At 09:38 AM 30/08/2006 +0100, Al wrote:
>I can see how you can derive a moral theme from a
shopping list (bread,
>milk, handcuffs, tape, spade), if you're so inclined,
but that's -- as I
>said before -- the reader's interpretation. It's very
far from giving a
>moral lesson. A lesson requires intent on the part of
the author to
>instruct the reader.
Sure Al, but you can't blame it all on the reader. Like, why
are handcuffs on the list? It's your list. You tell me- which
you probably would do if the list were used in fiction. Ditto
your use of the baseball bat in Kiss Her Goodbye. Your book.
Your bat. You provided examples of its use in an atypical
fashion. Not the first time that a baseball bat has been used
as a weapon, in or outside of fiction, but you're the one who
raised the subject in this case, not the reader.
But to put the thing in what I think is its proper
perspective- nobody is innocent. You took up the
responsibility to know what you were writing about when you
decided to become a writer. You pass along information, even
in a fictional context. As the reader in this case, I make my
own use of the information provided. It's a loop- culture
affects and reports perceived reality. For much of this
stuff, as Mark said, we share common knowledge of this stuff
already, to the extent that we take it for granted. And we
become aware of how pervasive it is only when we perceive
alternatives to accepted reality. Which I think was my
starting point on this, way back when I read Kevin's rant
(and a good rant it was, too.)
And Mark said:
"All art contains ideology, but that doesn't mean the
ideology must be the point of art. Didacticism, which also
bores me, happens when all other aspects of art -- plot,
character, entertainment, etc -- are manipulated in order to
call attention to, usually to sell, a specific
ideology."
I agree with this in the broad strokes, but I think it enters
into the mushy ambiguities Al enjoys when we get to some
specifics. Specifically, I'm now thinking of the Prone
Gunman. Seemed to me that the author intended to illustrate
the application of an existential philosophy (whether it's
possible to know what's actually in another person's mind
I'll save for another debate.) So it's didactic. And
manipulate characters, plots, entertainment, is what writers
do. Does that automatically make it boring? I think what
you're saying is that the manipulation to make a specific
point should not be obvious to the reader. We're really just
talking good versus bad writing. Or am I putting words in
your mouth?
And Mr. Borgers said:
"And I'm not convince at all that "entertainment" is the
final goal of lit."
Actually, I'd make it the first goal. Works that don't
entertain have few, or at least fewer, readers, limiting the
capacity to instruct, intended or otherwise. Such books are
often found on mandatory course reading lists.
Here endeth the lesson, Kerry
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 30 Aug 2006 EDT