>
>>Hmm.  Let me see if I am getting the question... a Lit Critic would say
>that in
>>order to understand Rushdie, you'd HAVE to have access to that Rosetta
Stone
>>you mention.  A critic would probably use a historical/cultural reading to
>>'unlock' the text before commenting on it (or they bloody well should, but
>that
>>does not always happen).
>
>I would tend to think that if one encountered a reading from a different
>culture and really wanted to get more out of it, one would be wise to do
>background reading in the history and philosophy and basic texts of that
>culture.  We don't always have time for that, however.
>
>>There's a critical theory which argues that a reader can read without any
>>mediation from outside sources at all.
>
>Well, certainly one can read without any mediation.  But such mediation may
>provide a more satisfying and rich reading experience.
>
>>And I am still not sure I answered your questions.  
>
>I'm not, either.    But it's natural that there'd be different views
>on the question.  I can see both sides, actually, but I felt strongly that
>I got a helluva lot more out of THE SATANIC VERSES and was able to reach
>more of what was there to be mined having the guide stars provided by the
>"Rosetta Stone" in the Newsweek interview.
>
>>> So why do some critics go on and on ad nauseum about
"authorial intent?"
>>> Are they just outgassing their own knowledge (or the appearance
thereof)?
>>>
>>Bluntly: they are idiots.
>
>
>
>>It's not a critic's job to assume authorial intent.
>>However, that was in vogue 20-30 years ago, and it was taught in secondary
>>schools as a valid way to read a text, so I s'pose there's still folks out
>>there doing it.
>
>Ah.  That explains it.  The popular end of the stick is usually a couple
>decades behind the current research and discussion among the explorers and,
>if I may use the expression, "trend-setters."
>
>>It doesn't happen in academia anymore (or at least we thump it
>>right out of the freshmen when they try it).
>
>Oh, I AM glad to hear that!
>
>>> AHA!  (Said with a Yiddish accent.)  So it doesn't even matter, when you
>>> get down to it.
>>
>>Well, yeah.
>
>Yeah, it does, or yeah, it doesn't?
>
>>> A lot more, necessarily, or just different?
>>
>>When I say 'a lot more' I am thinking of the piles of theory I read in
grad
>
>>school - Lacan, Sasseure, Derrida, Foucault - in other words, the
technical
>>manual for literary criticism.
>
>Ah.  The specialized knowledge rather than the general knowledge.
>
>>No slights intended for any other knowledges
>>brought along.
>
>None taken.
>
>>Your experience - from a purely academic perspective - would not matter to
a
>>critique any more than my personal experience does.  Most of what WE do
>here is
>>apply theories to texts in some fashion or another, though there is still
>some
>>lingering historicism and what not else coming along.  I think you and I
are
>>really talking about radically different forms of criticisms.
>
>As Kestrel pointed out, too.  Yup.
>
>>Something like -- critics pick apart things like how many times a clock or
>time
>>is mentioned in, say, Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway and use that to
>comment on
>>the presence and importance of time within the narrative as a modernist
>novel.
>>Thus, it's not overly important what baggage we all bring along (if, for
>>instance, I am afraid of clocks).
>
>Oh.
>
>>But what I am talking about as critic... I really don't *like* a lot of
>what I
>>had to read and critique in college.  I did not get much out of it on any
>>personal level.  But I learned how to read it and to see things in it I
>>wouldn't have otherwise-- which no way impede or enhance my ability to
>like or
>>dislike it.
>
>So, there's learning HOW to read, then there's learning how to READ.
>
>>It's like... say, being able to see a rock and say 'that is a pretty
rock.'
>>And to have a geologist say 'it's amethyst, which is quartz, which is a
>>hardness of 6 and...'  Both *see* the rock, and experience the rock, and
the
>>extra knowledge in no way affects the ability to say 'it's a pretty rock'
>or 'I
>>hate purple'.
>
>Okay.
>
>>Heh.  There's postmodernist critics who would say you don't.  And in
>general, I
>>think we don't *need* them at all, academic or pop.  We don't need
chocolate,
>>either, but we have it, so... (ok, not a fair comparison, since chocolate
is,
>>in general, preferrable to critics).
>
>
>
>
>>You yourself mentioned The Satanic Verses.  You could have gotten stuff
>out of
>>it without the Rosetta Stone, but would it have been as satisfying?
>
>Not by a long shot.
>
>>> I don't think serious criticism should be limited to the
"lit'rary"
realm,
>
>>
>
>Oof!  At least scream before you leap.  
>
>>Ah, but when I say literary text, I only mean 'that which is written
>>down.'  I am a huge proponent of turning the criticial eye onto pop stuff,
>too.
>
>Bravo.
>
>>> 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?"
>>>
>>
>>Have you ever spent time on a fan site for a sci fi show?
>
>Oh, dear, I was a Star Trek fan for years.
>
>>Am thinking in particular of Farscape on Sci-Fi.  I am amazed at
>>the level of scrutiny that goes into each episode from some fans.
>
>Not familiar with that particular one, since we don't have cable.  But,
>yeah, fans can be downright piranha-ish in tearing apart the meanings they
>find in episodes, and it isn't limited to s-f fandom, either.
>
>>So yeah, agreed.  That's perfectly
>>analogous to an academic critic and a text, too, though.  I drag in a
>Lacanian
>>reading of X, and someone stares at me and says 'but it was just a damned
>>story, Kat!' lol
>
>Heh.  Kinda like I asked James MacArthur at the Hawaii Five-0 convention
>about acting modes and styles and such, and he answered tersely, "You just
>read the goddamned lines."  Oh, well.
>
>>> 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?
>
>>
>>Ye gods, I don't know that we have a professional definition.
>
>Interesting.  I thought that was the fundamental basis for any pursuit --
>define it first.  H'mmm.
>
>>I like yours, because it's broad enough to encompass the professional,
>>the academic, and the amateur.
>
>  Thank you.  Should I trademark it?  
>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>Absolutely.  We - academic critics - try to keep personal experience out
>of our
>>readings, at least overtly.  If I were to read your fic, and see the
>>traditional story alluded to therein, I might mention it in a critique...
>but I
>>would not assume that you, too, had encountered it beforehand.  I also
would
>>not ask you if you had.
>
>Ah.  I'm intrigued by the distance -- keeping personal experience out of
>one's readings (can't completely, because of the subconscious, but . . .).
>You're certainly right, then, that we were talking about different forms or
>levels of criticism, as Kestrel also pointed out.  "Popular" critics
>sometimes seem to put nothing but their personal experience into it.  H'mmm
>. . .
>
>>> And again, congratulations, and I wish you decades of connubial bliss.
>>>
>>> Or at least a helluva lot of fun.
>>
>>Thanks.  We've gotten started on the helluva lot of fun bit.  Hee.
>
>Well, good.  But we won't go there in a public forum!  
>
>>darkelf, also enjoying the talk
>
>Veloci--thanks again--raptor
>
>>=====
>>Obsequium parit amicos; veritas parit odium.  - Cicero
>>(Compliance produces friends; truth produces hate.)
>
>Not so sure I agree with Cicero.  I think compliance can sometimes produce
>resentment, not friends.  And a friend who can't take the truth can take a
>high colonic and a ten-mile hike.
>
>V
>

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