Re: skip the critic
WILL HOCHMAN (hochman@uscolo.edu)
Fri, 10 Apr 1998 08:05:40 -0600 (MDT)
Actually, what I find interesting is when a bananafish post parallels
criticism...when brendan was posting about how readable RHTRBC is, that's
the same approach Alsen takes (though I disagree with Alsen because he
makes his point by contrasting Raise High with SAI and thinks SAI is "too
esoteric in content and too experimental in form to be enjoyed and
understood by the 'amateur reader.'") Alsen is subtle in the article, but
his idea of an amateur reader and mine are very different. Salinger' s
amateur readers, I think, are more likely to enjoy SAI because there is so
much reading-writing thinking that IMHO, amateur readers join the glass
family of literacy and can trace their own blood lines to Seymour quite
nicely in the story as they bounce between Buddy's thinking about writing
his brother and finding what writing can discover and their own reading
constellations.
yes, there are large differences in the way folks respond to salinger
texts, but there are also clear parallels in the way readers respond. The
irony is that amateur readers often follow critical paths as well as blaze
better ones. Although I believe firmly in polysemy and know that reading
is essentially subjective, I'm also learning how Salinger has shaped
the significance of his work in his texts and believe his mastery makes
most readers aware of some pretty important ways to live life...my thesis
is that by joining the glass family, amateur readers get close, very close
to the membrane between writer and reader and often pass through it.
Salinger's prose, IMHO, offers space for readers (a temple really, for
amateur readers!) to exist in ways that allow us to use or ignore crit as
we like, but I for one believe my reading life is improved by the
intelligence and awareness of Warren French, John Wenke, Eberhard Alsen,
Elizabeth Kurian, and others...the parallel to bananafish for me is
clear--I enjoy posts on this list have come from Sonny and Matt K two
very critically able thinkers who have wonderfully sane senses of their
dual abilities to be both critical and amateur at the same time...I'm
rambleing and need to get this type of stuff on the page and off your
screens...bye, will
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Tim O'Connor wrote:
>
> > Yup, I think you get it Tim--our list is a form of ongoing criticm IMHO,
> > but it's alive in ways most critics aren't. It may surprise list members
> > that I prefer to read our list, but that doesn't mean I want to forget
> > about ideas I've experienced from critics so much as see how others
> > understand them...refusing to think about good salinger knowledge because
> > of where it comes from is one thing I hope to overcome with my project.
>
> I have the sense you're on your way toward that. This is not always
> SCHOLARLY discussion, but occasionally it's interesting to see, say, how
> Leslie Fiedler and an "amateur" reader might end up at vastly different
> extremes.
>
> Despite its ups and downs, the list does occasionally have life to it that
> a critic can use or perhaps learn from. I agree with you that it's a
> strange type of criticism in an decidedly untraditional sense!
>
> --tim
>
>
>