"canonical postmodern literature?"
Teen Age Riot
Dunno, if this has been brought up here before, but as there's no FAQ around
to be found:
Anyone want to take a stab at defining the important works of postmodern
literature? I'm talking solely about pomo as a literary classification, NOT
general pomo thought.
Al
Al Wang
__________________________________________
alw...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
ytalk alw...@random.resnet.upenn.edu
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~alwang/home.htm
__________________________________________
What's My Solution?
Noise Pollution!
moggin
alw...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Teen Age Riot):
>Anyone want to take a stab at defining the important works of
>postmodern literature? I'm talking solely about pomo as a literary
>classification, NOT general pomo thought.
I don't much feel like trying to give them a definition, but
if you want to chat about them, I'll start the ball rolling. What I
can't decide is how to define "post-modern" (the usual problem). If
we restrict it to, say, the last fifty years (that is, the era after
High Modernism), then I would nominate Beckett, Borges, and Nabokov,
followed by a raft of others. You can pretty much take your pick of
their stuff, with a few guidelines. Beckett: the post-war material.
Borges: anything after the cowboy stories. Nabokov: the writing in
English, but not _Lolita_.
If we open the category to earlier writers, it's a different
ballgame -- for example, _Don Quixote_ would have to go on the list.
(I've never enjoyed it, but I don't see how you could leave it off.)
-- moggin (Panic in the Streets)
Omar Haneef '96
moggin (mog...@bessel.nando.net) wrote:
> alw...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Teen Age Riot):
>
> >Anyone want to take a stab at defining the important works of
> >postmodern literature? I'm talking solely about pomo as a literary
> >classification, NOT general pomo thought.
>
> I don't much feel like trying to give them a definition, but
> if you want to chat about them, I'll start the ball rolling. What I
> can't decide is how to define "post-modern" (the usual problem). If
> we restrict it to, say, the last fifty years (that is, the era after
> High Modernism), then I would nominate Beckett, Borges, and Nabokov,
> followed by a raft of others.
I nominate: Pynchon, Burroughs, Gibson and (soon to be canonized) Leyner in
one mood.
I nominate: Marquez (and the other South American magical realists?),
Morrison, Silko, and (perhaps) Winterson in another.
These really are two very different strain but you can't go wrong with this lot.
-Omar
Silke-Maria Weineck
David Swanson
OK, so we've got nominees, but what is it that makes them all
postmodern? Or is it some sort of family resemblence too complex for
words? Please don't say it's what Rorty calls the naughty thrill of
violating the space of the proscenium arch. I mean, I laughed the
first dozen times I saw a character/actor in a movie give a
conspiratorial look into the camera, but that's got nothing to do with,
say, Marquez.
"What do you think of the next life?"
"I don't think much of this one."
Conversation between Joyce and Beckett (don't know which said which).
DS
"'Shut up,' he explained." - Ring Lardner
David Swanson
In article <4mikdg$f...@bessel.nando.net>
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
> alw...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Teen Age Riot):
>
> >Anyone want to take a stab at defining the important works of
> >postmodern literature? I'm talking solely about pomo as a literary
> >classification, NOT general pomo thought.
>
> I don't much feel like trying to give them a definition, but
> if you want to chat about them, I'll start the ball rolling. What I
> can't decide is how to define "post-modern" (the usual problem). If
> we restrict it to, say, the last fifty years (that is, the era after
> High Modernism), then I would nominate Beckett, Borges, and Nabokov,
> followed by a raft of others. You can pretty much take your pick of
> their stuff, with a few guidelines. Beckett: the post-war material.
> Borges: anything after the cowboy stories. Nabokov: the writing in
> English, but not _Lolita_.
Why not Lolita?
>
> If we open the category to earlier writers, it's a different
> ballgame -- for example, _Don Quixote_ would have to go on the list.
> (I've never enjoyed it, but I don't see how you could leave it off.)
Why Don Quixote, and - more puzzling - how could you not enjoy it?
In Eugene Weber's review of "The World of Samuel Beckett" in The New
Republic:"The 1920s were a good time to escape parochialism at home and
to sow wild oats in Paris, where postwar meant postbelief, postorder,
posthope, and prepostmodernism."
Now what does THAT mean?
DS
>
> -- moggin (Panic in the Streets)
"'Shut up,' he explained." - Ring Lardner
Omar Haneef '96
David Swanson (dc...@darwin.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
> OK, so we've got nominees, but what is it that makes them all
> postmodern? Or is it some sort of family resemblence too complex for
> words? Please don't say it's what Rorty calls the naughty thrill of
> violating the space of the proscenium arch. I mean, I laughed the
> first dozen times I saw a character/actor in a movie give a
> conspiratorial look into the camera, but that's got nothing to do with,
> say, Marquez.
>
>
Cliches of fiction:
(Fiction goes further back, but I just need enough for context)
Romantic fiction is sublime and gothic and bigger than life a la
Northanger Abbey and Castle of Otranto.
Then comes Realist fiction which tries to be as real and true to life
as possible and sets up a very specific style and some very subjective self
v. society type stories. Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina.
Then comes the modernists who think this is a crock and really shake
things up by maintaining completely changing the narrative form, forgetting
linearity and the changing character and characteristics at the drop of a hat.
Stream of consciousness, for instance, is born as a technique. Portrait of the
Artist as a Young Man and Absalom, Absalom.
Then come the postmodernists who decide to take the modernists crazy
formal innovation and apply it to the content, so that the world is magical or
science fictional. Its not just that points of view of reality are different,
the realities are different; the text is even more self conscious than before.
Neuromancer and 100 yrs of Solitude.
But, and this is why pomo is a good term, we don't want to call this
romantic - and indeed, we call some of it magical realism - because this form
of reality bending is somehow selective and has absorbed the lessons of realism
and modernism. What the difference is I cannot say without some more thought, and
that would require it be assigned as a paper topic or that I have some free time,
but I am only going to appeal to your faculty of artistic judgement here: you
see how its different, no?
If not, then chalk this off to undergrad pretentions.
-Omar
moggin
Omar Haneef '96 <han...@engin.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
>I nominate: Pynchon, Burroughs, Gibson and (soon to be canonized) Leyner in
>one mood.
In that mood, I'd want to add Lem, Malzberg, and Dick.
-- moggin
Teen Age Riot
In article <4mikdg$f...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
> I don't much feel like trying to give them a definition, but
>if you want to chat about them, I'll start the ball rolling. What I
>can't decide is how to define "post-modern" (the usual problem). If
>we restrict it to, say, the last fifty years (that is, the era after
>High Modernism), then I would nominate Beckett, Borges, and Nabokov,
>followed by a raft of others. You can pretty much take your pick of
>their stuff, with a few guidelines. Beckett: the post-war material.
>Borges: anything after the cowboy stories. Nabokov: the writing in
>English, but not _Lolita_.
Hmm, I'm not sure why you would leave off his Russian works. They're every
bit as innovative. Otherwise, I certainly second all of your nominations.
Among the raft of others, someone mentioned Pynchon: I certainly agree. I
would also submit John Barth and Robert Coover.
As to what exactly these guys have in common: well, this is certainly
arbitrary, but my view of postmodern lit is simply stuff that
doesn't follow traditional linear narratives. Following this guideline, I'd
have trouble with including Gibson. Sure, he incorporates pomo ideas, but his
writing style is strictly straightforward. I'd also question Don Quixote:
that's really the grandaddy of all modern narratives. Some older stuff I
would find relevant: Tristam Shandy, Finnegan's Wake, etc.
moggin
David Swanson <dc...@darwin.clas.virginia.edu> wrote:
>Why not Lolita?
Because it doesn't have the moves of _Ada_ or _Pale Fire_.
moggin:
>> If we open the category to earlier writers, it's a different
>> ballgame -- for example, _Don Quixote_ would have to go on the list.
>> (I've never enjoyed it, but I don't see how you could leave it off.)
David:
>Why Don Quixote, and - more puzzling - how could you not enjoy it?
Because it raises questions about the relation between truth
and illusion, fiction and reality, and plays them out _in the text_.
But all the stories-within-stories just bored me. To be honest, I've
never been able to develop much affection for alot of the Great Books,
especially some of the Great, Big ones (for example, _War and Peace_).
On the other hand, I liked _A Soldier of the Great War_ immensely.
>In Eugene Weber's review of "The World of Samuel Beckett" in The New
>Republic:"The 1920s were a good time to escape parochialism at home and
>to sow wild oats in Paris, where postwar meant postbelief, postorder,
>posthope, and prepostmodernism."
>Now what does THAT mean?
Consider: "...he knew it was all nada y pues nanda y nada y pues
nada. Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kindgom nada thy
will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily
nada and nada us from our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not
into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of
nothing; nothing is with thee." (O.k., that was the 30's -- sue me.)
-- moggin
P.S. Instead of calling Hemingway "prepostmodern," it would make
more sense to admit that "post-modernism" is better described as "late
modernism," in most cases.
David Swanson
In article <4mk9l8$n...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>
han...@engin.swarthmore.edu (Omar Haneef '96) writes:
> Then come the postmodernists who decide to take the modernists crazy
> formal innovation and apply it to the content, so that the world is magical or
> science fictional. Its not just that points of view of reality are different,
> the realities are different; the text is even more self conscious than before.
> Neuromancer and 100 yrs of Solitude.
>
> But, and this is why pomo is a good term, we don't want to call this
> romantic - and indeed, we call some of it magical realism - because this form
> of reality bending is somehow selective and has absorbed the lessons of realism
> and modernism. What the difference is I cannot say without some more thought, and
> that would require it be assigned as a paper topic or that I have some free time,
> but I am only going to appeal to your faculty of artistic judgement here: you
> see how its different, no?
>
> If not, then chalk this off to undergrad pretentions.
>
> -Omar
I think I get it. But then is pomo Latin, or can Northerners do it
too?
DS
David Swanson
In article <4mm4qt$r...@bessel.nando.net>
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
> David Swanson <dc...@darwin.clas.virginia.edu> wrote:
>
> >Why not Lolita?
>
> Because it doesn't have the moves of _Ada_ or _Pale Fire_.
Well I knew you meant THAT. I haven't read Ada, but have read the
other two. The question I had was: what are the relevant moves?
>
> moggin:
>
> >> If we open the category to earlier writers, it's a different
> >> ballgame -- for example, _Don Quixote_ would have to go on the list.
> >> (I've never enjoyed it, but I don't see how you could leave it off.)
>
> David:
>
> >Why Don Quixote, and - more puzzling - how could you not enjoy it?
>
> Because it raises questions about the relation between truth
> and illusion, fiction and reality, and plays them out _in the text_.
> But all the stories-within-stories just bored me. To be honest, I've
> never been able to develop much affection for alot of the Great Books,
> especially some of the Great, Big ones (for example, _War and Peace_).
> On the other hand, I liked _A Soldier of the Great War_ immensely.
I don't recall its raising any such questions. What were they?
That embedded stories bored you: does that mean you wanted to get back
to the first one?
I've only read "Refiner's Fire" and found it good, as far as childish
fantasies go.
>
> >In Eugene Weber's review of "The World of Samuel Beckett" in The New
> >Republic:"The 1920s were a good time to escape parochialism at home and
> >to sow wild oats in Paris, where postwar meant postbelief, postorder,
> >posthope, and prepostmodernism."
> >Now what does THAT mean?
>
> Consider: "...he knew it was all nada y pues nanda y nada y pues
> nada. Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kindgom nada thy
> will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily
> nada and nada us from our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not
> into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of
> nothing; nothing is with thee." (O.k., that was the 30's -- sue me.)
>
> -- moggin
>
> P.S. Instead of calling Hemingway "prepostmodern," it would make
> more sense to admit that "post-modernism" is better described as "late
> modernism," in most cases.
>
What's the advantage either way?
Omar Haneef '96
Teen Age Riot (alw...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu) wrote:
> As to what exactly these guys have in common: well, this is certainly
> arbitrary, but my view of postmodern lit is simply stuff that
> doesn't follow traditional linear narratives.
Linear narratives were already passe in modernism, whats so post- about that?
If non-linear narratives were the ONLY differencem, we wouldn't even want to
call it late modernism, we'd just call it modernism.
> Following this guideline, I'd
> have trouble with including Gibson. Sure, he incorporates pomo ideas, but his
> writing style is strictly straightforward.
Straightforward, perhaps. Strictly straightforward its not.
> I'd also question Don Quixote:
> that's really the grandaddy of all modern narratives. Some older stuff I
> would find relevant: Tristam Shandy, Finnegan's Wake, etc.
