Harold And The Purple Crayon Analysis

In Philosophical Hermeneutics, by Gadamer, he states “[t]he understanding of a text has not begun at all as long as a text remains mute” (43). A text is mute when you are trying to understand it, but it is not speaking to you. Whenever a text starts to speak, it never just speaks in the same voice; it always changes. When you were a child, you may have read Harold and the Purple Crayon, by Crockett Johnson. It would mean one thing considering you read it when you were a child; it would potentially be very literal. Now, though, if you read it as an adult, it would have a different meaning to you. This introduces the way in which Gadamer argues that the text never speaks the same; it never repeats itself; it always has to change. This means, …show more content…
Do these literally help him move or see? He does not necessarily need this streak that he is creating, since he is himself walking. It functions as a limit. This is why the text is ironic as a way of reading, although Harold is never ironic. Harold is not ironic since he is a little kid. The very things he creates are not copies of reality; they are actually reality. Harolds trope is chiasmus. Reality and fantasy are thoroughly intertwined for Harold. There is no distinction between reality and fantasy. For Harold, there is no world unless he creates it; hence, he is not ironic. Harold begins his adventure in the preformulation; however, he works to prevent that preformulation and create something new. For example, Harold has “made a long straight path so he wouldn’t get lost” except he does not seem to be getting anywhere, so he leaves and he turns. This moment is important, because it reminds us of Percy. Percy says to get off the beaten track (48). For Harold, that linear line was itself the beaten track, and his doing that would be something Percy would advocate. Is Harold the authority over his creation? He stated the phrase “it turned out to be,” as if he did not know what it was going to be when he drew it. “[T]urned out to be” does not show someone who has absolute authority. The person that would have …show more content…
This little juicy piece of evidence tells us that this is a kids book. We might not have to had been told that, but nevertheless here it is, providing the reader with a limitation. It is saying this is how we must read the text. Percy would suggest that we reject this. Notice even from the reader's point of view there is a limit and a freedom. The first limit is the way in which we are already told what kind of book this is - it is categorization. My position is not to suggest that Harold and the Purple Crayon is not a kids book, rather it is to claim that it does not have to be read as a kids book. This goes along with what Gadamer stated. Maybe one reads it as a kids book when the reader is a child. Yet, as one continues to read, as Gadamer says, things do not just speak the same; they always change. As we see from Gadamer, every reading of Harold is not a repeating; though, it is offering something new, and it is a way for us to see how we ourselves have