>> >Yes, but...literary criticism (the academic variety, in which I am
>> trained) is
>> >about language and how we achieve meaning in texts -- not just the
words,
>but
>> >the imagery inherent in the words, the cultural inheritance of reader
and
>> >writer.
>>
>> How does that work when the reader and the writer come from radically
>> different cultures?  I mean, I NEVER would have understood even 1/4 of
THE
>> SATANIC VERSES if I hadn't had the "Rosetta Stone"
provided by Newsweek
>> Magazine's contemporary interview with Salman Rushdie.
>>
>> So how does the general average reader hook into the cultural scene of
the
>> writer?
>>
>> Or do you consider that even necessary?
>
>Interesting question...
>I was trying to picture in my head a situation where say a "primitive"
>(which in my opinion has always actually meant "civilized in a different
>context") forest dweller writes a story, it gets out to the world public
(of
>which, ideally, the writer would know nothing about) and then it's
critiqued
>by one of the reading public -- vastly removed from the cultural context of
>the writer. Not knowing anything about the Writer's culture, they'd have to
>draw on their own... and I presume they'd start with a similar
"primitive"
>culture within their own lineage/knowledge... hunter/gatherers being
>ubiquitous to us all regardless of physical setting/time period. BUT, the
>main sticking point is while you can compare the two, perhaps gain insight
>from it... can you actually be said to be doing a critique on the actual
>work at hand? In that case, wouldn't all you'd be able to do is say "Over
>here we have X, and in casting about for a point of reference I refer you
to
>Y" and then only deal in generalities of similarities, and not be able, at
>all, to deal with what the Author is really -- or even subconciously --
>saying?
>
>Or does it really, as Karen asks -- not matter? Say this Writer puts a
story
>out about flying... you could look at it absolutely literally and thinkit's
>about airplanes, or a fantasy about ppl being able to fly... but the Writer
>isn't even remotely cued on the same cultural idea, and is modeling his/her
>story on cultural visions of the afterlife. BUT, having the knowledge of
>psychological insight into dream images, and a wealth of literature/global
>history to choose from... we could start to infer it's about the afterlife
>and then go on to talk about it that way... being right even knowing
>absolutely nothing about the Writer's culture...
>
>things that make you go hmm....
>
>>   Certainly it isn't the way to get rich!  I do think it's
>> interesting for someone -- and I encourage Joe and Jane Doe to do it, too
>> -- to examine a work and see what he or she can find in it, and share
that
>> with others.  I don't think it's very interesting when the critic (some
of
>> whom can also be supreme egotists, we do have to admit) states that THIS
>IS
>> THE WAY IT IS and whosoever disagrees with me is just not worth bothering
>> with.  We've seen that kind of attitude on both sides of the literary or
>> artistic street.
>
>Yes, there you go -- you and I are looking at it the same way. The endeavor
>itself is deserving, but some of those endeavoring are a pox 
>
>> >I do get tired of defending the endeavor
>> >as worthwhile at all - because I think critical thinking is terribly
>> important,
>>
>> And God knows that there certainly isn't enough of it going on these
days!
>>
>> I hope my comments haven't made you feel that you need to defend the
>> endeavor.  I'm sincerely interested in the whole question, having done a
>
>AMEN!! I *like* impassioned conversation :)
>
>> criticism myself (albeit it was a television show, and who would argue
>that
>> those are serious art?  ).
>
>I WOULD! Some aren't of course... there's trash in every field.
>But oh yes, absolutely some are serious art! As in film, "true" art,
>literature, mathmatics... there's serious art in any skill/medium/realm of
>endeavor. Pop culture takes well deserved whacks, but it's not without
items
>to praise either. After all -- what were the Greeks and Romans, and all
>those Mayans, Koreans, Chinese, Africans, Neanderthals etc indulging in
with
>their art, pottery, myths, etc etc but expressing their culture? Different
>form and ages past doesn't make it more relevant than our current
>fascination with boy bands and string cheese. Who knows -- a thousand years
>from now they may see some of it as Art and hinge a whole society on the
>meaning of Mickey Mouse.
