Re: Thinking with Jim and Robbie

    I'm sure I'm missing the point, having no talent for abstract
    thought but it seems to me - as I tried to illustrate in my
    earlier squib to Jim - that one can never, in the way you
    people seem to be demanding, 'verify' or indeed 'know'
    anything.

    A great deal of our time, though, is spent trying to discern
    the intentions of others - either through their words or their
    actions.

    A written text is just as much the production of one man's
    mind as would be his curse or his kiss. Why should we fear
    or welcome the latter but treat the first as if it were some
    kind of neutral, indeed non-human, artefact?
    
    When I tell a story or try to describe a certain scene I have
    a clear idea what I'm trying to convey to my listeners.
    When they laugh or I see the gleam in their eye, I know
    a successful transfer of thought or emotion has taken place.
    When this doesn't happen I could, I suppose, blame their lack
    of imagination, or stupidity, or the wrong atmosphere - or an
    infinite number of other factors.

    I don't though. I blame myself: as a teller of stories, I haven't
    on this occasion anyway, deployed sufficient narrative talent.

    Would you not agree that writers of fiction (especially) hate
    to hear authorial intent pooh-poohed? Why is this? Are they
    simply vain poor sods? And why does the popular view
    present all those professional academics & critics (? with their
    brilliant novels lying unpublished in their bedroom drawers ?)
    so gleefully eager to push it? As I think they do.

    Scottie B.

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sun Oct 27 08:21:32 2002