RE: Salinger's Problem with Westerners?

Jim: I have a question -- does your failure to see the usefulness of
criticism say
something about you, or about criticism?

Daniel: Both, usefulness to the readers at large not the select specialists.
It says that it fails me the general reader. I couldn't imagine myself
spending semesters studying critical techniques and this says much about me
and criticism. I am sure that many don't enjoy it either but I enjoy things
that most would find odd; I frequently do mental calculations for the
optimum sailboat design in my head and I enjoy that as much as I enjoy
boating. Usefulness does not have to be enjoyable but if it isn't enjoyable
it better have a good payback.

Jim: I'd say well over 95% of the criticism out there doesn't have any
direct use to me at all, but at the same time, I wouldn't say it's not
useful. I would say it's useful to people asking different questions about
different texts.

Daniel: What questions? Even subjectively some questions are more useful
than others and some not at all.

Jim: I think the mistake you're making here is partly one of objectifying
something that's inherently subjective. A discovery in a scientific
discipline -- say, computer science -- could conceivably affect anyone
working with computers, both directly and indirectly. But the article in
the last PMLA about the influence of contemporary medicinal practices upon
Keats' poetry (if I'm remembering the
article right) wouldn't necessarily have any use to anyone but a Keats
scholar, and then only a Keats scholar interested in asking those kinds of
questions about Keats' poems.

Daniel: Exactly, the questions asked by an expert will measurably differ
from those asked by the general reader. Useful to you but not to me. Does
it have a high power to weight ratio? vs. What color is it?

Jim: Also, just by asking about "the writer's intent" as a valid ground for
textual meaning, you're working within a specific set of critical
assumptions that just aren't held anymore. If you look for criticism trying
to answer this question, you have to look for some pretty old criticism,
generally.

Daniel: Exactly, I want transportation so I buy a vehicle you want a "car"
so you buy a model. I have not really discovered criticism to help with the
questions (I believe answerable to a degree) that I and many other readers
ask.

Jim: If you really think through these assumptions, they're really nonsense
-- you
can't read the author's mind directly, ever, can you? You can only know
what
the author may have meant by the words the author speaks. So everything,
ultimately, comes down to interpreting those words within a specific
historical
and cultural context. As a result, what you're really asking for, in the
end, is
historical research.

Daniel: Not necessarily. I think that there is an intent in the writers
mind when he writes and though we may never be able to know in an ultimate
full sense we can know it by degree and see the world through someone else's
eyes. I don't know the urbanized eastern US, some of you do, you may be
able to explain something that goes over my head (historical/cultural), but
some thing's may be as simple as an idea in one part of the book informing
something in another part of the same book, relationships I missed. Do we
know absolutely? No. Does that mean there is no specific meaning intended by
the author? No. Does that mean we could get in the ball field with a
careful reading? yes. And a dialogue between careful readers can check
biases and errors to approach that intended meaning. My experience with
criticism is that it is not concerned with the idea or principle
communicated or pours a whole bunch of unrelated ideas into the story.
That's fine but it doesn't usually help the general reader.

Jim: Foucault, one of those nasty postmodern critics, actually does a lot of
this.
As do people influenced by him. Marxists do this too. Freudian critics can
probe pretty deeply into the author's life if they're really doing their
work
right.

Daniel: I don't think Freudians can do their work right because their tools
are flawed (extremely) to begin with.

Jim: Suppose the author, at one time in his/her life, writes a great deal
about what
his/her work means to him/her. Is that a guarantee that the author was
thinking
that while writing the works we're so interested in? Is it a guarantee he
may
not change his/her mind later and then say, THIS is what my work means?
Authorial intent is a complete dead end for textual meaning.

Daniel: Yes intent of the author can change but it is the both intents that
I an interested in, that at the time of writing and that at reflection or
revision. It may not be a guarantee but you can have a degree of sureness
otherwise this whole list is pointless or a flower. A manual has great
confidence in meaning agreeing with intent, nonfiction, not bad and fiction
can vary. Is it a Dead end, it can be but mostly it can be useful. Can we
disagree on intent/meaning of a work? yes. But can one be closer than the
other? yes. If the author is not a recluse and alive you can sometimes talk
to them of their intent (I have Done this). We are doing it now with one
another.

Jim: There's plenty of historical research out there. You may want to start
with a good biography or two or three if you want research about fiction
that goes in the direction you're interested in. And even then, I think
you'll find, there's no real guarantee you'll get anywhere near a consensus
on the author's probable intent.

Daniel: What I mean by intent is the idea/information the author is trying
to communicate. Some authors aren't sure themselves and some are
communicating emotions but for the vast majority of literature I think there
is agreement at least on the mere or core intent. Salinger I believe is a
good enigmatic author where you probably won't get agreement on many things
but I think you would be amazed at how much the whole list could agree on.
But agreement is not necessarily the measuring stick either. Thanks for the
recommendation, I did read some Salinger biographies and they helped
somewhat.

Daniel
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Oct 23 18:33:19 2002