Yes. I've bored people here with such analyses before... My
point, to put it bluntly, is that having an orgasm and
writing a treatise that analyzes the orgasm are entirely
separate things. And we don't really know how reader and
author get tangled during a reading.
**************** If you've bored anybody here, I'm not among
them. I've always enjoyed your posts, Mario.
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. The devil, hell's minions, and assorted Democrats can
quote their purpose from far more texts than the Bible.
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
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
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 22 Aug 2007 EDT