>
You can't just use linearity as a measure, or you wouldn't be able to tell
the modernists apart from folk tales. What about metaphor, setting and
character?
-Omar
Omar Haneef '96
Burroughs and Pynchon. Although, I am sure there are northeners that do
magical realism (Winterson sort of does it), and these are mostly women.
The Northeners did give us cyberpunk, according to Jameson it is
"henceforth, for many of us, the supreme literary expression if not of
postmodernism, then of late capitalism itself."
Cyberpunks: Gibson, Sterling, Shiner, Shirley, Rucker
I'm sure there are many, many, many others that I have never read
that don't fall into these camps, are excellent and are pomo by any measure
(not that we should care if they are pomo or not).
Don't know if this is modern or pomo - not that the difference is
that rigid - but every body on the planet should read "Geek Love" by
Katherine Dunn.
-Omar
David Swanson
David Swanson
>
> I'm talking about its formal qualities -- let's try not to
> catalogue them. For example, _Pale Fire_ has footnotes, like _The
> Wasteland_, but unlike _Lolita_. Does that give you at least some
> idea? As I said before, I don't feel like attempting a definition.
>
Well, the Wasteland has commentary or end-notes, and Pale Fire sort of
(allegedly) is largely just that. But this doesn't seem to me a very
important characteristic of Palefire, something of what makes it great.
What about JD Salinger's Freudian footnoting - is that postmodern?
Palefire's novelty is in its use of language. Its beauty is in its
plot - which could largely have been done without the poem-notes
device.
> Which is which? What happens when we confuse them? What's
> the difference? _Is_ there a difference? How can we tell them apart?
> _Can_ we tell them apart? Who are we? How do we know? That kind of
> thing.
As regards the first six of these questions: I guess so. I mean I
don't remember asking myself anything like that. But maybe. The last
two sound distinctively un-postmodern. Maybe I'm misinterpreting them.
>
> It's just taxonomy, so the advantages are fairly limited, but
> my way does avoid the term "prepostmodern," as well as the absurdity
> of reducing the entire Lost Generation to a precursor of the so-called
> pomo. (Of course, there's a good chance that Weber was just kidding.)
>
> -- moggin
Seems to me there are contexts where each way is useful.
moggin
David:
>Well, the Wasteland has commentary or end-notes, and Pale Fire sort of
>(allegedly) is largely just that. But this doesn't seem to me a very
>important characteristic of Palefire, something of what makes it great.
It's certainly one of the distinguishing features of the book,
and the kind of formal innovation characteristic of post-modernism --
whether it contributes to "greatness" is another question.
>What about JD Salinger's Freudian footnoting - is that postmodern?
Where is that? I don't usually think of Salinger as a post-
modernist, but maybe I'll have to reconsider.
>Palefire's novelty is in its use of language. Its beauty is in its
>plot - which could largely have been done without the poem-notes
>device.
I think that the idea of a novel composed of a long poem and a
many-times longer set of footnotes is at least a novelty -- especially
when the poet and the scholar are both fictions. _Pale Fire_ would be
another book if it was written in a conventional format; to my mind, a
much less interesting one.
moggin:
>> Which is which? What happens when we confuse them? What's
>> the difference? _Is_ there a difference? How can we tell them apart?
>> _Can_ we tell them apart? Who are we? How do we know? That kind of
>> thing.
David:
>As regards the first six of these questions: I guess so. I mean I
>don't remember asking myself anything like that. But maybe. The last
>two sound distinctively un-postmodern. Maybe I'm misinterpreting them.
Post-modernism raises questions about identity, doesn't it?
(I was taking that as a given -- if you disagree, we'll have to talk
it over.)
moggin:
> It's just taxonomy, so the advantages are fairly limited, but
> my way does avoid the term "prepostmodern," as well as the absurdity
> of reducing the entire Lost Generation to a precursor of the so-called
> pomo. (Of course, there's a good chance that Weber was just kidding.)
David:
>Seems to me there are contexts where each way is useful.
What's the usefulness of Weber's view? (We should probably
call it something else, since I don't think he was being serious.)
-- moggin
John K. Taber
moggin (mog...@bessel.nando.net) wrote:
: David:
: >Why Don Quixote, and - more puzzling - how could you not enjoy it?
: Because it raises questions about the relation between truth
: and illusion, fiction and reality, and plays them out _in the text_.
: But all the stories-within-stories just bored me. To be honest, I've
: never been able to develop much affection for alot of the Great Books,
: especially some of the Great, Big ones (for example, _War and Peace_).
: On the other hand, I liked _A Soldier of the Great War_ immensely.
moggin, don't you think this is personal taste rather than any problem
with the story? _War and Peace_ absorbed me. I couldn't put it down.
On the other hand _Don Quixote_ bored me too. But that is not a reflection
on Don Quixote as it is on me.
Also, as you (editorial you) get older, tastes decidedly shift. Stories I
loved 30 years ago leave me cold now. But there are books to look forward
to. My mother told me that you can't really appreciate _In Remembrance of
Things Past_ until you are in your 60s.
--
======================Last Days of the 96th Congress==========================
The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider the vote by which the motion to lay on the table the motion to
proceed to the consideration of the fair housing bill was rejected. (The
roll call vote was 61 Yeas, 31 Nays, 8 not voting). So the motion to lay on
the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion to lay on
the table the motion to proceed to the consideration of the fair housing
bill was rejected was agreed to.
==================Quoted by the New Yorker, 1/12/81, p. 91====================
David Swanson
In article <jktaberD...@netcom.com>
jkt...@netcom.com (John K. Taber) writes:
> moggin (mog...@bessel.nando.net) wrote:
>
> : David:
>
> : >Why Don Quixote, and - more puzzling - how could you not enjoy it?
>
> : Because it raises questions about the relation between truth
> : and illusion, fiction and reality, and plays them out _in the text_.
> : But all the stories-within-stories just bored me. To be honest, I've
> : never been able to develop much affection for alot of the Great Books,
> : especially some of the Great, Big ones (for example, _War and Peace_).
> : On the other hand, I liked _A Soldier of the Great War_ immensely.
>
> moggin, don't you think this is personal taste rather than any problem
> with the story? _War and Peace_ absorbed me. I couldn't put it down.
> On the other hand _Don Quixote_ bored me too. But that is not a reflection
> on Don Quixote as it is on me.
You could be right, but how so?
>
> Also, as you (editorial you) get older, tastes decidedly shift. Stories I
> loved 30 years ago leave me cold now. But there are books to look forward
> to. My mother told me that you can't really appreciate _In Remembrance of
> Things Past_ until you are in your 60s.
Sad to say, your mother lied!
David Swanson
In article <4mt6f4$7...@bessel.nando.net>
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
> David:
>
> >Well, the Wasteland has commentary or end-notes, and Pale Fire sort of
> >(allegedly) is largely just that. But this doesn't seem to me a very
> >important characteristic of Palefire, something of what makes it great.
>
> It's certainly one of the distinguishing features of the book,
> and the kind of formal innovation characteristic of post-modernism --
> whether it contributes to "greatness" is another question.
>
> >What about JD Salinger's Freudian footnoting - is that postmodern?
>
> Where is that? I don't usually think of Salinger as a post-
> modernist, but maybe I'll have to reconsider.
Especially in Seymour.
>
> >Palefire's novelty is in its use of language. Its beauty is in its
> >plot - which could largely have been done without the poem-notes
> >device.
>
> I think that the idea of a novel composed of a long poem and a
> many-times longer set of footnotes is at least a novelty -- especially
> when the poet and the scholar are both fictions. _Pale Fire_ would be
> another book if it was written in a conventional format; to my mind, a
> much less interesting one.
Well it's not really possible to say what the book would be with such a
change, but in so far as I can imagine it, I think it would retain most
everything important.
>
> moggin:
>
> >> Which is which? What happens when we confuse them? What's
> >> the difference? _Is_ there a difference? How can we tell them apart?
> >> _Can_ we tell them apart? Who are we? How do we know? That kind of
> >> thing.
>
> David:
>
> >As regards the first six of these questions: I guess so. I mean I
> >don't remember asking myself anything like that. But maybe. The last
> >two sound distinctively un-postmodern. Maybe I'm misinterpreting them.
>
> Post-modernism raises questions about identity, doesn't it?
> (I was taking that as a given -- if you disagree, we'll have to talk
> it over.)
Well, is postmodernism Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, Lyotard,
etc., or is it fiction writers? I should have thought
(anti)philosophical postmodernism took those last two questions as bad
ones. We are an infinite number of things, and Descartes had some
serious hang-ups.
I guess basically I tend to get suspicious when a work of fiction is
discussed or praised as raising some sort of deep questions, or even
just political questions. Art is art. What makes it art has little to
do with the "Questions" scholars squeeze out of it. What distinguishes
"PaleFire" from some other earlier book may be useful for
distinguishing it, while at the same time constituting an extremely
insignificant element in one's experience of "PaleFire". This is not
to say that all art is pretty much the same and the only thing worth
writing about it is writing that covers all of it. There's plenty
worth comparing between, say, PF and "Ulysses". But what's worth
comparing is not necessarily the stylistic bells and whistles. Palefire
is an exercise in expanding sympathies and smiling through grief.
Ulysses is an ironic step back from human engagement. The books are of
two different flavors.
>
> moggin:
>
> > It's just taxonomy, so the advantages are fairly limited, but
> > my way does avoid the term "prepostmodern," as well as the absurdity
> > of reducing the entire Lost Generation to a precursor of the so-called
> > pomo. (Of course, there's a good chance that Weber was just kidding.)
>
> David:
>
> >Seems to me there are contexts where each way is useful.
>
> What's the usefulness of Weber's view? (We should probably
> call it something else, since I don't think he was being serious.)
>
> -- moggin
I haven't read it, but am not sure what "reduction to precursor" status
means. Cezanne was a precursor to Picasso. This doesn't imply that
one or the other is being considered more significant. If I say that
the only thing of value Cezanne accomplished was whatever he
contributed to Picasso, that's another matter. I'd be surprised if
anyone would seriously say that modernity's only useful accomplishment
was producing postmodernity. And I'd object if somebody thought some
mysterious historical force drove the process. But I can think of
plenty of contexts in which to call C a pre-Picassoan and P a
Post-Cezannese, and similarly for prepostmodern and postmodern, with
the difference that the latter is itself also a name analogous to
Picassoan.
moggin
David:
>: >Why Don Quixote, and - more puzzling - how could you not enjoy it?
moggin:
>: Because it raises questions about the relation between truth
>: and illusion, fiction and reality, and plays them out _in the text_.
>: But all the stories-within-stories just bored me. To be honest, I've
>: never been able to develop much affection for alot of the Great Books,
>: especially some of the Great, Big ones (for example, _War and Peace_).
>: On the other hand, I liked _A Soldier of the Great War_ immensely.
jkt...@netcom.com (John K. Taber):
>moggin, don't you think this is personal taste rather than any problem
>with the story? _War and Peace_ absorbed me. I couldn't put it down.
>On the other hand _Don Quixote_ bored me too. But that is not a
>reflection on Don Quixote as it is on me.
I agree -- I was speaking, as a friend of mine used to say,
"from the locus of my own subjectivity."
>Also, as you (editorial you) get older, tastes decidedly
>shift. Stories I loved 30 years ago leave me cold now. But there are
>books to look forward to. My mother told me that you can't really
>appreciate _In Remembrance of Things Past_ until you are in your 60s.
Maybe she's right -- that's another of the Great, Big Books
I've never been able to appreciate. (I finished _Swann's Way_, saw
what lay ahead and said enough of this, already.)
-- moggin
John K. Taber
David Swanson (dc...@darwin.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
[age at which to enjoy Proust]
: Sad to say, your mother lied!
Do you mean she lied in the sense that one can enjoy Proust much younger
than 60, or do you mean that one cannot enjoy Proust even at 60?
: David
: "'Shut up,' he explained." - Ring Lardner
--
moggin
David:
>> >What about JD Salinger's Freudian footnoting - is that postmodern?
moggin:
>> Where is that? I don't usually think of Salinger as a post-
>> modernist, but maybe I'll have to reconsider.
>Especially in Seymour.
Ah, you're right -- how could I have forgotten? (Answer: very
easily. I forget everything. I suppose I could tie a piece of string
around my finger, but then I'd forget what the string was for.) O.k.,
I'll go along with you there.
David:
>> >Palefire's novelty is in its use of language. Its beauty is in its
>> >plot - which could largely have been done without the poem-notes
>> >device.
moggin:
>> I think that the idea of a novel composed of a long poem and a
>> many-times longer set of footnotes is at least a novelty -- especially
>> when the poet and the scholar are both fictions. _Pale Fire_ would be
>> another book if it was written in a conventional format; to my mind, a
>> much less interesting one.
