Re: RARA-AVIS: Marxist art and solutions

From: Joy Matkowski (
Date: 06 Sep 2006

Exactly. A Marxist analysis can be performed by anybody on any literature--without meaning that either the analyst or the writer is Marxist.
    Stretching things a bit, discussions of best-seller-ness and sales figures can be construed as Marxist analysis---<g> Joy

Mark, responding to Juri's "I want to point out once more that to be Marxist a piece of art (novel, film, etc.) doesn't have to point out solutions to social problems the piece of art is addressing. . . . So, a book like RED HARVEST can be discussed in Marxist terms. It doesn't have to have a political agenda to it." wrote:
> Mickey Spillane could be discussed in Marxist terms. There's a huge
> difference between "discussing in Marxist terms" and claiming something
> is a Marxist work. While Red Harvest certainly contains a critique that
> could be conceived of as Marxist, that does not mean Hammett wrote a
> Marxist, or even a proto-Marxist, work.
> Any book can be discussed in terms of any literary or social theory, but
> to say it is a work within a particular theory implies an agency and
> intent on the part of the creator, not just the critic. I've been
> largely on your side in saying that Al can't possibly be as removed from
> his own social situation as he claims. We are rejecting the romantic
> notion that a work of art is a unique creation by a unique individual
> and asserting that both the author and the work (and editors,
> publishers, readers, etc) are each members of numerous fields of
> production of meaning, both in creation and reception. However, I would
> never presume to tell Al his intent.

RARA-AVIS home page:
  Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06 Sep 2006 EDT