BBM General Discussion 2

[chapeaugris]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/jan/20/hollywood-costumes-exhibition-victoria-albert-museum

Article about an exhibition of Hollywood costumes scheduled for October 20, 2012 to January 13, 2013 at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London. The Shirts are mentioned at the beginning of the article but it's not clear that they will be on display.

The blog below clarifies the situation:

http://www.wetdarkandwild.com/2012/01/brokeback-mountain-heading-for-londons.html


This is a chance for European Brokies to see them and seems like a nice opportunity for a few people to meet in London later this year.

[Paul029]

Incidentally, my parenthetical reference to “decoding” was a tentative alternative suggestion for “interpreting” the story.

Greetings,  Paul,
A couple of quick questions for you: 

__Would you be so kind as to contrast the idea of 'decoding' a story as opposed to 'interpreting' one?

If you’d like me to explain the difference between ‘interpreting’ and ‘decoding’ a work I’ll do my best, but I must point out that in my original post the latter word was not only parenthetical but tentatively questionable.

Here goes: I suggested “decoding” because Proulx’s short story is not as straightforward as it at first appears.

“Interpretation” suggests that a personal slant on the work’s meaning could be involved, whereas “decode” is a more objective, impersonal approach.
This seemed to me to be what New Criticism was about—that basically a work’s merit/meaning is inherent in and of itself—and that neither an author’s intentions nor a reader’s personal emotional responses (avoiding self-identification with the story’s characters allows one to understand what is going on, to paraphrase Sandy) are necessary when determining its merits and its meaning.

The (informational) clues are there in Proulx’s text, but need to be (if you like) “unscrambled,” if the story’s meaning is to be perceived for what it is.

We’ve done this in amusingly ways on Photo Caps, too, where Proulx’s “meaning” has been twisted to often beyond-bizarre levels. 

__Also, why might the casual (non-academic) reader have a need to 'objectively' analyze a work of fiction, such as BBM?

Please first define a “casual (non-academic) reader.” 

Secondly, why are you asking me? 

(+Maybe I should address the latter question elsewhere, but IMO your responses to technical questions seem to be a bit more comprehensible. -No offense intended to anyone.)

I don’t view myself as being particularly gifted with technical expertise, or being more "comprehensible"    than anyone else—but thank you for the compliment. 

[AZ.bbm]

Thanks, Paul; You're awesome!

I'll just make one comment, it doesn't make sense that a reader's "personal emotional responses" should need to be suppressed when reading a work of fiction,  unless the reader needs to channel  the author to "divine' the meaning of the story. Who really cares what she thinks about the story? Like DO says you write and you release it into the 'wild', it's no longer yours.

You're right, we do over-analyze a lot on this forum, as if we are trying to get inside of the author's head. But then why don't we have a need to, say, get into Da Vinci's head, to appreciate the beauty of the Mona Lisa? -- or delve into Beethoven's tortured mind, to appreciate the joy of his Ninth Symphony, or, wonder what God was thinking when he created sunsets...?

Outside of academia, I wonder if there really is a proper place for literary criticism...(?)

[Paul029]

Thanks, Paul; You're awesome!

People will say we’re in love, Stan. 

I'll just make one comment, it doesn't make sense that a reader's "personal emotional responses" should need to be suppressed when reading a work of fiction, unless the reader needs to channel  the author to "divine' the meaning of the story. Who really cares what she thinks about the story? Like DO says you write and you release it into the 'wild', it's no longer yours.

Five things here:
     a) “Personal emotional responses” are valid. “Self-identification” with fictional characters is a different matter.
     b) “Suppression” suggests a reader is ruled by his/her emotions, and is unable to be objective. See point a).
     c) A reader doesn’t need to “channel” an author. The text exists in its own right.
     d) Some people delighted, once upon a time, in pointing out what Proulx said (and still does) after her story was published.
     e) Childbirth can be painful, but one must move on when the cord is cut.

You're right, we do over-analyze a lot on this forum, as if we are trying to get inside of the author's head. But then why don't we have a need to, say, get into Da Vinci's head, to appreciate the beauty of the Mona Lisa? -- or delve into Beethoven's tortured mind, to appreciate the joy of his Ninth Symphony, or, wonder what God was thinking when he created sunsets...?

I don’t think I suggested over-analysis was problematic; I for one have better things to do than “get inside” an author’s/painter’s/composer’s head—their works are sufficient enough, without any of that other silly stuff.

As for God and sunsets, well, that’s best answered on PhotoCaps—thanks for the prompt. 

But your question was probably rhetorical? 

Outside of academia, I wonder if there really is a proper place for literary criticism...(?)

Do you mean a place that’s as “proper” as the world of “academia?

[Sandy]

~snip~Outside of academia, I wonder if there really is a proper place for literary criticism...(?)

It seems proper and appropriate whenever works of literature are being discussed, no matter the context.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

The blog below clarifies the situation:

http://www.wetdarkandwild.com/2012/01/brokeback-mountain-heading-for-londons.html

I'm not sure it clarifies things that well:

"It's the same outfits from the cosy embrace, or at least versions
of them that were used during the filming."

