I very much doubt that we can ever know what ³the real feelings of the
author² are...and they simply donıt matter...if you enter the path of
judging the authorıs views, real, reported or inferred...you are on a
slippery slope...
The text is what matters...and not because it is art or entertainment or
whatever, but because it is there to be read...
...at least thatıs the way I look at it and how many teachers taught us,
from Toulouse to Michigan...
I am sometimes interested by the life of an author (or filmaker) but the
books are what I concentrate on...Their bios are another type of
narratve...wether in print or as a film (docu...)
Montois
On 1/21/09 5:57 AM, "sonny" <sforstater@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> oh, good. thanks for clearin it up for me.
>
> off topic even more, with the mlk, jr. holiday and then obama inauguration,
> man did i see/hear racist humor (some funny to me, some not).
>
> to bring it around to topic slightly, when is a racist (or sexist or violent
> etc) character/narrator 'allowed'? always? only if it works (it's funny and
> meant to be; it's disgusting and meant to be, etc)?
>
> is everything allowed in the cause of art, entertainment? is it simply good or
> bad, something that works overall or not?
>
> do the real feelings of the author matter? if a 'liberal' or p.c. person uses
> characters and behavior that are repellent, is that different than if a
> virulent racist, homophobic, author does the same, everything else being
> equal?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 21 Jan 2009 EST