David:
>Well it's not really possible to say what the book would be with such a
>change, but in so far as I can imagine it, I think it would retain most
>everything important.
Obviously it depends on what you attach importance to. I put
some weight on form and style; apparently you don't feel the same way.
moggin:
>> >> Which is which? What happens when we confuse them? What's
>> >> the difference? _Is_ there a difference? How can we tell them apart?
>> >> _Can_ we tell them apart? Who are we? How do we know? That kind of
>> >> thing.
David:
>> >As regards the first six of these questions: I guess so. I mean I
>> >don't remember asking myself anything like that. But maybe. The last
>> >two sound distinctively un-postmodern. Maybe I'm misinterpreting them.
moggin:
>> Post-modernism raises questions about identity, doesn't it?
>> (I was taking that as a given -- if you disagree, we'll have to talk
>> it over.)
David:
>Well, is postmodernism Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, Lyotard,
>etc., or is it fiction writers?
In this case, both. Philosophers aren't the only ones who put
identity into question. ("_Je suis un autre_.")
>I should have thought (anti)philosophical postmodernism took those
>last two questions as bad ones. We are an infinite number of things,
>and Descartes had some serious hang-ups.
Post-modernism takes them as very good questions -- it's the
_answers_ that come under suspicion.
>I guess basically I tend to get suspicious when a work of fiction is
>discussed or praised as raising some sort of deep questions, or even
>just political questions. Art is art. What makes it art has little to
>do with the "Questions" scholars squeeze out of it.
When you put it that way, I tend to agree -- lit. crit. is too
often modeled after those "Questions for Further Study" at the end of
each story in the English-class anthologies. (Critics are usually the
kids who did all their homework, so this shouldn't be a big surprise.)
On the other hand, you may be saying that art has no room for
thinking, which is an attitude I have no patience for. Art is, or it
should be more than didacticism -- but that doesn't mean it has to be
brain-dead.
>What distinguishes "PaleFire" from some other earlier book may be
>useful for distinguishing it, while at the same time constituting an
>extremely insignificant element in one's experience of "PaleFire".
>This is not to say that all art is pretty much the same and the only
>thing worth writing about it is writing that covers all of it.
>There's plenty worth comparing between, say, PF and "Ulysses". But
>what's worth comparing is not necessarily the stylistic bells and
>whistles. Palefire is an exercise in expanding sympathies and smiling
>through grief. Ulysses is an ironic step back from human engagement.
>The books are of two different flavors.
Isn't this a variation of the approach you were criticizing
above? Instead of turning literature into a set of deep questions,
you see it as some kind of psychological calisthenics. ("...and one
and two..._Expand_ those sympathies! Good!...and three and four...
That's right! Keep it up!...and one and two..._Smile_ through grief!
Make it a big one!...and three and four...Great! Now take an ironic
step back from human engagement!...and one and two...That's the way!
Now let's cool down..."
moggin:
> > It's just taxonomy, so the advantages are fairly limited, but
> > my way does avoid the term "prepostmodern," as well as the absurdity
> > of reducing the entire Lost Generation to a precursor of the so-called
> > pomo. (Of course, there's a good chance that Weber was just kidding.)
David:
>I haven't read it, but am not sure what "reduction to precursor" status
>means. Cezanne was a precursor to Picasso. This doesn't imply that
>one or the other is being considered more significant. If I say that
>the only thing of value Cezanne accomplished was whatever he
>contributed to Picasso, that's another matter. I'd be surprised if
>anyone would seriously say that modernity's only useful accomplishment
>was producing postmodernity. And I'd object if somebody thought some
>mysterious historical force drove the process.
Those were exactly my objections. No question there's a line
from modernism to post-modernism in literature, just as there is from
post-Impressionism to Cubism in painting -- what bothered me was the
implication that one was just a paving stone on the road to the other.
>But I can think of
>plenty of contexts in which to call C a pre-Picassoan and P a
>Post-Cezannese, and similarly for prepostmodern and postmodern, with
>the difference that the latter is itself also a name analogous to
>Picassoan.
Is that anything like the Laocoon?
-- moggin
Andy Perry
In article <4n45h1$q...@bessel.nando.net>, mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
wrote:
> Philosophers aren't the only ones who put
>identity into question. ("_Je suis un autre_.")
Ahem. "_Je *est* un autre_."
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Andy, "thinking I was I was not who was not was not who"
--
Andy Perry We search before and after,
Brown University We pine for what is not.
English Department Our sincerest laughter
Andrew...@brown.edu OR With some pain is fraught.
st00...@brownvm.bitnet -- Shelley, d'apres Horace Rumpole
Omar Haneef '96
Andy Perry (Andrew...@Brown.edu) wrote:
> In article <4n45h1$q...@bessel.nando.net>, mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
> wrote:
>
> >identity into question. ("_Je suis un autre_.")
>
>
Shouldn't that be "J'est un autre"? Although, I confess, I don't know the
reference.
-Omar
moggin
moggin:
>> Philosophers aren't the only ones who put identity into question.
>>("_Je suis un autre_.")
Andy:
>Ahem. "_Je *est* un autre_."
Oops. You're right, of course -- thanks for the correction.
Omar:
>Shouldn't that be "J'est un autre"? Although, I confess, I don't know
>the reference.
The reference is to Rimbaud, who said what Andy quoted above:
"_I_ is an other" (and not "I am another," which is what I was making
him say).
-- moggin
David Swanson
> Do you mean she lied in the sense that one can enjoy Proust much younger
> than 60, or do you mean that one cannot enjoy Proust even at 60?
The former of course!
DS
David Swanson
In article <4n45h1$q...@bessel.nando.net>
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
> On the other hand, you may be saying that art has no room for
> thinking, which is an attitude I have no patience for. Art is, or it
> should be more than didacticism -- but that doesn't mean it has to be
> brain-dead.
No, but neither is the didactic nit-picking interesting. You say that
you attach importance to style and I don't. Well, ultimately, of
course, as Susan Sontag never tires of repeating, you can't isolate
"style" from "content". Still, they're useful terms. The latter MEANS
that which is less important. Mark Twain said all writers say the same
old stuff in a new way. OK, but it's the same old stuff that's
important.
> Isn't this a variation of the approach you were criticizing
> above? Instead of turning literature into a set of deep questions,
> you see it as some kind of psychological calisthenics. ("...and one
> and two..._Expand_ those sympathies! Good!...and three and four...
> That's right! Keep it up!...and one and two..._Smile_ through grief!
> Make it a big one!...and three and four...Great! Now take an ironic
> step back from human engagement!...and one and two...That's the way!
> Now let's cool down..."
Not bad, no. But it's not crucially a matter of the reader's or the
author's doing these things, rather of the book's doing them.
> >But I can think of
> >plenty of contexts in which to call C a pre-Picassoan and P a
> >Post-Cezannese, and similarly for prepostmodern and postmodern, with
> >the difference that the latter is itself also a name analogous to
> >Picassoan.
>
> Is that anything like the Laocoon?
Not a bit. In this case the serpent enters the man's mouth and exits
from the child's anus, wrapping around his fifth leg and supporting the
entire composition on his forked tongue.
From The Devil's Dictionary:
LAOCOON, n. A famous piece of antique sculpture representing a priest
of that name and his two sons in the folds of two enormous serpents.
The skill and diligence with which the old man and lads support the
serpents and keep them up to their work have been justly regarded as
one of the noblest artistic illustrations of the mastery of human
intelligence over brute inertia.
David The Anointed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
John K. Taber (jkt...@netcom.com) wrote:
: _War and Peace_ absorbed me. I couldn't put it down.
Sounds like a personal problem.
David
- --
i swear i don't have a gun | Copyright (C) 1996 By DAVID A.H. PERRY
I SWEAR I DON'T HAVE A GUN | http://www.clark.net/pub/thedavid/trythis.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMZavou5bJgnmjCuBAQEu6gP/VoKoMekrd5Y8tv14dpHt71VtL/h+Ji80
wUrP8RFKCqYt+gulfitiF/jJ4yV0IPECzfj59QmdFk91+gmtdBIx0SiZSKLKX7yG
zFyvPHR6XiFwxSSa+moyYAMbyfw9TzdzaaV9JE9Vr9pcHFxuQhCUxgAt0a3De4CP
JvL4F4rM6g4=
=uzkO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David The Anointed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
John K. Taber (jkt...@netcom.com) wrote:
: David Swanson (dc...@darwin.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
: [age at which to enjoy Proust]
: : Sad to say, your mother lied!
:
: Do you mean she lied in the sense that one can enjoy Proust much younger
: than 60, or do you mean that one cannot enjoy Proust even at 60?
I'd say the latter. But then I'm not yer mama.
TheDavid
- --
i swear i don't have a gun | Copyright (C) 1996 By DAVID A.H. PERRY
I SWEAR I DON'T HAVE A GUN | http://www.clark.net/pub/thedavid/trythis.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMZav/u5bJgnmjCuBAQFWJgP/aq6fSEq6XaUo2mBo2FxCcwZroVeOHe/C
zyvlk6P+DXV073bVFfmUsUu7+jGt8wbvHQnGLHI/Z3rkjiITxoNrQhS5MxiR0vZ3
guCq55OzC5mfIt5xNPBTcgmklzQ4tM8nMseHYF+bqygtTdxn/phzmMeXox07oylz
kyLpd4whUCQ=
=xGhZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Andy Perry
In article <4n5ggc$o...@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>,
han...@engin.swarthmore.edu (Omar Haneef '96) wrote:
>Andy Perry (Andrew...@Brown.edu) wrote:
>> In article <4n45h1$q...@bessel.nando.net>, mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Philosophers aren't the only ones who put
>> >identity into question. ("_Je suis un autre_.")
>>
>> Ahem. "_Je *est* un autre_."
>>
>
>Shouldn't that be "J'est un autre"? Although, I confess, I don't know the
>reference.
It's somewhere in Rimbaud, although I confess that I've only read it
quoted by others, so I don't know where. The lengthier quotation of which
this is a part is (from memory, so it's probably wrong):
Au lieu de dire "Je pense," on devrait dire "Il me pense." Je est un autre.
moggin
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>> On the other hand, you may be saying that art has no room for
>> thinking, which is an attitude I have no patience for. Art is, or it
>> should be more than didacticism -- but that doesn't mean it has to be
>> brain-dead.
David:
>No, but neither is the didactic nit-picking interesting.
Of course not -- but which nit-picking would that be? I can
agree on the principle, but I have a feeling we may differ about the
application.
>You say that you attach importance to style and I don't. Well,
>ultimately, of course, as Susan Sontag never tires of repeating, you
>can't isolate "style" from "content". Still, they're useful terms.
>The latter MEANS that which is less important.
Did you mean to say the former? Assuming you did, since when
is style defined as "Something less important than content"? That's
a long-standing prejudice, but I didn't realize it had worked its way
into the dictionaries.
>Mark Twain said all writers say the same old stuff in a new way. OK,
>but it's the same old stuff that's important.
I don't see why that would be. But if we say that it _is_ the
case, for the sake of argument, then art is a set of trappings for the
"old stuff" (eternal verities? family values? perennial wisdom?) which
it represents.
moggin:
>>Instead of turning literature into a set of deep questions, you see
>>it as some kind of psychological calisthenics.
David:
>Not bad, no. But it's not crucially a matter of the reader's or the
>author's doing these things, rather of the book's doing them.
That's where the emphasis belongs, I completely agree, but why
would a book need to perform the Canadian Air Force exercises? And if
the key is that it's the _book_ which does them, wouldn't intellectual
calisthenics be as valuable as psychological ones?
David:
>>>I can think of plenty of contexts in which to call C a pre-Picassoan
>>>and P a Post-Cezannese, and similarly for prepostmodern and
>>>postmodern, with the difference that the latter is itself also a name
>>>analogous to Picassoan.
moggin:
>> Is that anything like the Laocoon?
David:
>Not a bit. In this case the serpent enters the man's mouth and exits
>from the child's anus, wrapping around his fifth leg and supporting
>the entire composition on his forked tongue.
Got it -- thanks. Although I don't think I've seen that one.
Blue period?
-- moggin
David Swanson
In article <4n7n0b$q...@bessel.nando.net>
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>
> >> On the other hand, you may be saying that art has no room for
> >> thinking, which is an attitude I have no patience for. Art is, or it
> >> should be more than didacticism -- but that doesn't mean it has to be
> >> brain-dead.