>
>Television and film (along with music etc etc) are expressions of the
>culture they came from, mixed with, were inspired by... and reflect the
>history they came from, and parody it, honor it -- how many times have you
>seen the "joke" of a chess game with Death? (seen in the
awesome Bergman
>film The Seventh Seal) Everything comes in with a meaning and if it's still
>in use... takes on new meanings, shedding them in favor of newer meanings
>etc all while carrying the original Idea with it. All in the Family wasn't
>*too* far off of Punch and Judy and that goes WAY back... 400 years in
>recognizeable form, and back to the Greeks and Romans in other
permutations,
>and further back than that if you just want to discuss the trickster
figure.
>
>Same thing with "Classical" music vs popular music -- some
would claim the
>former has more heritage and breeding which makes it better, but at the
time
>it was written... what was it? It was popular music! Mozart, Wagner, etc
>etc... they were all the  of
>their time. Some of them had more advanced instrumentation than the average
>person, sure -- but many based their music on peasant instrumentation, the
>sheep herders whistle, the tribal drum... and back before that to beating
>two sticks together, and the first gutteral sound when Man found he had a
>voice. It all goes back to something...
>
>>
>> I'm tickled to have this discussion here, too!
>
>ME TOO! :))
>I hope our elf has more time to spare 
>
>> >and I find it fascinating to dig and poke at a text to see what's
>> happening on
>> >as many layers as I can find.
>>
>> And more people should do that.  In fact, on an admittedly less
>> academically rarefied and most likely much less a disciplined level as
>> well, this is what media fans do to the "texts" of the
shows they are
fans
>> of.  And they find all kinds of meanings in them that one who was
>distanced
>> from them would sit and stare and say, "How in the hell do
they find ALL
>> THAT in a TV show?"
>
>Which is *exactly* what ppl ask me when I tell them about the higher themes
>and meanings in Buffy the Vampire Slayer -- which is just an *awesome*
>show... sure you can watch it as a campy vampire/horror show, but it's so
>much *more* than that.
>
>> Could criticism be properly defined as "intelligent
examination?"  What
IS
>> the accepted professional definition, anyway?  Isn't that a good place to
>> start understanding it?
>
>AAAAAAAHHHHH!!!! I *LOVE* that definition!!! ACK! "Intelligent
examination"
>YES!!
>*That* I can get behind  And that is precisely NOT what the sort of
>criticism we were whinning about is.
>Oh, well done. :)
>
>> >not more, about how texts work than the authors themselves sometimes.
>But
>> >because it's academic knowledge, it's trivialized.
>>
>> Or not understood because it is so specialized, and so far from "daily
>> life" as most run-of-the-mill people live it.
>
>I would go with not understood as well... but unfortunately I know too many
>ppl who do trivialize what they don't get. I've done it myself, though I
try
>to be more aware of myself than that.
>
>> I suppose that sounds like a personal problem, but it seems relevant to
>me,
>> that critics (whether professional or amateur) are on dangerous ground
>when
>> they attribute to the author (to the author's face, at that) something
>that
>> wasn't at all contemplated.  FINDING it there on your own because of your
>> own experience is one thing; saying that the author deliberately put it
>> there when the critic has no such knowledge is quite another.
>>
>> Am I making any sense at all?
>
>Oh yup... we are actually on common ground with darkelf... though it may
>have looked like *all* critical effort was dismissed, what we were actually
>dismissing (ridiculing even) was poorly done, unreasonable, criticism. The
>bad apples as it were.
>
>>
>> >-darkelf, stepping of the soapbox now
>>
>> Well, thank you for getting up there!  What an interesting discussion
this
>is.
>
>yup yup yup!! Quick, grab that elf! Don't let her get away! :)
>
>
>

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha