Re: Salinger's Problem with Westerners?

I think this is a pretty reductive representation of criticism, and a bit
mistaken about what "general readers" do with texts too.

Yes, a cat is a cat is a cat. All kinds of people ask WHY the cat is in the
story. Even the general reader. Do you really mean you just take everything
you read at face value and never ask, Why did the author put that in there?

I hosted, on AOL, book groups for Dostoevsky, Umberto Eco, and J.D. Salinger.
Pretty much everyone participating in the groups were what you'd call a "general
reader" -- high school kids, stay at home moms, people who just liked to read
these authors, etc. None of them were professional critics. Some of them,
occasionally, were undergrad English major types. I saw many of the same types
of questions critics ask, and some of the same types of details critics include,
in these readers' responses to the books we were reading. Sometimes they were
pretty sophisticated too. Generally, critics (that are worth anything -- not
all of them are -- and some are worth something about some subjects and
worthless about others) just go into more detail and support their assertions
more, that's all.

At this point you're just repeating yourself and not really answering me:

<<I mean IS that if I can't know the intent of the author even vaguely and the
meaning >>

I think it's quite possible to construct a reading out of a text without knowing
the precise intent of the author. But I already said that.

Most of the rest of your post after this was already addressed by my earlier
post -- I felt that you were writing while ignoring what I said. BUT, the very
end brings up a new topic. I think this is a legitimate question:

<<SERIOUSLY: What is the job of the Literary Critic? Not the, I like it/
don't like it type but the Academician, What is your mission statement? and
What questions do they ask?

Daniel>>

I can only answer that question for myself, of course -- but I suspect there are
many who feel the same way.

I read literature to help me understand what people are like. What we think and
feel, why we think and feel what we do, and as a result, what life is made up
of. I seek to understand myself and the world around me by seeing how other
people represented their experience in literature. I don't just read books, but
through books learn to read the world around me.