>
> David:
>
> >No, but neither is the didactic nit-picking interesting.
>
> Of course not -- but which nit-picking would that be? I can
> agree on the principle, but I have a feeling we may differ about the
> application.
I suspect you're right. As I recall the example was the importance of
footnotes and of a novel purporting to be commentary on a poem, etc.
>
> >You say that you attach importance to style and I don't. Well,
> >ultimately, of course, as Susan Sontag never tires of repeating, you
> >can't isolate "style" from "content". Still, they're useful terms.
> >The latter MEANS that which is less important.
>
> Did you mean to say the former?
Yes. I'm sorry.
Assuming you did, since when
> is style defined as "Something less important than content"?
Perhaps only since my last post.
That's
> a long-standing prejudice, but I didn't realize it had worked its way
> into the dictionaries.
Ah, but the dictionaries are to be blamed for that. What are your (or
the dictionaries') definitions of "style" and "content"?
>
> >Mark Twain said all writers say the same old stuff in a new way. OK,
> >but it's the same old stuff that's important.
>
> I don't see why that would be. But if we say that it _is_ the
> case, for the sake of argument, then art is a set of trappings for the
> "old stuff" (eternal verities? family values? perennial wisdom?) which
> it represents.
More like: love, fear, joy, death, birth, caring, terror, peace,
surprise, regret, longing, despair, and exaltation.
>
> moggin:
>
> >>Instead of turning literature into a set of deep questions, you see
> >>it as some kind of psychological calisthenics.
>
> David:
>
> >Not bad, no. But it's not crucially a matter of the reader's or the
> >author's doing these things, rather of the book's doing them.
>
> That's where the emphasis belongs, I completely agree, but why
> would a book need to perform the Canadian Air Force exercises? And if
> the key is that it's the _book_ which does them, wouldn't intellectual
> calisthenics be as valuable as psychological ones?
What's the distinction? John Dewey didn't make one.
>
> David:
>
> >>>I can think of plenty of contexts in which to call C a pre-Picassoan
> >>>and P a Post-Cezannese, and similarly for prepostmodern and
> >>>postmodern, with the difference that the latter is itself also a name
> >>>analogous to Picassoan.
>
> moggin:
>
> >> Is that anything like the Laocoon?
>
> David:
>
> >Not a bit. In this case the serpent enters the man's mouth and exits
> >from the child's anus, wrapping around his fifth leg and supporting
> >the entire composition on his forked tongue.
>
> Got it -- thanks. Although I don't think I've seen that one.
> Blue period?
Fuchsia.
David
>
> -- moggin
moggin
moggin:
>> >> On the other hand, you may be saying that art has no room for
>> >> thinking, which is an attitude I have no patience for. Art is, or it
>> >> should be more than didacticism -- but that doesn't mean it has to be
>> >> brain-dead.
David:
>> >No, but neither is the didactic nit-picking interesting.
>> Of course not -- but which nit-picking would that be? I can
>> agree on the principle, but I have a feeling we may differ about the
>> application.
David:
>I suspect you're right. As I recall the example was the importance of
>footnotes and of a novel purporting to be commentary on a poem, etc.
Oh, _now_ I see -- you think that I'm being didactic (not to
speak of nit-picking) by suggesting that the form of the book matters,
when what you want to concentrate on is the story. In that case, you
should be aiming your fire at Nabokov and everyone else who writes in
any form except "and then...and then...and then." I didn't order him
to do that; much as it pains me to confess, Vladimir didn't even call
and ask for my advice. (Things were never the same with us after I
wondered aloud if he was named after the Impaler.)
David:
>> >You say that you attach importance to style and I don't. Well,
>> >ultimately, of course, as Susan Sontag never tires of repeating, you
>> >can't isolate "style" from "content". Still, they're useful terms.
>> >The former MEANS that which is less important.
moggin:
>>Since when is style defined as "Something less important than content"?
David:
>Perhaps only since my last post.
That would explain why Webster's hasn't caught up.
moggin:
>That's
>> a long-standing prejudice, but I didn't realize it had worked its way
>> into the dictionaries.
David:
>Ah, but the dictionaries are to be blamed for that. What are your (or
>the dictionaries') definitions of "style" and "content"?
I'll look them up some other time, or you can go ahead.
David:
>> >Mark Twain said all writers say the same old stuff in a new way. OK,
>> >but it's the same old stuff that's important.
moggin:
>> I don't see why that would be. But if we say that it _is_ the
>> case, for the sake of argument, then art is a set of trappings for the
>> "old stuff" (eternal verities? family values? perennial wisdom?) which
>> it represents.
David:
>More like: love, fear, joy, death, birth, caring, terror, peace,
>surprise, regret, longing, despair, and exaltation.
Your forgot psoriasis and ring-around-the-collar, inspiration
for those immortal words, "You try rubbing it out, scrubbing it out --
but still...!" _There's_ the human condition, not to mention the best
writing about laundry since _Macbeth_ (although Empson observes that
Lady MacB. could also be understood as referring to her least-beloved
dog).
moggin:
>>If the key is that it's the _book_ which does them, wouldn't
>>intellectual calisthenics be as valuable as psychological ones?
David:
>What's the distinction? John Dewey didn't make one.
He may not have combed his hair, either -- makes no difference
to me. But I agree -- there isn't any important distinction, at least
for our purposes; so you should be willing to see books perform either
intellectual exercises or emotional ones, as far as that goes.
-- moggin
David Swanson
Moggin, I get the impression you're tired of this conversation. You've
stopped saying anything - perhaps because you think I have.
In article <4ndnur$e...@bessel.nando.net>
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
> moggin:
>
> >> >> On the other hand, you may be saying that art has no room for
> >> >> thinking, which is an attitude I have no patience for. Art is, or it
> >> >> should be more than didacticism -- but that doesn't mean it has to be
> >> >> brain-dead.
>
> David:
>
> >> >No, but neither is the didactic nit-picking interesting.
>
> >> Of course not -- but which nit-picking would that be? I can
> >> agree on the principle, but I have a feeling we may differ about the
> >> application.
>
> David:
>
> >I suspect you're right. As I recall the example was the importance of
> >footnotes and of a novel purporting to be commentary on a poem, etc.
>
> Oh, _now_ I see -- you think that I'm being didactic (not to
> speak of nit-picking) by suggesting that the form of the book matters,
> when what you want to concentrate on is the story. In that case, you
> should be aiming your fire at Nabokov and everyone else who writes in
> any form except "and then...and then...and then." I didn't order him
> to do that; much as it pains me to confess, Vladimir didn't even call
> and ask for my advice. (Things were never the same with us after I
> wondered aloud if he was named after the Impaler.)
It's not that Pale Fire could be changes even in the slightest detail
and still be the same book. It's just that certain elements in it are
what strike one as interesting, important, valuable about it. One
would read other books if they had these things. And one would read
Pale Fire if, per impossibile, it had no other. These things are, for
lack of a better word, the story.
>
> David:
>
> >> >You say that you attach importance to style and I don't. Well,
> >> >ultimately, of course, as Susan Sontag never tires of repeating, you
> >> >can't isolate "style" from "content". Still, they're useful terms.
> >> >The former MEANS that which is less important.
>
> moggin:
>
> >>Since when is style defined as "Something less important than content"?
>
> David:
>
> >Perhaps only since my last post.
>
> That would explain why Webster's hasn't caught up.
>
> moggin:
>
> >That's
> >> a long-standing prejudice, but I didn't realize it had worked its way
> >> into the dictionaries.
>
> David:
>
> >Ah, but the dictionaries are to be blamed for that. What are your (or
> >the dictionaries') definitions of "style" and "content"?
>
> I'll look them up some other time, or you can go ahead.
It wasn't an idle question. The point was that since you can't really
isolate either style or content, and since content is what one finds of
value in an artwork, style is the other stuff.
>
> David:
>
> >> >Mark Twain said all writers say the same old stuff in a new way. OK,
> >> >but it's the same old stuff that's important.
>
> moggin:
>
> >> I don't see why that would be. But if we say that it _is_ the
> >> case, for the sake of argument, then art is a set of trappings for the
> >> "old stuff" (eternal verities? family values? perennial wisdom?) which
> >> it represents.
>
> David:
>
> >More like: love, fear, joy, death, birth, caring, terror, peace,
> >surprise, regret, longing, despair, and exaltation.
>
> Your forgot psoriasis and ring-around-the-collar, inspiration
> for those immortal words, "You try rubbing it out, scrubbing it out --
> but still...!" _There's_ the human condition, not to mention the best
> writing about laundry since _Macbeth_ (although Empson observes that
> Lady MacB. could also be understood as referring to her least-beloved
> dog).
>
You'd be better off producing an example of a great novel which is
great for some reason not in my (admittedly rough and incomplete) list.
> moggin:
>
> >>If the key is that it's the _book_ which does them, wouldn't
> >>intellectual calisthenics be as valuable as psychological ones?
>
> David:
>
> >What's the distinction? John Dewey didn't make one.
>
> He may not have combed his hair, either -- makes no difference
> to me. But I agree -- there isn't any important distinction, at least
> for our purposes; so you should be willing to see books perform either
> intellectual exercises or emotional ones, as far as that goes.
There isn't any distinction between A and B, so therefore I should be
willing to recognize either A or B. What? Moggin, wake up please. Is
somebody forging your signature?
DS
>
> -- moggin
"It is interesting to note that the death penalty for individuals is
less controversial than the mere suggestion that a few corporations may
have forfeited their right to exist. How many people does a company
have to harm before we question if it ought to exist?" Paul Hawken
moggin
David:
>Moggin, I get the impression you're tired of this conversation.
>You've stopped saying anything - perhaps because you think I have.
That's it -- I was just waiting to hear back from you. (I
was starting to think that either you had gone to look for greener
fields, or my last post had gone missing.)
moggin:
>>>>>>On the other hand, you may be saying that art has no room for
>>>>>>thinking, which is an attitude I have no patience for. Art is, or it
>>>>>>should be more than didacticism -- but that doesn't mean it has to be
>>>>>>brain-dead.
David:
>>>>>No, but neither is the didactic nit-picking interesting.
moggin:
>>>> Of course not -- but which nit-picking would that be? I can
>>>> agree on the principle, but I have a feeling we may differ about the
>>>> application.
David:
>>>I suspect you're right. As I recall the example was the importance of
>>>footnotes and of a novel purporting to be commentary on a poem, etc.
moggin:
>> Oh, _now_ I see -- you think that I'm being didactic (not to
>> speak of nit-picking) by suggesting that the form of the book matters,
>> when what you want to concentrate on is the story. In that case, you
>> should be aiming your fire at Nabokov and everyone else who writes in
>> any form except "and then...and then...and then." I didn't order him
>> to do that; much as it pains me to confess, Vladimir didn't even call
>> and ask for my advice. (Things were never the same with us after I
>> wondered aloud if he was named after the Impaler.)
David:
>It's not that Pale Fire could be changes even in the slightest detail
>and still be the same book. It's just that certain elements in it are
>what strike one as interesting, important, valuable about it. One
>would read other books if they had these things. And one would read
>Pale Fire if, per impossibile, it had no other. These things are, for
>lack of a better word, the story.
I understand, but that's exactly where we differ. You could
explain it, in part, as a matter of taste. (Not that invoking taste
would _explain_ anything, but...) You read for the story, while I'm
more interested in form and style. I certainly can't agree that the
story is what makes _Pale Fire_ important and valuable, or that it's
enough to make the book worth reading, in and of itself -- it's even
hard for me to believe you really think so. The implication is that
a plot summary contains the central element of a novel, and that any
novel worth reading has a plot which can be summed.
David:
>>>>>You say that you attach importance to style and I don't. Well,
>>>>>ultimately, of course, as Susan Sontag never tires of repeating, you
>>>>>can't isolate "style" from "content". Still, they're useful terms.
>>>>>The former MEANS that which is less important.
moggin:
>>>>Since when is style defined as "Something less important than content"?
>>>>That's a long-standing prejudice, but I didn't realize it had worked
>>>>its way into the dictionaries.
David:
>> >Ah, but the dictionaries are to be blamed for that. What are your (or
>> >the dictionaries') definitions of "style" and "content"?
moggin:
>> I'll look them up some other time, or you can go ahead.
David:
>It wasn't an idle question. The point was that since you can't really
>isolate either style or content, and since content is what one finds of
>value in an artwork, style is the other stuff.
But that's what I was questioning -- the idea that the value
of a work of art resides in its content, and that style has marginal
importance, is nothing but (as I was saying) a prejudice that you've
managed to inherit.
