Blog Post #4

In the first excerpt, Richards uses two extreme parallels-- "Good or bad", "correct and incorrect" to show the different interpretations that may come across a word that is read solely on it's own. Using this, he introduces the concept of the "Doctrine of Usage". It is basically an idea that an essay consequently has higher literary merit, if the focus was placed on making good use of a word, rather than making good use of a strong foundation to aid in its comprehension.
In the second excerpt, Richards takes upon denouncing this "Doctrine of Usage" as he clarifies that putting strong emphasis on a word rather than it's sorroundings, not only leaves less room for support-- but inevitably expects the reader to recognize the writer's approach or intentions for  concept of the piece as a whole with only a single word. It's about getting your point across that matters, reflecting what is on your mind--on your paper rather than through eloquence, because it inevitably loses it's meaning.
As we transition into the third and fourth excerpt (pg. 32-34), a redefined term is introduced--"context", one that should take the place of the infamous "Doctrine of Usage". As a context is defined as a "cluster of events that recur together" that essentially provides that text with meaning, Richards notices that it has been changed. Much to his dismay, it instead, is a word that "takes over the duties of parts". Which means having an idea, written and explained is no longer suffice, if one can find the right word that holds the meaning of the whole sentence. The ideas or concepts that explain the meaning "can then be omitted". 
As the last excerpt comes to a ending, it essentially sums up the basis of what Richards' was attempting to argue. It is that, within a sentence the "entire range of the varied powers" a word, either "beautiful or ugly"can have it's effect, because words hold no meaning by themselves. But in thorough description to back it up-- "it can exert".

Much of the text was fairly straight forward, though I had to reread some of them several times to understand the gist of it.
These readings most definitely pertained to our class discussions on remixes, as it analyzes the way a general consensus of what the writer is trying to say is more important than completely changing it to where a few words carry the meanings of sentences. It is not longer identifiable in that way, and inevitably leaves room for interpretation. Just like in remixes of films, where a foundation has to be set in the plot so that the viewers can associate with the original before it can change into a remix. If transformed too much, it can end up carrying a different connotation than was originally intended.