[Paul029]

I’m unsure where to post this, Chuck and Ellen, as it’s not really about BBM, but thought it’d fit nicely here.

If not, it can be moved elsewhere. 

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/mummy-how-are-babies-made-20120128-1qn3i.html

[AZ.bbm]

It seems proper and appropriate whenever works of literature are being discussed, no matter the context.

I guess my rhetorical question was more about the usefulness of literary criticism... I'm finding that not everyone agrees as to the value of literary criticism, including many prominent authors, such as Proulx...


Stephen J. Joyce, grandson of James Joyce, at a 1986 academic conference of Joyceans in Copenhagen, said, “If my grandfather was here, he would have died laughing ... Dubliners and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man can be picked up, read, and enjoyed by virtually anybody without 'scholarly guides,' theories, and intricate explanations, as can Ulysses, if you [can ignore] all the hue and cry."

And, he questioned if anything is added to the legacy of Joyce's art, by the 261 books of literary criticism stored by the Library of Congress. He summed up by saying that "academics are people who want to brand this great work with their mark... I don’t accept that."


Vladimir Nabokov argued that good readers don't read books -- and particularly literary masterpieces --"for the academic purpose of indulging in generalizations."

Etc.

[AZ.bbm]

People will say we’re in love, Stan. 

-I am so not worthy, Paul...

(...)
     a) “Personal emotional responses” are valid. “Self-identification” with fictional characters is a different matter.
     b) “Suppression” suggests a reader is ruled by his/her emotions, and is unable to be objective. See point a).
     c) A reader doesn’t need to “channel” an author. The text exists in its own right.
(...)
I don’t  think I suggested over-analysis was problematic; I for one have better things to do than “get inside” an author’s/painter’s/composer’s head—their works are sufficient enough, without any of that other silly stuff.

 
Thanks, Paul, and you're welcome (for the PC prompt).



__Proulx, in the TMR interview,

• Interviewer: What, above all else, do you want your readers to take away with them after reading your works?
  
  Proulx: The [work] should take us, as readers, to a vantage point from which we can confront our human condition, where we can glimpse something of what we are... [It] should somehow enlarge our capacity to see ourselves as living entities in the jammed and complex contemporary world.

-Above all else reading her work should be about making it real and personal.


-Stan

[Sandy]

And, he questioned if anything is added to the legacy of Joyce's art, by the 261 books of literary criticism stored by the Library of Congress. He summed up by saying that "academics are people who want to brand this great work with their mark... I don’t accept that."
Vladimir Nabokov argued that good readers don't read books -- and particularly literary masterpieces --"for the academic purpose of indulging in generalizations."

Why should we accept Stephen Joyce's opinion about literary criticism? Being Joyce's grtandson doesn't confer any particular insights. Funny, Nabokov did himself engage in generalizations when he taught at Cornell (and when he wrote and reviewed). However, there is nothing academic about the process of generalizing. It's done everywhere. Is literary criticism useful? I guess only to the extent that thinking is useful, even though the Republican primaries are showing how little some people care about thinking. When we finish with literary criticism, we can start on proof texting.

[fofol]

Why should we accept Stephen Joyce's opinion about literary criticism? Being Joyce's grtandson doesn't confer any particular insights. Funny, Nabokov did himself engage in generalizations when he taught at Cornell (and when he wrote and reviewed). However, there is nothing academic about the process of generalizing. It's done everywhere. Is literary criticism useful? I guess only to the extent that thinking is useful, even though the Republican primaries are showing how little some people care about thinking. When we finish with literary criticism, we can start on proof texting.

When do we get to the nit-picking??

[Sandy]

Yeah, facts do get in the way of opinions. 

[AZ.bbm]

Why should we accept Stephen Joyce's opinion about literary criticism? Being Joyce's grtandson doesn't confer any particular insights. Funny, Nabokov did himself engage in generalizations when he taught at Cornell (and when he wrote and reviewed). However, there is nothing academic about the process of generalizing. It's done everywhere. Is literary criticism useful?...

-I see your point, Sandy.

I wouldn't read the critics of the critics too closely, either; just not good work.

Yeah, facts do get in the way of opinions. 

-But does fiction get in the way of fact..?   

[Sandy]

-But does fiction get in the way of fact..?   

I think our deconstructionist friends require it. 

[Paul029]

(...)
     a) “Personal emotional responses” are valid. “Self-identification” with fictional characters is a different matter.
     b) “Suppression” suggests a reader is ruled by his/her emotions, and is unable to be objective. See point a).
     c) A reader doesn’t need to “channel” an author. The text exists in its own right.
(...)
I don’t think I suggested over-analysis was problematic; I for one have better things to do than “get inside” an author’s/painter’s/composer’s head—their works are sufficient enough, without any of that other silly stuff.

 
Thanks, Paul, and you're welcome (for the PC prompt).