David:
>>>>>Mark Twain said all writers say the same old stuff in a new way. OK,
>>>>>but it's the same old stuff that's important.
moggin:
>> >> I don't see why that would be. But if we say that it _is_ the
>> >> case, for the sake of argument, then art is a set of trappings for the
>> >> "old stuff" (eternal verities? family values? perennial wisdom?) which
>> >> it represents.
David:
>> >More like: love, fear, joy, death, birth, caring, terror, peace,
>> >surprise, regret, longing, despair, and exaltation.
moggin:
>> Your forgot the heartbreak of psoriasis and ring-around-the-
>>collar, inspiration for those immortal words, "You try rubbing it out,
>>scrubbing it out -- but still...!" _There's_ the human condition, not
>>to mention the best writing about laundry since _Macbeth_ (although
>>Empson observes that Lady MacB. could also be understood as referring
>>to her least-beloved dog).
David:
>You'd be better off producing an example of a great novel which is
>great for some reason not in my (admittedly rough and incomplete)
>list.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought it was just a
list of emotions -- that's why I added a couple you left off.
moggin:
>> >>If the key is that it's the _book_ which does them, wouldn't
>> >>intellectual calisthenics be as valuable as psychological ones?
David:
>> >What's the distinction? John Dewey didn't make one.
moggin:
>> He may not have combed his hair, either -- makes no difference
>> to me. But I agree -- there isn't any important distinction, at least
>> for our purposes; so you should be willing to see books perform either
>> intellectual exercises or emotional ones, as far as that goes.
David:
>There isn't any distinction between A and B, so therefore I should be
>willing to recognize either A or B. What? Moggin, wake up please. Is
>somebody forging your signature?
Not on this thread, anyway. But I must still be catching z's,
because I'm not following you. I'd say the answer is yes: if there's
no distinction between A and B, you should be willing to accept either
one. Why not? The given is that there isn't any relevant difference,
after all.
-- moggin
David Swanson
In article <4nlij1$b...@bessel.nando.net>
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
> David:
>
> >Moggin, I get the impression you're tired of this conversation.
> >You've stopped saying anything - perhaps because you think I have.
>
> That's it -- I was just waiting to hear back from you. (I
> was starting to think that either you had gone to look for greener
> fields, or my last post had gone missing.)
Well my modem did get zapped by lightning. That's a better excuse than
my usual stock, and true.
I don't accept that implication. Let me try putting my case another
way. Being able to create a stunning new style (let's say you're
capable of continuing Finnegan's Wake or duplicating Faulkner or
anything you please) will go a very short fragment of the way toward
enabling you to write a great novel. Style is necessary. You can't
write the novel without it. But it's not much alone. I don't know
whether this sort of skill is more common than are good stories. There
may even be more good stories out there in search of stylistic skill
than stylists in search of stories to tell. That's not the point. Let
me try it this way. If I had to organize my collection of novels
(rather than lose them, burn them, give them away, kick them into the
next room) I'd put authors from various time periods together. Nabokov
(or some of him) might sit near Charlotte Bronte, Beecher Stowe, and
who knows who else. That's the way I'd want them organized.
>
> David:
>
> >>>>>You say that you attach importance to style and I don't. Well,
> >>>>>ultimately, of course, as Susan Sontag never tires of repeating, you
> >>>>>can't isolate "style" from "content". Still, they're useful terms.
> >>>>>The former MEANS that which is less important.
>
> moggin:
>
> >>>>Since when is style defined as "Something less important than content"?
> >>>>That's a long-standing prejudice, but I didn't realize it had worked
> >>>>its way into the dictionaries.
>
> David:
>
> >> >Ah, but the dictionaries are to be blamed for that. What are your (or
> >> >the dictionaries') definitions of "style" and "content"?
>
> moggin:
>
> >> I'll look them up some other time, or you can go ahead.
>
> David:
>
> >It wasn't an idle question. The point was that since you can't really
> >isolate either style or content, and since content is what one finds of
> >value in an artwork, style is the other stuff.
>
> But that's what I was questioning -- the idea that the value
> of a work of art resides in its content, and that style has marginal
> importance, is nothing but (as I was saying) a prejudice that you've
> managed to inherit.
But it's not a "prejudice" against the bells and whistles of a Joyce or
a Nabokov. I wouldn't dare touch a comma of "Ulysses." It's an answer
to the question "Why is this book wonderful?" as opposed to "How is
this book differentiatable from other similar books?"
>
> David:
>
> >>>>>Mark Twain said all writers say the same old stuff in a new way. OK,
> >>>>>but it's the same old stuff that's important.
>
> moggin:
>
> >> >> I don't see why that would be. But if we say that it _is_ the
> >> >> case, for the sake of argument, then art is a set of trappings for the
> >> >> "old stuff" (eternal verities? family values? perennial wisdom?) which
> >> >> it represents.
>
> David:
>
> >> >More like: love, fear, joy, death, birth, caring, terror, peace,
> >> >surprise, regret, longing, despair, and exaltation.
>
> moggin:
>
> >> Your forgot the heartbreak of psoriasis and ring-around-the-
> >>collar, inspiration for those immortal words, "You try rubbing it out,
> >>scrubbing it out -- but still...!" _There's_ the human condition, not
> >>to mention the best writing about laundry since _Macbeth_ (although
> >>Empson observes that Lady MacB. could also be understood as referring
> >>to her least-beloved dog).
>
> David:
>
> >You'd be better off producing an example of a great novel which is
> >great for some reason not in my (admittedly rough and incomplete)
> >list.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought it was just a
> list of emotions -- that's why I added a couple you left off.
Are you implying that your tongue was not in your cheek? A serious
response would be that what you gave were specific causes of an
emotion.
>
> moggin:
>
> >> >>If the key is that it's the _book_ which does them, wouldn't
> >> >>intellectual calisthenics be as valuable as psychological ones?
>
> David:
>
> >> >What's the distinction? John Dewey didn't make one.
>
> moggin:
>
> >> He may not have combed his hair, either -- makes no difference
> >> to me. But I agree -- there isn't any important distinction, at least
> >> for our purposes; so you should be willing to see books perform either
> >> intellectual exercises or emotional ones, as far as that goes.
>
> David:
>
> >There isn't any distinction between A and B, so therefore I should be
> >willing to recognize either A or B. What? Moggin, wake up please. Is
> >somebody forging your signature?
>
> Not on this thread, anyway. But I must still be catching z's,
> because I'm not following you. I'd say the answer is yes: if there's
> no distinction between A and B, you should be willing to accept either
> one. Why not? The given is that there isn't any relevant difference,
> after all.
The idea is that we are not well served by the distinction. Everything
is both. There isn't, therefore, anything I'm refusing to recognize.
And I've seen Dewey with his hair combed;-)
DS
moggin
David:
>> >It's not that Pale Fire could be changes even in the slightest detail
>> >and still be the same book. It's just that certain elements in it are
>> >what strike one as interesting, important, valuable about it. One
>> >would read other books if they had these things. And one would read
>> >Pale Fire if, per impossibile, it had no other. These things are, for
>> >lack of a better word, the story.
moggin:
>> I understand, but that's exactly where we differ. You could
>> explain it, in part, as a matter of taste. (Not that invoking taste
>> would _explain_ anything, but...) You read for the story, while I'm
>> more interested in form and style. I certainly can't agree that the
>> story is what makes _Pale Fire_ important and valuable, or that it's
>> enough to make the book worth reading, in and of itself -- it's even
>> hard for me to believe you really think so. The implication is that
>> a plot summary contains the central element of a novel, and that any
>> novel worth reading has a plot which can be summed.
David:
>I don't accept that implication. Let me try putting my case another
>way. Being able to create a stunning new style (let's say you're
>capable of continuing Finnegan's Wake or duplicating Faulkner or
>anything you please) will go a very short fragment of the way toward
>enabling you to write a great novel. Style is necessary. You can't
>write the novel without it. But it's not much alone.
Oh, sure it is, and the proof is that there are novels which
succeed without much or anything in the way of narrative -- think of
Beckett, for example, or the countless other modern and post-modern
books and stories where nothing happens, or where "shit happens" is
the only principle (call them "picaresque"). Even the examples you
gave are ambiguous. Joyce's novels are highly structured (to say the
least), but they don't have much in the way of plot, while Faulkner,
like le Carre, is _so_ deeply plotted that the effect is the same.
"On the other hand," I want to say, "plot without style is
crap," and that's pretty much how I feel, but Dreiser does have his
admirers, and there are others like him, so I may have a disputable
view.
David:
>I don't know
>whether this sort of skill is more common than are good stories. There
>may even be more good stories out there in search of stylistic skill
>than stylists in search of stories to tell. That's not the point. Let
>me try it this way. If I had to organize my collection of novels
>(rather than lose them, burn them, give them away, kick them into the
>next room) I'd put authors from various time periods together. Nabokov
>(or some of him) might sit near Charlotte Bronte, Beecher Stowe, and
>who knows who else. That's the way I'd want them organized.
The relevance escapes me, but this is something I think about,
too -- there just doesn't seem to be a good system. How do you handle
genres? The Brontes should be together -- that seems obvious. But do
you put their novels together with their poetry? Or do they go in two
different places? And what about criticism? Does it belong next to
its subject (Library of Congress), or by itself (Dewey Decimal)? And
in either case, what happens to someone like Eliot, who wrote poetry,
drama, criticism, and whatever the hell you want to call _The Rock_?
Another question -- what time period includes Nabokov and any
of the Brontes? (I guess you believe in taking the long view; that or
while you don't think in the 19th century, as you said, it may still
be where you do all your reading, no matter what century you found it
in.)
David:
>> >The point was that since you can't really
>> >isolate either style or content, and since content is what one finds of
>> >value in an artwork, style is the other stuff.
moggin:
>> But that's what I was questioning -- the idea that the value
>> of a work of art resides in its content, and that style has marginal
>> importance, is nothing but (as I was saying) a prejudice that you've
>> managed to inherit.
David:
>But it's not a "prejudice" against the bells and whistles of a Joyce or
>a Nabokov. I wouldn't dare touch a comma of "Ulysses." It's an answer
>to the question "Why is this book wonderful?" as opposed to "How is
>this book differentiatable from other similar books?"
Then is it a prejudice in favor of narrative? I'm glad you
wouldn't replace _Ulysses_ with a synopsis (especially since there's
been sentiment of that kind expressed around here). But I don't see
why you would say that the narrative is valuable and consign style to
the category of "other stuff." And if the other stuff is valueless,
what's a comma here or there?
David:
>> >>>>>Mark Twain said all writers say the same old stuff in a new way. OK,
>> >>>>>but it's the same old stuff that's important.
moggin:
>> >> >> I don't see why that would be. But if we say that it _is_ the
>> >> >> case, for the sake of argument, then art is a set of trappings for the
>> >> >> "old stuff" (eternal verities? family values? perennial wisdom?) which
>> >> >> it represents.
David:
>> >> >More like: love, fear, joy, death, birth, caring, terror, peace,
>> >> >surprise, regret, longing, despair, and exaltation.
moggin:
>> >> Your forgot the heartbreak of psoriasis and ring-around-the-
>> >>collar, inspiration for those immortal words, "You try rubbing it out,
>> >>scrubbing it out -- but still...!" _There's_ the human condition, not
>> >>to mention the best writing about laundry since _Macbeth_ (although
>> >>Empson observes that Lady MacB. could also be understood as referring
>> >>to her least-beloved dog).
David:
>> >You'd be better off producing an example of a great novel which is
>> >great for some reason not in my (admittedly rough and incomplete)
>> >list.
moggin:
>> Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought it was just a
>> list of emotions -- that's why I added a couple you left off.
David:
>Are you implying that your tongue was not in your cheek? A serious
>response would be that what you gave were specific causes of an
>emotion.
That would be true if we could distinguish between an emotion
and its cause. "The heartbreak of psoriasis" is a form of heartbreak,
yet it's a unique feeling related to a certain persistent, unsightly
kind of rash. And although ring-around-the-collar creates a feeling
that could only be called frustration, it's the objective correlative
of a particular type of unhappiness which could be evoked in no other
way.
David:
>> >There isn't any distinction between A and B, so therefore I should be
>> >willing to recognize either A or B. What? Moggin, wake up please. Is
>> >somebody forging your signature?
moggin:
>> Not on this thread, anyway. But I must still be catching z's,
>> because I'm not following you. I'd say the answer is yes: if there's
>> no distinction between A and B, you should be willing to accept either
>> one. Why not? The given is that there isn't any relevant difference,
>> after all.