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

> Yes if you parse everything like a lawyer or Pharisee. The general reader
> is the reader who when he reads the word 'cat' pictures a small furry four
> legged mammal. The critic sees some symbol/metaphor etc related to a
> obfuscated relationship with the writers mother that makes the oh... What
> I mean IS that if I can't know the intent of the author even vaguely and the
> meaning then what is the point of all this systematic critiquing, it seems
> like a long drawn out way of saying that you really don't know anything
> yourself. Hell, that is why I don't care for it, I can just say my
> philosophy doesn't believe this or that and leave it there why bother
> writing this book or that at thousands of pages to say that no one really
> knows? If your guess is as subjective as Derrida or any number of Literary
> critics what makes you think that you can place your subjective idea
> superior to mine? Because I didn't have a long circumlocuted method to
> arrive at it? Maybe some writers incorporated all kinds of literary
> references and 'mystical' meanings that the esoteric must be steeped in. I
> am not being to sarcastic, I know that some writers were/are well read in
> the Greco/roman classics where I am not as well read and the meaning is not
> clear but if we can't have a common reading or a common base why should I
> waste my time with a professor to teach me his biases or biased unverifiable
> methods that are subjectively no better than another. Its like Escher
> drawings, they are fun to look at but don't use them to see what the world
> of his time looks like. That is it, if literature is so subjective and
> there is no knowable meaning and intent why does anyone need a whole bunch
> of Literary critics to tell them this? A dirty look works for some but
> maybe some have to be hit with the Bufford Pusser 2x4. I can have an
> edifying discussion of a literary work without the cyclic, faddish theories
> to inform me. I am not glorying in ignorance, you can only dissect so far
> before you kill it. I love life but slicing up a corpse won't help my love.
> And the funny thing is with all the learned criticism no real
> product/conclusion is achieved. Maybe its the journey thing but although I
> do enjoy the journey there better be a destination, at least for me and "THE
> GENERAL READER". If this were not so why are there so many financially
> solvent literary endeavors (bookstores, publishers, writers)?
>
> SERIOUSLY: What is the job of the Literary Critic? Not the, I like it/
> don't like it type but the Academician, What is your mission statement? and
> What questions do they ask?
>
> Daniel
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Rovira [mailto:jrovira@drew.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:02 AM
>
> Ach. I feel we can actually have a good, mutually non-dismissive discussion
> here :). Responses below.
>
> Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Can you really speak with any certainty about "usefulness to readers at
> large?"
> I think this is an assumption that the study of critical theory attacks
> successfully -- that there's such a thing as "readers at large" who share
> common
> readings, ideas, questions, etc.
>
> But you don't really need to study critical theory to understand that. Just
> sit
> in a literature class where students are given a poem and asked to describe
> what
> it means. If you have 30 students, you'll probably get at least 25
> different
> readings depending on the poem.
>
> But notice I said "poem" and not "instruction manual" or even "essay." This
> is,
> I believe, an important distinction. I hope to say more later.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> You still haven't really addressed my response -- you need to define
> "useful" in
> order to do so. If "even subjectively" some questions are more useful than
> others and some not at all (I agree), than you can't really make an
> objective
> claim at all about the usefulness of criticism, can you?
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> I disagree. I think the "general reader" (that I don't think exists as a
> unified creature) doesn't really ask questions that much different from many
> critics -- in other words, every question brought up by your imagined
> "general
> reader" is also brought up in criticism, while I agree not every question
> addressed in criticism is considered by the general reader. I think the
> real
> difference is in, at least partly, the amount of detail. General readers
> may
> reasonably ask questions about "historical influences" or "cultural
> influences"
> in general. At least some critics will point out very specific and discreet
> historical or cultural influences backed, hopefully, with good research.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> I've already addressed this, but below (re: the use of biographies, and you
> did
> respond). But I would further ask: why is criticism ever obligated to
> address
> the questions that your imaginary "general reader" asks, especially in the
> form
> that the general reader asks it?
>
> Cliff's Notes?
>
> 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.
>
> You're not paying attention to what I said. I never at any time said that
> the
> "author does not have an intent in his/her writing." I said, instead, that
> the
> author's intent, whatever it may have been, is only accessible through the
> author's writing, so the real issue isn't trying to read the author's mind
> (an
> impossible task), but to understand the author's writing within a specific
> context (usually historical and cultural). If you read older critics like
> Emmanuel Hirsch (who argued for authorial intent as the ground of meaning in
> literature), you'll see that they employ pretty intensive historical and
> biographical research (as well as linguistic) to support their beliefs about
> the
> author's probable intent.
>
> My argument is that you don't need to relate to the author at all to do this
> --
> all that you are really doing is saying, "this is how one member of the
> author's
> time and culture may have read the author's text when the author wrote it."
> This ultimately has nothing to do with voodoo mind reading, but everything
> to do
> with language's dependence upon a specific historical context for a specific
> meaning.
>
> > 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.
>
> These intertextual relationships are addressed by critics all the time.
>
> > Do we
> > know absolutely? No. Does that mean there is no specific meaning intended
> by
> > the author? No.
>
> Did I ever say there was no specific meaning intended by the author?
>
> No.
>
> > Does that mean we could get in the ball field with a
> > careful reading? yes.
>
> Is there any way you could ever know that your ideas are anywhere near the
> author's ideas about his/her own text?
>
> No.
>
> Especially in the case of authors like Shakespeare, who didn't leave a
> single
> word of writing about his own writing.
>
> > And a dialogue between careful readers can check
> > biases and errors to approach that intended meaning.
>
> What do you mean by careful readers? Would you mean professionals with a
> good
> deal of historical and linguistic research under their belts?
>
> Something like, oh, a professional critic? :)
>
> You're not arguing against literary criticism in general, you simply have a
> preference for one specific type of literary criticism. It's still being
> done.
> Check out historians.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Again, you invoke an imaginary "general reader." But you need to work hard
> to
> specifically define an idea that's "unrelated" to a story. Can you go into
> more
> detail?
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> I agree :).
>
> > 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.
>
> Suppose the author wrote nothing at all about his or her work? Which
> authorial
> intent is most important -- the one the author had while writing, or the one
> the
> author has years later? Suppose the author changes his/her mind and says,
> years, later, this is what I meant all along (in other words, suppose you
> have
> an author that is being dishonest either with themselves or with the
> public)?
> What do you do then?
>
> Isn't the author a rather slippery ground for textual meaning, then?
>
> > 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.
>
> I think it's important to note that our discussion now has a specific
> historical
> and cultural context that we are both participating in, and that we're both
> aware of, even if we can't completely describe its characteristics. In
> other
> words, we have context.
>
> But 500 years from now (or even 6 months from now), will this discussion be
> that
> clear? Wouldn't uncovering that context be necessary to get somewhere close
> to
> the meanings we both seem to see so clearly now?
>
> > 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.
>
> What happens when you want to ask questions that go beyond the "mere or core
> intent"? What happens when you want to say something more than, "_The
> Catcher
> in the Rye_ is about a troubled teenager"? I think you'll find that this
> "mere
> or core intent" is very unsatisfying for people who want to think deeply
> about
> their reading, and that once you go beyond this, you get into trouble.
>
> > 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
>
> It's interesting that you speak of a "community or group of readers" now
> instead
> of just the author, and speak of them as the arbiters of textual meaning.
> Is
> the community of readers the final determiner of meaning, or the author,
> then?
> What happens if the author's ideas differ from the majority of the group
> ideas?
> Is the author wrong or the group wrong? I think this is one reasonable
> approach, and Reader Response critics (as well as some older critics as
> well)
> quite often appeal to this.
>
> But again, you have professional critics who have theorized in detail
> exactly
> your assumptions. And other critics who disagree with these assumptions and
> describe their problems.
>
> Jim
>
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Oct 29 11:02:39 2002