Re: Thinking with Jim and Robbie

Responses below:

Scottie Bowman wrote:

> 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.

No, no, I don't think I was every demanding any kind of "absolute"
certainty. I tried to make that clear in my response to Robbie. I feel
reasonably certain that tomorrow, gravity will keep my feet on the
ground. Hume taught us that we can't prove that -- that there's no
grounds (so to speak) for absolute rational certainty of this knowledge,
because we cannot prove that the future will be like the past.

But this is all besides the point. Despite Hume's observations, I still
feel pretty certain that the laws of gravitation will still apply
tomorrow. But I have virtually no knowledge at all, with any degree of
certainty, exactly what Salinger "intended" when he wrote "Pretty Mouth
and Green My Eyes."

I am pretty sure what I think it communicates. And I would bet that
Salinger would agree with some of it. But I suspect neither of us would
know what he intended at the moment of writing.

>
>
> 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?

Because books ARE non-human artefacts. A book is a bunch of papers piled
up together with blots of ink on them. A human being is a carbon based
life form with something like intelligence. They are two different
things.

But I'll go into more detail below.

>
>
> 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.

But Scottie, you're imagining yourself as PRESENT when you tell the
story. You SEE the gleam in the eye, HEAR the laugh, FEEL the slap on the
back. All this is communicated Without Words -- as would be very much of
your story. When you TELL a story because you are PRESENT, you use vocal
intonations, hand gestures, facial expressions. Well over 50% of your
communication is non verbal.

We don't have this advantage with books. You don't have this knowledge of
readers' reactions to your novels, Scottie, unless they tell you. But you
rarely, if ever, see the reactions while they are reading.

>
>
> 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.

Most of the authors I've spoken to or read about are aware that their
texts are legitimately subject to a wide range of interpretations. What
would really get me mad is if some ascribed their own peculiar
interpretation to me, calling it my "intent."

It's one thing to tell an author, This is what I got out of your book.
It's another to tell him/her, This is what you must have meant by your
book.

The latter is a terrible, terrible thing to say. It robs the author of
his own interpretation -- of the freedom to interpret his own work. And
you're usually wrong.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Oct 28 01:58:32 2002