>The idea is that we are not well served by the distinction. Everything
>is both. There isn't, therefore, anything I'm refusing to recognize.
I accept the principle, but doesn't it follow that any given
novel can have emotional content, intellectual content, or even both,
without being any the worse off?
>And I've seen Dewey with his hair combed;-)
Then you're one-up on me.
-- moggin
David Swanson
> Oh, sure it is, and the proof is that there are novels which
> succeed without much or anything in the way of narrative -- think of
> Beckett,
I try not to.
for example, or the countless other modern and post-modern
> books and stories where nothing happens, or where "shit happens" is
> the only principle (call them "picaresque"). Even the examples you
> gave are ambiguous. Joyce's novels are highly structured (to say the
> least), but they don't have much in the way of plot,
Are you thinking of F's Wake. That's the only one that seems to
possibly fit. I must admit that there is a case where what most
powerfully strikes one is the use of words as such. That is hardly the
case with "Pale Fire".
while Faulkner,
> like le Carre, is _so_ deeply plotted that the effect is the same.
It is? How?
>
> "On the other hand," I want to say, "plot without style is
> crap," and that's pretty much how I feel, but Dreiser does have his
> admirers, and there are others like him, so I may have a disputable
> view.
I don't dispute it.
>
> David:
>
> >I don't know
> >whether this sort of skill is more common than are good stories. There
> >may even be more good stories out there in search of stylistic skill
> >than stylists in search of stories to tell. That's not the point. Let
> >me try it this way. If I had to organize my collection of novels
> >(rather than lose them, burn them, give them away, kick them into the
> >next room) I'd put authors from various time periods together. Nabokov
> >(or some of him) might sit near Charlotte Bronte, Beecher Stowe, and
> >who knows who else. That's the way I'd want them organized.
>
> The relevance escapes me, but this is something I think about,
> too -- there just doesn't seem to be a good system. How do you handle
> genres?
In many case I wouldn't handle genres. That's what I was saying.
The Brontes should be together -- that seems obvious.
Not to me. Emily should sit near Camus, if not on his lap.
But do
> you put their novels together with their poetry?
I don't know.
Or do they go in two
> different places?
If so, probably not BECAUSE they are different genres.
And what about criticism? Does it belong next to
> its subject (Library of Congress), or by itself (Dewey Decimal)? And
> in either case, what happens to someone like Eliot, who wrote poetry,
> drama, criticism, and whatever the hell you want to call _The Rock_?
I'd put him on the religion shelf, and leave criticism on the floor I
suppose.
>
> Another question -- what time period includes Nabokov and any
> of the Brontes? (I guess you believe in taking the long view; that or
> while you don't think in the 19th century, as you said, it may still
> be where you do all your reading, no matter what century you found it
> in.)
In some sense maybe so. I'm not sure you've established claim to the
20th century beyond dispute. As to your first question, I don't pay
much attention to time periods - more to individuals: very 19th c.
>
> David:
>
> >> >The point was that since you can't really
> >> >isolate either style or content, and since content is what one finds of
> >> >value in an artwork, style is the other stuff.
>
> moggin:
>
> >> But that's what I was questioning -- the idea that the value
> >> of a work of art resides in its content, and that style has marginal
> >> importance, is nothing but (as I was saying) a prejudice that you've
> >> managed to inherit.
>
> David:
>
> >But it's not a "prejudice" against the bells and whistles of a Joyce or
> >a Nabokov. I wouldn't dare touch a comma of "Ulysses." It's an answer
> >to the question "Why is this book wonderful?" as opposed to "How is
> >this book differentiatable from other similar books?"
>
> Then is it a prejudice in favor of narrative? I'm glad you
> wouldn't replace _Ulysses_ with a synopsis (especially since there's
> been sentiment of that kind expressed around here). But I don't see
> why you would say that the narrative is valuable and consign style to
> the category of "other stuff." And if the other stuff is valueless,
> what's a comma here or there?
Who in this thread ever said anything was valueless? I've been
struggling against your dichotomous sort of thinking for a while now,
explicitly denying several times that I think "style" is worthless. I
think it's of extreme importance. But there is a sense in which it is
not of the highest importance. That honor goes to something more like
"content". I very much need a new vocabulary here. What I object to
is labelling a work of art as essentially a work of a particular style,
like labelling a bottle of wine with a date and place of vintage, and
acting as if some central pithy comment has been made on why this
object is delicious.
>
> David:
>
> >> >>>>>Mark Twain said all writers say the same old stuff in a new way. OK,
> >> >>>>>but it's the same old stuff that's important.
>
> moggin:
>
> >> >> >> I don't see why that would be. But if we say that it _is_ the
> >> >> >> case, for the sake of argument, then art is a set of trappings for the
> >> >> >> "old stuff" (eternal verities? family values? perennial wisdom?) which
> >> >> >> it represents.
>
> David:
>
> >> >> >More like: love, fear, joy, death, birth, caring, terror, peace,
> >> >> >surprise, regret, longing, despair, and exaltation.
>
> moggin:
>
> >> >> Your forgot the heartbreak of psoriasis and ring-around-the-
> >> >>collar, inspiration for those immortal words, "You try rubbing it out,
> >> >>scrubbing it out -- but still...!" _There's_ the human condition, not
> >> >>to mention the best writing about laundry since _Macbeth_ (although
> >> >>Empson observes that Lady MacB. could also be understood as referring
> >> >>to her least-beloved dog).
>
> David:
>
> >> >You'd be better off producing an example of a great novel which is
> >> >great for some reason not in my (admittedly rough and incomplete)
> >> >list.
>
> moggin:
>
> >> Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought it was just a
> >> list of emotions -- that's why I added a couple you left off.
>
> David:
>
> >Are you implying that your tongue was not in your cheek? A serious
> >response would be that what you gave were specific causes of an
> >emotion.
>
> That would be true if we could distinguish between an emotion
> and its cause. "The heartbreak of psoriasis" is a form of heartbreak,
> yet it's a unique feeling related to a certain persistent, unsightly
> kind of rash. And although ring-around-the-collar creates a feeling
> that could only be called frustration, it's the objective correlative
> of a particular type of unhappiness which could be evoked in no other
> way.
Good. I'll buy that. These are types of heartbreak. That's fine.
For brevity let's just add heartbreak to the list, OK? Now how does
the list look to you?
>
> David:
>
> >> >There isn't any distinction between A and B, so therefore I should be
> >> >willing to recognize either A or B. What? Moggin, wake up please. Is
> >> >somebody forging your signature?
>
> moggin:
>
> >> Not on this thread, anyway. But I must still be catching z's,
> >> because I'm not following you. I'd say the answer is yes: if there's
> >> no distinction between A and B, you should be willing to accept either
> >> one. Why not? The given is that there isn't any relevant difference,
> >> after all.
>
> >The idea is that we are not well served by the distinction. Everything
> >is both. There isn't, therefore, anything I'm refusing to recognize.
>
> I accept the principle, but doesn't it follow that any given
> novel can have emotional content, intellectual content, or even both,
> without being any the worse off?
No, it follows that any novel that has either by (re)definition has
both (and is certainly better off).
>
> >And I've seen Dewey with his hair combed;-)
>
> Then you're one-up on me.
Have you been to the Phil. dept. at Columbia and noticed their peeling
artwork?
>
> -- moggin
David
moggin
moggin:
>> Oh, sure it is, and the proof is that there are novels which
>> succeed without much or anything in the way of narrative -- think of
>> Beckett,
David Swanson <dc...@darwin.clas.virginia.edu>:
>I try not to.
Oh, Beckett is absolutely brilliant.
moggin:
>> for example, or the countless other modern and post-modern
>> books and stories where nothing happens, or where "shit happens" is
>> the only principle (call them "picaresque"). Even the examples you
>> gave are ambiguous. Joyce's novels are highly structured (to say the
>> least), but they don't have much in the way of plot,
David:
>Are you thinking of F's Wake. That's the only one that seems to
>possibly fit. I must admit that there is a case where what most
>powerfully strikes one is the use of words as such. That is hardly the
>case with "Pale Fire".
All of Joyce. _Dubliners_ presents the very model of the
modern short story, with epiphanies instead of plots. _A Portrait_ is
plotless, unless you count the story of every _Bildungsroman_ ("he was
young, he grew older"). _Ulysses_ borrows its narrative from the
_Odyssey_, of course, which has none -- it's episodic. And the _Wake_
takes its structure from Vico's philosophy of history. (Or so I read.)
moggin:
>> while Faulkner,
>> like le Carre, is _so_ deeply plotted that the effect is the same.
David:
>It is? How?
Who the hell knows what's going on? Even the characters are
in the dark.
moggin:
>The Brontes should be together -- that seems obvious.
>Not to me. Emily should sit near Camus, if not on his lap.
_Emily_? Why? I've been wondering if I should move Arendt
next to Heidegger -- what do you think? And maybe take Simone Weil
out of the religion section and put her in the cookbooks.
moggin:
>> in either case, what happens to someone like Eliot, who wrote poetry,
>> drama, criticism, and whatever the hell you want to call _The Rock_?
David:
>I'd put him on the religion shelf, and leave criticism on the floor I
>suppose.
Half the stuff is on the floor anyway, or piled on any flat
surface, and if I start reorganizing, it's all going to end up there.
That's why everything is so disorganized: it's the result of my last
re-organizing project. After six weeks with all the books lying in
piles on the floor, I finally stuffed them back anywhere I could get
them to fit. Which brings up another set of problems -- but onward.
moggin:
>> Another question -- what time period includes Nabokov and any
>> of the Brontes? (I guess you believe in taking the long view; that or
>> while you don't think in the 19th century, as you said, it may still
>> be where you do all your reading, no matter what century you found it
>> in.)
David:
>In some sense maybe so. I'm not sure you've established claim to the
>20th century beyond dispute. As to your first question, I don't pay
>much attention to time periods - more to individuals: very 19th c.
It's arbitrary -- there are Victorians in the 20th century,
modernists and post-modernists in the 19th, not to speak of ancient
Greece. (I may get in trouble for this one, but we'll see; maybe I
can sneak it by without any of the anti-anachronists noticing. You
aren't one, are you?)
David:
>> >> >The point was that since you can't really
>> >> >isolate either style or content, and since content is what one finds of
>> >> >value in an artwork, style is the other stuff.
moggin:
>> >> But that's what I was questioning -- the idea that the value
>> >> of a work of art resides in its content, and that style has marginal
>> >> importance, is nothing but (as I was saying) a prejudice that you've
>> >> managed to inherit.
David:
>> >But it's not a "prejudice" against the bells and whistles of a Joyce or
>> >a Nabokov. I wouldn't dare touch a comma of "Ulysses." It's an answer
>> >to the question "Why is this book wonderful?" as opposed to "How is
>> >this book differentiatable from other similar books?"
moggin:
>> Then is it a prejudice in favor of narrative? I'm glad you
>> wouldn't replace _Ulysses_ with a synopsis (especially since there's
>> been sentiment of that kind expressed around here). But I don't see
>> why you would say that the narrative is valuable and consign style to
>> the category of "other stuff." And if the other stuff is valueless,
>> what's a comma here or there?
David:
>Who in this thread ever said anything was valueless? I've been
>struggling against your dichotomous sort of thinking for a while now,
>explicitly denying several times that I think "style" is worthless.
You're the one who said that "content is what one finds of
value in an artwork, style is the other stuff," thus establishing the
dichotomy and locating value in content to the exclusion of style --
whaddaya think, I'm just making this up? And does that apply to say,
Pollock or Mondrian?
>I think it's of extreme importance. But there is a sense in which it is
>not of the highest importance. That honor goes to something more like
>"content". I very much need a new vocabulary here. What I object to
>is labelling a work of art as essentially a work of a particular style,
>like labelling a bottle of wine with a date and place of vintage, and
>acting as if some central pithy comment has been made on why this
>object is delicious.
O.k. then, no labelling -- but why do you have to offer that
objection by elevating form over content? In fact, I don't even see
what one thing has to do with the other. I'll agree if you say that
we should read books instead of labelling them, but I don't see any
connection between that idea and what we've been discussing.
[...]
David:
>> >Are you implying that your tongue was not in your cheek? A serious
>> >response would be that what you gave were specific causes of an
>> >emotion.
moggin:
>> That would be true if we could distinguish between an emotion
>> and its cause. "The heartbreak of psoriasis" is a form of heartbreak,
>> yet it's a unique feeling related to a certain persistent, unsightly
>> kind of rash. And although ring-around-the-collar creates a feeling
>> that could only be called frustration, it's the objective correlative
>> of a particular type of unhappiness which could be evoked in no other
>> way.
