was. Although this may appear as a slightly simplistic observation, I admired how Thomas used this anecdote to help explain a notion to be proposed later in the chapter, or the book as a whole. The reason in which I feel as if this tactic was so strategic in its execution is because stories have been said to be the most effective way for one to convey an idea. Ultimately, his approach was obviously casual but also witty because he is able to reach people from different backgrounds. So, this especially helped for me being a high school student.
After foster explains the story, he identifies it as a quest, and suggests that if one can figure out the quest, the rest is easy. I think I'm sure what he means by this but honestly, I'm not completely positive. However, I do see that this is his way of breaking down literature. And of course, when breaking down things, there are merely pieces left. So, in this case, the pieces are what a quest is, because I would like to think that if one can identify what a quest is, and what it consists of in respect to literature, then one can read literature with efficiency and understanding.
Although Foster did make it his ideas easy to grasp there are some parts that I don't understand and that I'm not sure that I will such as the reason that questers take on tasks. Yes, true enough, "The real reason for a quest is always self knowledge", but is that always true in respect to the plot of the literature? In this aspect, Foster provides us with another hypothetical situation to be further analyzed. Later we find that the stated goal began to diminish in presence and relevance, so the notion that I have developed is that perhaps there is hidden mission or maybe the "stated goal" is a symbolic form of the real reason questers take on their quests. I'm still quite curious about it all and I am excited to see what Foster has to reveal in the rest of the book.
