conjunction junction, what's your function?

Upon reading chapter 6, I find the structuralism approach the most compelling. I do not agree with the functionalism approach because I think there is much more to folklore than what it does and means. Structuralism focuses on even more than on a plot of a story, but also the characters and the actions they perform. This approach goes deep into a story and can bring out more meaning than just looking at the plot. A riddle or joke is a good example of this because in order to truly understand the riddle or joke, it is necessary to dissect every word in it. The structures of myths and the like vary from culture, religion, and the region from where is came from. The structure can give big hints as to the answers of these questions. The structuralism approach is mainly for verbal folklore but it has grown into being for written as well. It is much more difficult understand the meaning of something spoken, than something written.

I also think that the psychoanalytic interpretation is very interesting. I like how it goes even further than functionalism, by that it also goes into interpreting symbols and other things beneath the surface of a story and the like. Using linguistically cues and symbolic metaphors is so interesting to me and I think it is really interesting when they are interpreted correctly.

This is in response to reflection question 6.