--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Michael Robison
<miker_zspider@...> wrote:
>
> I am not entirely satisfied with your orgasm
analogy
> for the reader experience. I understand the
context
> you are using it in, but I can't help but think
that
> it is reductive to the point of being
misleading.
> Although there is undoubtably some unalterable
primal
> response to a text, there is also a cultivated
view
> which evolves with thought and discussion and
exposure
> to the moral and aesthetic elements in literature.
As
> a quick aside I would note that I am not saying
that
> reading or studying literature necessarily makes one
a
> better person.
Not a better person, necessarily, but reading widely does
make you think a bit, so it's intrinsically good.
> What I am saying is that beyond just a
sensual
> kneejerk reflex, reader response is a dynamic
process
> that can and often is open to influence by
critical
> discourse. So rather than being a secondary
also-ran
> in the reading process, analysis is a major player
in
> the shaping of a cultivated reader exerperience. In
a
> sense, the treatise begets the orgasm.
>
I don't think so. In particular, thinking of a story within a
given framework does change the experience. If you say "I'm
reading this book, a noir book in the tradition of...",
there's another you, the analytical you, reading alongside.
You gain comfort, but you lose transparency in the reception
of what you're reading. The name of the author alone has
enormous weight if he's well known. Arts critics, including
literary critics and even reviewers are hugely influenced by
the name of the author (publishers are, too, of course) and
the supposed niche of the book. In music, blind listening
experiments have produced hilarious results... and the recent
Hatto Hoax, which some of you may have heard about. It would
be interesting for someone to submit, as a nobody, a Jim
Thompson novel to a publisher, to see what happens. It may
well get lots of rejections.
> Even allowing the orgasm analogy, I am
uncomfortable
> with the statement that it and the treatise
are
> entirely separate things. Note that I don't say
that
> I don't believe it. I do. But so also is
father
> separate from son, author separate from his work.
The
> danger is in sacrificing the truth for the
facts.
>
Now truth is a difficult concept to apply here. E.B. White
wrote that the trouble with truth is its many varieties...
psychological truth is unprovable and you can't argue with
it. If a reader believes in the characters and situations,
some sort of "truth" has been conveyed, event though a
writer's profession is to tell lies.
Best,
mrt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 23 Aug 2007 EDT