David:
>Good. I'll buy that. These are types of heartbreak. That's fine.
>For brevity let's just add heartbreak to the list, OK? Now how does
>the list look to you?
It's a fine list, top-notch. But I think we're back at the
start, where you said, "Mark Twain said all writers say the same old
stuff in a new way. OK, but it's the same old stuff that's important,"
and I replied, I don't see why that would be. But if we say that's
the case, for the sake of argument, then art is a set of trappings for
the "old stuff" it represents."
[...]
David:
>> >> >There isn't any distinction between A and B, so therefore I should be
>> >> >willing to recognize either A or B. What? Moggin, wake up please. Is
>> >> >somebody forging your signature?
moggin:
>> >> Not on this thread, anyway. But I must still be catching z's,
>> >> because I'm not following you. I'd say the answer is yes: if there's
>> >> no distinction between A and B, you should be willing to accept either
>> >> one. Why not? The given is that there isn't any relevant difference,
>> >> after all.
David:
>> >The idea is that we are not well served by the distinction. Everything
>> >is both. There isn't, therefore, anything I'm refusing to recognize.
moggin:
>> I accept the principle, but doesn't it follow that any given
>> novel can have emotional content, intellectual content, or even both,
>> without being any the worse off?
David:
>No, it follows that any novel that has either by (re)definition has
>both (and is certainly better off).
I can easily agree to that. But I'd swear we were arguing
over something.
David:
>> >And I've seen Dewey with his hair combed;-)
moggin:
>> Then you're one-up on me.
David:
>Have you been to the Phil. dept. at Columbia and noticed their peeling
>artwork?
Nope -- I did try to browse in the library once, but they
wouldn't let me into the stacks since I wasn't student, staff, or
faculty. I figure they would have gone ahead and called security
if they knew I was neither fish nor fowl; luckily my ruffed grouse
imitation fooled them.
-- moggin
David Swanson
>
> Oh, Beckett is absolutely brilliant.
I'll give him another try, just for you.
>
> All of Joyce. _Dubliners_ presents the very model of the
> modern short story, with epiphanies instead of plots.
In other words, it has had lots of imitators. Why is that? Surely not
because it is the model of its imitators. Vide discussion of
anachronism below.
In any case, calling epiphanies "style" is even less felicitous than
calling footnoting "style".
_A Portrait_ is
> plotless, unless you count the story of every _Bildungsroman_ ("he was
> young, he grew older").
That's an absurd assertion, but why shouldn't I count that? See Mark
Twain's comment below.
_Ulysses_ borrows its narrative from the
> _Odyssey_, of course, which has none -- it's episodic.
What can be episodic other than a narrative (you recognize my point
since you talk of its being borrowed)? And what does this (quite
minimal) "borrowing" have to do with anything? How does it render
Ulysses contentless?
And the _Wake_
> takes its structure from Vico's philosophy of history. (Or so I read.)
It "takes" its "structure" from a million places. But I already gave
you F Wake. You don't HAVE to argue for it anymore.
>
> Who the hell knows what's going on? Even the characters are
> in the dark.
Um, I do.
>
> _Emily_? Why? I've been wondering if I should move Arendt
> next to Heidegger -- what do you think? And maybe take Simone Weil
> out of the religion section and put her in the cookbooks.
No, I'd leave Heidegger pretty much by himself, maybe stick Arendt with
the Americans. I don't want to joke about cookbooks. Some things are
sacred, no?
>
> Half the stuff is on the floor anyway, or piled on any flat
> surface, and if I start reorganizing, it's all going to end up there.
> That's why everything is so disorganized: it's the result of my last
> re-organizing project. After six weeks with all the books lying in
> piles on the floor, I finally stuffed them back anywhere I could get
> them to fit. Which brings up another set of problems -- but onward.
Having difficulty dealing with metaphors, moggin? I should have
thought you would go by dates of publication, genres, and typeface.
>
> It's arbitrary -- there are Victorians in the 20th century,
> modernists and post-modernists in the 19th, not to speak of ancient
> Greece. (I may get in trouble for this one, but we'll see; maybe I
> can sneak it by without any of the anti-anachronists noticing. You
> aren't one, are you?)
Not in this lifetime.
> You're the one who said that "content is what one finds of
> value in an artwork, style is the other stuff," thus establishing the
> dichotomy and locating value in content to the exclusion of style --
> whaddaya think, I'm just making this up?
If that's a direct quote, I shouldn't have said it. As Henry the V
said, let me speak clearly: content is the stuff of highest value. The
problem is, as I keep repeating, we can't really separate style from
content. So, even to say that content is what's most important is not
to say that it is such in some mediumless ethereal sense.
And does that apply to say,
> Pollock or Mondrian?
Certainly. But now don't throw me a painting and ask me to name the
emotion. That's not always possible/helpful. Emotion-words are
approximations of artistic contents, not exact renderings.
>
> O.k. then, no labelling -- but why do you have to offer that
> objection by elevating form over content? In fact, I don't even see
> what one thing has to do with the other. I'll agree if you say that
> we should read books instead of labelling them, but I don't see any
> connection between that idea and what we've been discussing.
Oh, label them, but label them enlightening, courageous, heartbreaking,
morbid, dull, and riotous. Don't label them Bildungsroman, etc.
>
> It's a fine list, top-notch. But I think we're back at the
> start, where you said, "Mark Twain said all writers say the same old
> stuff in a new way. OK, but it's the same old stuff that's important,"
> and I replied, I don't see why that would be. But if we say that's
> the case, for the sake of argument, then art is a set of trappings for
> the "old stuff" it represents."
Right. We're making progress.
>
> I can easily agree to that. But I'd swear we were arguing
> over something.
Maybe we were just faking it.
>
> Nope -- I did try to browse in the library once, but they
> wouldn't let me into the stacks since I wasn't student, staff, or
> faculty. I figure they would have gone ahead and called security
> if they knew I was neither fish nor fowl; luckily my ruffed grouse
> imitation fooled them.
Now I'm confused about the classification of fowls and Homo sapiens.
Do I have to rework that typology too?
moggin
moggin:
>> All of Joyce. _Dubliners_ presents the very model of the
>> modern short story, with epiphanies instead of plots.
David Swanson <dc...@darwin.clas.virginia.edu>:
>In other words, it has had lots of imitators. Why is that? Surely not
>because it is the model of its imitators.
What else would its imitators be modelled after?
>In any case, calling epiphanies "style" is even less felicitous than
>calling footnoting "style".
I offered them to show that Joyce's writing isn't built on the
plots that you think are a central, possibly even an indispensable
element of literature. If you prefer de Maupassant, I'm not going to
debate you -- I won't even comment if you give O. Henry your highest
regard. But damned if I'll accept your generalizations lying down.
moggin:
> _A Portrait_ is
>> plotless, unless you count the story of every _Bildungsroman_ ("he was
>> young, he grew older").
David:
>That's an absurd assertion, but why shouldn't I count that?
Because it makes the idea of "narrative" so broad as to be
meaningless.
moggin:
>>_Ulysses_ borrows its narrative from the
>> _Odyssey_, of course, which has none -- it's episodic.
David:
>What can be episodic other than a narrative (you recognize my point
>since you talk of its being borrowed)? And what does this (quite
>minimal) "borrowing" have to do with anything? How does it render
>Ulysses contentless?
Yes, a narrative has episodes, but it isn't merely episodic;
at least, not unless you think that "shit happens" is a narrative.
[re: Faulkner and le Carre]
moggin:
>> Who the hell knows what's going on? Even the characters are
>> in the dark.
David:
>Um, I do.
O.k. Cleanth Brooks, too. (I wonder if he's any relation
to Eddie Cleanhead Vinson?)
>I should have thought you would go by dates of publication, genres,
>and typeface.
Why? Oh, I see -- but that's ridiculous. What in the world
makes you think that my emphasis on form and style is connected with a
desire for pigeon-holing? You're working off of some assumptions that
I don't begin to comprehend. Are if you think that plots somehow
can't be labelled and categorized, well, look at structuralism (better
not to, of course -- I'm just giving an example).
moggin:
>> You're the one who said that "content is what one finds of
>> value in an artwork, style is the other stuff," thus establishing the
>> dichotomy and locating value in content to the exclusion of style --
>> whaddaya think, I'm just making this up?
David:
>If that's a direct quote, I shouldn't have said it.
Verbatim.
>As Henry the V
>said, let me speak clearly: content is the stuff of highest value. The
>problem is, as I keep repeating, we can't really separate style from
>content. So, even to say that content is what's most important is not
>to say that it is such in some mediumless ethereal sense.
Look -- if you want to claim that for some reason content has
a higher importance than any other element, I'd like to hear why. But
if you plan to answer any reply by retreating to the proposition that
style and content are inseparable, then save us both the trouble -- if
you can't separate them, then you can't rank one above the other, and
if _you_ can separate them enough to establish a ranking then, then I
can do the same to say that you're wrong. (What's good for the goose
is good for the gander.)
moggin:
>And does that apply to say, Pollock or Mondrian?
David:
>Certainly. But now don't throw me a painting and ask me to name the
>emotion. That's not always possible/helpful. Emotion-words are
>approximations of artistic contents, not exact renderings.
Gimme some credit here -- I wouldn't turn this into stupid pet
tricks. But I'd like to know what makes your emotional response to a
painting the "content" of the work. And on your thinking, it appears
that the content of a novel _isn't_ its plot, but whatever feelings it
happens to conjure up in you when you read it.
moggin:
>> O.k. then, no labelling -- but why do you have to offer that
>> objection by elevating form over content? In fact, I don't even see
>> what one thing has to do with the other. I'll agree if you say that
>> we should read books instead of labelling them, but I don't see any
>> connection between that idea and what we've been discussing.
David:
>Oh, label them, but label them enlightening, courageous, heartbreaking,
>morbid, dull, and riotous. Don't label them Bildungsroman, etc.
Label them, don't label them -- whatever. Work it out and get
back to me. I'm still asking what the connection is between labelling
and the questions that we've been discussing about form and content.
moggin:
>> Nope -- I did try to browse in the library once, but they
>> wouldn't let me into the stacks since I wasn't student, staff, or
>> faculty. I figure they would have gone ahead and called security
>> if they knew I was neither fish nor fowl; luckily my ruffed grouse
>> imitation fooled them.
David:
>Now I'm confused about the classification of fowls and Homo sapiens.
>Do I have to rework that typology too?
Along with what other typology? (_You're_ confused...!)
-- moggin
David Swanson
>
> Look -- if you want to claim that for some reason content has
> a higher importance than any other element, I'd like to hear why. But
> if you plan to answer any reply by retreating to the proposition that
> style and content are inseparable, then save us both the trouble -- if
> you can't separate them, then you can't rank one above the other, and
> if _you_ can separate them enough to establish a ranking then, then I
> can do the same to say that you're wrong. (What's good for the goose
> is good for the gander.)
O.K. that's fair. What I wanted to object to (I'm sure you recall) was
the idea that pointing out novel stylistic features in a book had any
necessary connection, or was likely to have any connection, to what
would first (and last) come to mind as the important qualities of that
book (not important for distinguishing it or placing it in a scholarly
syllabus, but important for describing it as an object in the world).
I am not asserting that O. Henry is worth the ink he's printed in. I
am not denying that F's Wake is a great book. What I'm saying is that
the vast majority of novels (F Wake being an exception) are not
primarily interesting for reasons commonly called "stylistic". If I
assert that Pale Fire is a powerful book because of how it makes us
feel about the drowning victim, the narrator, etc., this does not mean
that an important part of that is not the way these events are put on
the page. That is necessarily so. This is the point of my denying
that you can separate style from content. But if someone else were to
assert that the important features of PF are the fact that it's notes
to a poem, has an index, etc., I'd have to object. I CAN call this
stuff "style" since such a critic seems to be abstracting from PF. But
that's not my objection. My objection is that when I read the book I
don't exclaim "Oh how wonderful: there's an index!" and wouldn't have
even had PF appeared in the eighteenth century. I may be quite amused
by there being an index. NOBODY is calling ANYTHING valueless here.
But relatively speaking, dwelling on that is a risible distraction. To
repeat, what I want to call most important contains both "content" and
"style", and could not do otherwise. What I want to call less
important are abstracted stylistic elements, such as "This is a book
that uses footnotes." What you want to make me a promoter of are
abstracted contentistic elements, such as "This is a book about a boy
growing up." Maybe I've encouraged that. This is a conversation,
after all, not a treatise. I'm not suggesting that you're willfully
misreading me. I said that what matters [most] is content. In a sense
I stand by that. What one feels compelled to talk about after reading
a book will generally fall under the traditional notion of "content".
