Re: explanation
WILL HOCHMAN (hochman@uscolo.edu)
Thu, 02 Jul 1998 10:07:29 -0600 (MDT)
I'm hopeful that the end of Scottie's post is actually a reference
_Jacques the Fatalist & His Master_ by Denis Diderot...at least that would
be a good way to begin deconstructing his postion...
You see this French (I consider "Frog" as used by Scottie to be a bit
harsh) masterpiece is really great because it addresses readers' concerns
and foreshadows much of the late 20th Century literary tradition that
Scottie would like to dis. If you get a chance to read this book, I think
you will enjoy it as both "picaresque" and forward thinking.
Though academics and critics may have used *Reader Response Theory* to
add substance to their remarks, I think this list and many other forward
thinking readers also accept their roles in constructing and interpreting
text as more "writerly" (a term coined by another French thinker, Roland
Barthes) than Scottie believes apropos to his experience.
I refute his attempt to to "trump" readers with his writing experience and
author-centered approaches based on the way this list has helped me become
a better salinger reader...in other words, the voices of readers are much
more a part of literature today, much more able to be heard, and affecting
the way we experience text in ways beyond those of the author.
One of the things I admire most about deconstruction is the way it
sublimates the authority of the author. I don't believe Mr. Salinger was
aware of all of what his work could create and I know what I read in
criticism and online helps me create more with each re-reading.
I'm sorry, but I think many authors are well aware of how readers forward
books into literary space and I don't buy into Scottie's myth of the
author's all powerful vision. I'm well published myself, but I don't
think that's meaningful until what I write comes back to me in the eyes
and words of readers.
Sorry for the soapbox, but I'm still trying to write _Salinger's Readers_
in order to show that both critics and amateur readers are really quite
parallel in the way they construct significance from their experiences
with Salinger's fiction...
will
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Scottie Bowman wrote:
>
> `...Our interpretation is every bit as valid as his,' writes
> Camille with breathtaking self-confidence, `... that's what
> happens once you put text out into the world. Just because
> he wrote it doesn't mean that his opinion on it is Correct...'
>
> I gather this conceit that a work of art is some kind of
> co-operation between creator & audience derives originally from
> Frog literary theory. It triggers a lot of delighted laughter
> in England but is apparently still taken quite seriously in America
> & some of the other colonies.
>
> It is, of course, utter drivel propogated by academics & critics
> hoping to arrogate their humble function to the same level as
> that of the artist. But that's not how the thing works at all.
>
> The artist or writer is the discoverer of a unique vision which
> he tries - without ever wholly succeeding - to transmit across
> all the static & bumph of interstellar space to whatever distant
> planets may be trying to tune to his wavelength. There IS an
> authentic, central experience which the artist may not, himself,
> wholly understand since much of it derives from his own unconscious.
> But, believe me, he is in a much better position to speak for it
> than anyone else who, by the very nature of things, is many light
> years from its place of origin.
>
> I know about these things. I'm a writer of novels both published
> & acclaimed & have known quite a number of creative writers even
> more distinguished than myself. Every one of us share the same
> attitude to the reading public. Let the bastards hand over their
> money & feel grateful for the benefit of our labours. And then let
> them keep quiet. The day Jack REALLY starts to believe he's as
> good as his Master will be the day Western Civilisation starts
> its final collapse.
>
> Scottie B.
>