At the back of my head, there is something about Jane Austen and young
girls, in Austen's time, being encouraged to write their own novels.
And being frowned on as a consequence.
I have to admit that the higher reaches of theory and philosophy make
my brain wander. I've ploughed through some of the books on these
subjects and came out seemingly none the wiser. Differential equations
were so much easier ...
Roger
On 2/28/07, MC Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think you're right about time lost to reading,
> Roger. If reading were limited to someone's free time,
> how do we account for the reader with no free time?
>
> As for the two forms of belief, my knowledge of them
> (especially _de dicto_ ) is sketchy. Briefly, they
> refer to "this" and "that," respectively. The only
> reason I know about these is that a friend wrote a
> dissertation on belief _de ra_, and titled it _What's
> the Meaning of "This"?_, which the _Chronicle of
> Higher Ed_ called one of the most ridiculous titles
> that year. Since I came up with it, I was offended by
> their attitude and lack of appreciation for an
> accurate--if comically expressed--title. (Does
> _everything_ in philosophy have to be dull?)
>
> Candice
>
> The castle stood as before, reared high above a waste
> of desolation.
> (Bram Stoker)
>
> --- Roger Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > re: the danger of novels. Could it have something to
> > do with *time. A
> > novel consumes time, time perhaps in the
> > husband's/wife's/mother's/father's opinion, have
> > been taken up with
> > more "fruitful" works.
> >
> > Can you expand on the two belief forms?
> >
> > On 2/27/07, MC Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > "You are entitled to be a reader, in other words,
> > > whoever you happen to be" and "margin of silence;"
> > two
> > > statements by Christopher that make me wonder if
> > the
> > > entitlement, at least, is connected to the rise of
> > > "silent reading." The narrator gets in the way
> > there,
> > > too, but can be effectively ignored due to the
> > privacy
> > > of such reading, especially for women, who lacked
> > > other kinds of privacy. The silent reader could
> > also
> > > "be" in the narrative, as an onlooker, or, more
> > > deeply, can identify with one or more characters .
> > The
> > > problem with such identification is that it's not
> > > lasting. There will be a new novel after this one
> > with
> > > another identification and so on.Then there is
> > also
> > > the matter of the intrusive narrator, i.e., he/she
> > is
> > > not the only one intruding--those with families,
> > > especially demanding husbands, have their privacy
> > > routinely disrupted. But how does all this, which
> > is
> > > mainly about fiction and the reader's escape into
> > it,
> > > refer to poetry? Intrusions on the (female) silent
> > > reader are even harder to cope with because the
> > poem
> > > should be read in its entirety, unlike the novel,
> > > which can be put down and picked up again without
> > > losing the thread. Poetry is probably less
> > > threatening, however, to the husband or other head
> > of
> > > the household, while novels can put dangerous
> > thoughts
> > > into the woman's head (what's called in New
> > Hampshire
> > > "having big ideas").
> > >
> > > What you say about the competing makes me think of
> > > "possible worlds" in philosophy. They aren't
> > exactly
> > > parallel either, let alone friendly to one
> > another.
> > >
> > > And finally (to your relief probably) there's the
> > > matter of epoche and its impact on the two worlds;
> > in
> > > other words,the issue of belief. There are two
> > forms
> > > in philosophy, as you probably know, "belief de
> > re"
> > > and "belief de dicto." Does one apply more to
> > fiction
> > > and the other more to poetry? I suspect they do,
> > but
> > > am not up enough on philosophy to say so.
> > >
> > > And that's enough from me!
> > >
> > > Candice
> > >
> > > The story that follows is one I
> > > never intended to commit to paper.
> > > (Elizabeth Kostava)
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Christopher Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Candice:
> > > >
> > > > A few stray thoughts in response...
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > In those 19th-C novels that feature an
> > > > explicit reader (as in "Reader, I married him"),
> > the
> > > > actual reader (who could conceivably be implicit
> > or
> > > > explicit) must be further subsumed by a state of
> > > > implicit _duplicity_, would you say?
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > It's a vestige, I think, of a form of oblique
> > > > address and, as you say, it
> > > > pops up regularly in Thackeray, Dickens et al.
> > The
> > > > narrator uttering such
> > > > words is in turn the weakened descendent of the
> > > > dramatic Prologue or Chorus,
> > > > framing and introducing what's narrated. But in
> > > > Brontė, as with Defoe before
> > > > her, character and narrator fuse together.
> > > >
> > > > Three factors seem to be interacting: privacy,
> > > > presence (animacy: who feels
> > > > more *real*, more *really there*) and genre.
> > > >
> > > > Outside literary genres, what I'm calling here
> > > > oblique address ('Would Sir
> > > > like another bread roll?') seems to me to
> > preserve
> > > > the privacy of the
> > > > addressee by ensuring that the two interlocutors
> > do
> > > > not (entirely) occupy
> > > > the same conversational space. So it's a form of
> > > > linguistic politeness. A
> > > > bit like leaving visiting cards or being (or not
> > > > being) 'at home'.
> > > >
> > > > As to genre, choruses in drama also seem to me
> > to
> > > > mediate (but in more
> > > > fundamental ways) between two different spaces:
> > that
> > > > of the audience on the
> > > > one hand, whom they partly represent; that of
> > the
> > > > characters, one of whom
> > > > they are, on the other. So privacy goes both
> > ways.
> > > > And since they often also
> > > > speak for some higher power, such as Fate or the
> > > > Divine, supplying further
> > > > information, and since Fate in principle is more
> > > > animate (of a higher order
> > > > of being) than either the mortals in the
> > audience or
> > > > the characters on the
> > > > stage, the privacy of both sides is disturbed.
> > > >
> > > > In *The Spanish Tragedie*, it is Revenge which
> > plays
> > > > this mediating,
> > > > overarching role: 'Heere sit we downe to see the
> > > > misterie, / And serue for
> > > > Chorus in this tragedie.' Push onward to the
> > 19th
> > > > C, to (say) *The Pirates
> > > > of Penzance* and the chorus, heavily denatured,
> > > > nonetheless still introduces
> > > > a tiny wobble, the hint of a freeze-frame, into
> > the
> > > > onward flow of time and
> > > > self regard ('I am the very model of a modern
> > > > Major-General ... He is the
> > > > very model of a modern Major-General') simply by
> > > > changing the pronoun.
> > > >
> > > > Am I saying something useful? I don't know.
> > Anyway,
> > > > here's a second
> > > > thought...
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > Finally, I want to think some more about your
> > notion
> > > > of un/ratification and of a world that exists to
> > be
> > > > overheard, if I've read you correctly there(?).
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > At the beginning of *Tom Jones*, Fielding
> > rejects 'a
> > > > private or eleemosynary
> > > > treat' in favour of 'a public ordinary'. You
> > are
> > > > entitled to be a reader,
> > > > in other words, whoever you happen to be.
> > > > Richardson's approach is
> > > > different. Thus *Pamela* is after the fact of a
> > > > sequence of private letters,
> > > > just as Wittgenstein's *language* is after the
> > fact
> > > > of the *deed*. So in
> > > > Richardson's case the reader is on the one hand
> > an
> > > > unratified participant
> > > > with respect to the correspondence and, on the
> > > > other, a _ratified_
> > > > participant (as with Fielding) with respect to
> > the
> > > > world of the novel:
> > > > although the letters are undated they are sorted
> > and
> > > > numbered with some
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Need Mail bonding?
> Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
>
--
My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious." Oscar Wilde
|