But in an important sense I want to clarify my position. What's
important is the book, as both content and style inseparably, not
abstracted stylistic categories. I'm not sure why you think my saying
this is an accusation (to you) of pigeonholing. I imagine someone who
judged books by genre (I take "genre" to often be based on abstracted
stylistic notions) could hold that there are only three genres, not
three hundred and eight. It's not a matter of over-narrowness, but of
irrelevance.
moggin
moggin:
>> Look -- if you want to claim that for some reason content has
>> a higher importance than any other element, I'd like to hear why. But
>> if you plan to answer any reply by retreating to the proposition that
>> style and content are inseparable, then save us both the trouble -- if
>> you can't separate them, then you can't rank one above the other, and
>> if _you_ can separate them enough to establish a ranking then, then I
>> can do the same to say that you're wrong. (What's good for the goose
>> is good for the gander.)
David:
>O.K. that's fair. What I wanted to object to (I'm sure you recall) was
>the idea that pointing out novel stylistic features in a book had any
>necessary connection, or was likely to have any connection, to what
>would first (and last) come to mind as the important qualities of that
>book (not important for distinguishing it or placing it in a scholarly
>syllabus, but important for describing it as an object in the world).
I've got that -- I understand what you're saying, and I happen
to disagree.
>I am not asserting that O. Henry is worth the ink he's printed in. I
>am not denying that F's Wake is a great book. What I'm saying is that
>the vast majority of novels (F Wake being an exception) are not
>primarily interesting for reasons commonly called "stylistic". If I
>assert that Pale Fire is a powerful book because of how it makes us
>feel about the drowning victim, the narrator, etc., this does not mean
>that an important part of that is not the way these events are put on
>the page. That is necessarily so. This is the point of my denying
>that you can separate style from content. But if someone else were to
>assert that the important features of PF are the fact that it's notes
>to a poem, has an index, etc., I'd have to object.
You'll have an objection, then, because that's exactly what I
say. Those _are_ the important features of the book, and what make it
more than just another story. To tell you the truth, I don't remember
a thing about the narrative, and I barely have any recollection of the
characters. That's because it's been a long while since I read it,
but I _do_ remember the poem, the notes, etc. (No, that doesn't prove
much of anything, and I don't claim that it does -- I'm just trying to
give you an indication of what matters the most from my perspective.)
>I CAN call this
>stuff "style" since such a critic seems to be abstracting from PF.
Who's abstracting, and what makes you call style "abstract"?
These are the most concrete features of the book.
> But
>that's not my objection. My objection is that when I read the book I
>don't exclaim "Oh how wonderful: there's an index!" and wouldn't have
>even had PF appeared in the eighteenth century. I may be quite amused
>by there being an index. NOBODY is calling ANYTHING valueless here.
>But relatively speaking, dwelling on that is a risible distraction.
To you, maybe -- but I _do_ say, "Oh how wonderful: there's an
index!" Maybe not in those exact words, and maybe not in any words at
all -- nonetheless, that's my feeling, and I think that the index _is_
worth dwelling on.
>To
>repeat, what I want to call most important contains both "content" and
>"style", and could not do otherwise. What I want to call less
>important are abstracted stylistic elements, such as "This is a book
>that uses footnotes."
The footnotes themselves aren't abstract -- they're a part of
the text, and I don't see any reason to call them less important than
any other element. (More, if anything.)
>What you want to make me a promoter of are
>abstracted contentistic elements, such as "This is a book about a boy
>growing up." Maybe I've encouraged that. This is a conversation,
>after all, not a treatise. I'm not suggesting that you're willfully
>misreading me. I said that what matters [most] is content. In a sense
>I stand by that. What one feels compelled to talk about after reading
>a book will generally fall under the traditional notion of "content".
When the one is you, then I guess so. But I feel a different
compulsion. Thus my resistance to your assertions.
>But in an important sense I want to clarify my position. What's
>important is the book, as both content and style inseparably, not
>abstracted stylistic categories. I'm not sure why you think my saying
>this is an accusation (to you) of pigeonholing. I imagine someone who
>judged books by genre (I take "genre" to often be based on abstracted
>stylistic notions) could hold that there are only three genres, not
>three hundred and eight. It's not a matter of over-narrowness, but of
>irrelevance.
We got into this (I just remembered) from a discussion about
the defining features of post-modernism in literature. I refused to
define them, but gave some examples, including _Pale Fire_. So it's
possible you thought that I was emphasizing form and style because I
wanted to classify books as modern, or post-modern, or what-have-you.
That's not so. And I'm not talking about abstracted elements -- I'm
talking about a concrete use of language. Narratives and characters
are the highest abstractions -- the nitty-gritty of any writing will
always be in its words and their arrangement.
-- moggin
David Swanson
In article <4onp9h$e...@bessel.nando.net>
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
> We got into this (I just remembered) from a discussion about
> the defining features of post-modernism in literature. I refused to
> define them, but gave some examples, including _Pale Fire_. So it's
> possible you thought that I was emphasizing form and style because I
> wanted to classify books as modern, or post-modern, or what-have-you.
> That's not so. And I'm not talking about abstracted elements -- I'm
> talking about a concrete use of language. Narratives and characters
> are the highest abstractions -- the nitty-gritty of any writing will
> always be in its words and their arrangement.
>
> -- moggin
So, if I understand you, it's not, e.g., "wow this has got footnotes,"
not exactly anyway, but rather it's appreciation of those specific
footnotes. The reason I feel inclined to accuse you of abstraction,
while excusing myself from such criticism, is that, for example, you
admit that you don't remember the narrative, while you do remember the
fact of there being an index. Do you remember what the index said more
or less, what it contributed to the rest of the book? If not, I think
what you are recalling is just the abstracted notion "there was an
index." Maybe I'm nitpicking. I would NOT be surprised if our tastes
(Beckett aside for the moment) were fairly close even though we claim
to be valuing different things. I would be surprised if an awful
contentless book with a million nifty stylistic twists really struck
you as worthwhile, any more than the inverse would strike me as such.
De gustibus non est disputandum, but for what it's worth I do think
I've got the argumenta ad populum on my side. A third point of view
might be that of someone who appreciates typeface above all else. We
couldn't say he was wrong, either.
David
"Resistance to the proposition that the essence of truth is freedom is
based on preconceptions, the most obstinate of which is that freedom is
a property of man." Martin Heidegger, "On the Essence of Truth," [Vom
Wesen der Wahrheit] translated by John Sallis, in "Basic Writings,"
(old version, 1977) p.126.
moggin
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>> We got into this (I just remembered) from a discussion about
>> the defining features of post-modernism in literature. I refused to
>> define them, but gave some examples, including _Pale Fire_. So it's
>> possible you thought that I was emphasizing form and style because I
>> wanted to classify books as modern, or post-modern, or what-have-you.
>> That's not so. And I'm not talking about abstracted elements -- I'm
>> talking about a concrete use of language. Narratives and characters
>> are the highest abstractions -- the nitty-gritty of any writing will
>> always be in its words and their arrangement.
David Swanson <dc...@darwin.clas.virginia.edu>:
>So, if I understand you, it's not, e.g., "wow this has got footnotes,"
>not exactly anyway, but rather it's appreciation of those specific
>footnotes. The reason I feel inclined to accuse you of abstraction,
>while excusing myself from such criticism, is that, for example, you
>admit that you don't remember the narrative, while you do remember the
>fact of there being an index. Do you remember what the index said more
>or less, what it contributed to the rest of the book? If not, I think
>what you are recalling is just the abstracted notion "there was an
>index." Maybe I'm nitpicking.
Not at all -- and you're right -- I don't remember any details
about the index; only that it was there. But that's enough to give me
a fond memory -- similarly, I want to read Pavic's _Dictionary of the
Khazars_ because it's written in the form of a dictionary: I like that
kind of shit. I admit, it's not enough by itself -- some people enjoy
reading dictionaries for their own sake, and there may even be a small
number who receive pleasure from reading indexes, but I don't fall in
either category. The fact that its contents are in alphabetical order
isn't going to make me like the _Dictionary_, all by itself, and _Pale
Fire_ is more than footnotes and an index -- still, those items are as
important as any other element of the book, and possibly a touch more.
>I would NOT be surprised if our tastes
>(Beckett aside for the moment) were fairly close even though we claim
>to be valuing different things. I would be surprised if an awful
>contentless book with a million nifty stylistic twists really struck
>you as worthwhile, any more than the inverse would strike me as such.
Absolutely. Otherwise I'd be as happy with the idea of _Pale
Fire_ as with the book, and while the idea _does_ please me, it's not
as satisfying as having the book in my hands. I can also imagine how
badly the same idea might have come out -- in fact, you see that alot
in genre fiction (I'm thinking of fantasy novels, for example), where
intriguing ideas often receive truly horrible treatment, and the only
thing you can say is, shit -- that could have been a really good book.
>De gustibus non est disputandum, but for what it's worth I do think
>I've got the argumenta ad populum on my side. A third point of view
>might be that of someone who appreciates typeface above all else. We
>couldn't say he was wrong, either.
We could sure give it a try.
-- moggin
David Swanson
In article <4ova1o$8...@bessel.nando.net>
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
> Not at all -- and you're right -- I don't remember any details
> about the index; only that it was there. But that's enough to give me
> a fond memory -- similarly, I want to read Pavic's _Dictionary of the
> Khazars_ because it's written in the form of a dictionary: I like that
> kind of shit. I admit, it's not enough by itself -- some people enjoy
> reading dictionaries for their own sake, and there may even be a small
> number who receive pleasure from reading indexes, but I don't fall in
> either category. The fact that its contents are in alphabetical order
> isn't going to make me like the _Dictionary_, all by itself, and _Pale
> Fire_ is more than footnotes and an index -- still, those items are as
> important as any other element of the book, and possibly a touch more.
I'm having some doubts about our casual introduction of memory into
this discussion. I may also remember things abstractedly, such as that
someone in some story cried, though I can't remember the words at all.
And there may be an obvious connection between what I remember and what
I call important even at the time of reading the book. But, as we seem
to have agreed, I couldn't have gotten the content except by means of
the style (and vice versa).
>
> >I would NOT be surprised if our tastes
> >(Beckett aside for the moment) were fairly close even though we claim
> >to be valuing different things. I would be surprised if an awful
> >contentless book with a million nifty stylistic twists really struck
> >you as worthwhile, any more than the inverse would strike me as such.
>
> Absolutely. Otherwise I'd be as happy with the idea of _Pale
> Fire_ as with the book, and while the idea _does_ please me, it's not
> as satisfying as having the book in my hands. I can also imagine how
> badly the same idea might have come out -- in fact, you see that alot
> in genre fiction (I'm thinking of fantasy novels, for example), where
> intriguing ideas often receive truly horrible treatment, and the only
> thing you can say is, shit -- that could have been a really good book.
>
> >De gustibus non est disputandum, but for what it's worth I do think
> >I've got the argumenta ad populum on my side. A third point of view
> >might be that of someone who appreciates typeface above all else. We
> >couldn't say he was wrong, either.
>
> We could sure give it a try.
Not if he took macro-style and content to be integrally a part of the
typeface.
>
> -- moggin
moggin
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>> Not at all -- and you're right -- I don't remember any details
>> about the index; only that it was there. But that's enough to give me
>> a fond memory -- similarly, I want to read Pavic's _Dictionary of the
>> Khazars_ because it's written in the form of a dictionary: I like that
>> kind of shit. I admit, it's not enough by itself -- some people enjoy
>> reading dictionaries for their own sake, and there may even be a small
>> number who receive pleasure from reading indexes, but I don't fall in
>> either category. The fact that its contents are in alphabetical order
>> isn't going to make me like the _Dictionary_, all by itself, and _Pale
>> Fire_ is more than footnotes and an index -- still, those items are as
>> important as any other element of the book, and possibly a touch more.
David:
>I'm having some doubts about our casual introduction of memory into
>this discussion. I may also remember things abstractedly, such as that
>someone in some story cried, though I can't remember the words at all.
>And there may be an obvious connection between what I remember and what
>I call important even at the time of reading the book. But, as we seem
>to have agreed, I couldn't have gotten the content except by means of
>the style (and vice versa).
I wouldn't say that memory serves to prove anything, one way
or another -- by definition, it shows what lingers, but of course it
doesn't offer an argument of any kind -- just a way of illustrating
what tends to stick with the person who has it. (Now, if you wanted
to talk about forgetting...)
-- moggin