Re: The World According to Walter

Daniel -- sounds like a fun experiment :).

But suppose that what you have to say about a fictional work goes beyond 200
words? How much do you really think can be said in 200 words? Is that all you
ever have to say about a work you read? Suppose you have, say, 1000 words to
say about it. Or 10,000? Suppose the author wrote 10,000 words about the
meaning of his work to him, and other readers wrote 10,000 -- do you think the
likelihood that they will start saying different things will increase?

Can you really say anything with any depth about any fiction in 200 words? And
once you get past the obvious, isn't it likely that the degree of disagreement
will increase?

I'm willing to play, though -- I'm willing to submit poetry or a creative essay.

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

> Look into house building, it is not very complicated at all. It takes very
> little knowledge, in fact many home builders (at least in the west) aren't
> engineers just experienced people. Most of them don't know or use any more
> math than basic algebra and trig. The modern building code safety check
> comes from the permit review. So you could become a quite succesful builder
> with little if any theoretical knowledge. Now other structures are custom
> fabricated for economy and require an engineer but that is the point, when
> do I really need an 'engineer' and what is the value added? In house
> building the theory becomes the 'irrelvant details' for the most part, now
> say if I were developing a whole literary theory then the 'details' aren't
> irrelevant, but then how many of us are developing theory? I am certainly
> not. 'Some proffesors and some grad students' certainly do enjoy reading
> but they enjoy it for very different reasons. I enjoy reading and I enjoy
> discussing/musing over what I read (speaking of fiction) but not infitesmal
> quantatised parsing of what I read. I get that 'need' fulfilled in other
> aspects of my life and some have no 'need' for it at all. Again, Critique
> away but and I don't find that qualittative activity adding significant
> value. Again, I am not talking about speculative (fun) musings I'm talking
> about the eloborate philisophical approaches to 'meaning' and 'intent', it
> seems that anyone can say anything about 'meaning' and 'intent' without
> opening the whole can of worms of what is 'good' and 'bad' criticism. Sure
> critics say interesting stuff sometimes and even valuable stuff but how much
> do I have to invest to get into the game or buy Jim's 'toolbox'? The
> "Franny" and "Zoey" topic illustrates my point, sure this ambigous intent
> issues but how much do the change the stories one way or the other? Not
> much for me. I find it interesting but interesting enough to write a peer
> reviewed dissertation? Not me, for yoy? not your self out but don't expect
> to grab the hearts and minds of the book buying and reading public at large
> (I could always be wrong).
>
> If Literary theory is an attempt at a scientific understanding or
> rationalizing literture (fiction) then I think it is barking up the wrong
> tree. It is like quantativily analyzing a painting, yes I can calculate the
> suare inches of burnt umber but does that really say anything about the
> painting and does everything (in total) said about a painting needed to
> appreciate it? I know I am probably beating the thoroughly decayed carcass
> of a horse here.
>
> I propose an experiment.
>
> Hypothesis: Authorial Intent is knowable and directly relates to meaning.
> Definition: Intent: the ideas and concepts the author is trying to
> communicate.
> meaning: the idea and concepts the reader percieves
> when reading.
>
> Method: Several authors among the list (number TBD) compose fiction pieces
> and at the same time record intent in sealed enevelope to be held by
> designated judge. Readers among the list read and compose a one paragraph
> (200 word max) essay on meaning of all submitted fiction pieces. At the
> completion the judge will compare the meaning essays to the presealed intent
> disclosure. A statitical summary shall be compose by the judge.
>
> Assumptions: honesty of all participents as to intent and meaning.
> Notes: Agree to all definitions prior to commencement of expirement.
>
> Daniel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Kozusko [mailto:mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 10:06 AM
> To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
> Subject: Re: The World According to Walter
>
> Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:
>
> > The last thing you
> > would need for actual design and construction is a boorish civil engineer
> > ragging your ear on all the structural theories involved and discussions
> on
> > the irrelevant arcane methods of construction.
>
> An infelicitous metaphor, I think. One of the things you'd need most
> would be someone who could tell you whether your house might cave in on
> you, or whether it was properly designed for not-so-contingent
> contingencies like weather and settling.
>
> Presumably, the amateur reader doesn't take the sorts of risks an
> amateur house-builder might take by not seeking professional guidance.
> But if your metaphor says anything, it isn't that professionals are
> boorish nags overconcerned with irrelevant details.
>
> Otherwise: you're still singling out even "some" professors and grad
> students and suggesting they alone are peculiarly unable to enjoy
> reading as all other readers can enjoy it. I'm suggesting that you're
> categorizing professors and grad students way too casually.
>
> --
> Il n'y a pas de hors texte,
>
> Matt
>
> -
> * 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 15:51:11 2002