Subject: RE: Daumier-Smith and Empathy
ZazieZazie@hetnet.nl
Date: Wed Jul 25 2001 - 04:13:17 GMT
-----Original Message-----
From: "owner-bananafish@roughdraft.org" <owner-bananafish@roughdraft.org> on behalf of "Valérie Aron" <miss_vertigo18@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 9:47 AM
To: "bananafish@roughdraft.org" <bananafish@roughdraft.org>
Subject: RE: Daumier-Smith and Empathy
--- ZazieZazie@hetnet.nl wrote:
>
>
> Anyway, I think Pauls take on the wall-joke is way
> too analytic, isn't this exaclty the hyper cerebral
> attitude, which Woody Allen is ridiculing so much?
> My grandfather told me that heard this joke from
> American soldiers during the war.
> Of course, one can see anything in anything. Or
> everything in everything. Or anything in every ....
> whatever. But I just hate it when people overanalyze
> literature so much, i feel that they could wring
> water from a stone! Paul is sorta on the border of
> claiming his explanations are the true motives of
> the writer, which is always dangerous.
Do you mean that Paul (or the person who tries to
explain a text) puts his own obsessions in the book
and so analyzes it across them?
Valérie
Me:
Huh? I'm not sure what you mean but ever since
i saw this interview with a famous writer
where he was confronted with interpretations of his
work of which he could recognize NOTHING, neither could he i
identify with it, I really dislike people speaking in absolute term about
literature, like "he meant this" or "this IS a reference to that and that"
instead of "he might have meant this" etc. I'm not saying Paul is exactly doing
that, but he is close ...
Z.
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Sep 10 2001 - 15:29:40 GMT