Rebecca,
>>words can be thrown at one, even intended for one, and not 'strike' one,
not in that way to which Edmund lent the word "beach".<<
I don't fundamentally disagree, Rebecca, with anything that you said in the
post to which this was the opening statement, though I think, to some
degree, we are talking about apples and oranges. To be an audience for
something is not necessarily to be struck by that thing, in the way that I
think you meant. Even if an insult does not "strike" you, that doesn't mean
you were not an audience for the insult; in the same way, the kid who calls
out "You talkin' to me?" has in fact made him or herself an audience for
whatever was said, even if what was said was not intended for that kid. I
guess I am not thinking of audience in the marketing sense, i.e., a group
the characteristics of which, demographic or otherwise, suit it to a
particular artistic product, but rather of audience as the Other towards
which artistic expression (and, for that matter, any form of expression) is
always, at least by implication, directed. I also do not, anymore--I did
when I was quite a bit younger--imagine a specific audience for whom I am
writing in the sense that I can see them, that I could describe them as a
coherent group, with a consistent set of characteristics, but I am very
aware when I write that I am addressing myself to the world out there, to
some Other--even if that Other is only another part of myself--and, this is
a new thread in this discussion, I think, it's important to me to humanize
that Other in some way, and so my question about the writer's/artist's
ethical responsibilities to the/an audience.
About Rumi and Saadi: I have a slightly different take. I would argue that
it's not the specifics of religion in which Saadi is anchored--because, in
fact, his work is in many ways a critique of what we might now call the
"organized version" of the Islam of his time, but rather that he is anchored
in the specifics of his culture and society, its daily life, its social
relationships, its narrative textures and so on, and I would agree that this
makes his work in some ways not so easily accessible to contemporary Western
readers. I would also say that the Rumi people know through Coleman Barks,
and while this might not be true of you, it is my experience that most
people of the people I know in the States know Rumi through Coleman Barks,
is a Rumi that has been highly westernized in the sense that the culturally
specific elements of his work have been removed. Barks is quite explicit
about his intention to free Rumi's poems into their essence, or to free the
essence of them--I don't remember which wording he uses--and since Barks is
western and cannot help but see this essence through a western sensibility,
it seems to me you cannot help but end up with a westernized Rumi. Now, this
is not to say that Barks' Rumi is invalid; it is simply to recognize that
his translation project has a very specific agenda and that part of this
agenda is to remove the culturally specific elements of Rumi that Barks
feels would detract from people here and now being able to read and
appreciate Rumi.
And now, back to Saadi....
Richard
|