Hal, well this is an idea that I came across last fall in a review class on
literary theory, and I at least find/found it compelling. The idea is not
straightofrwardly that everything one reads is either from a formalist,
structuralist, feminist, marxist &c. point of view, but that all
non-literary text is read with the right 'way' in mind -- which is what
literature lacks, so the set of aesthetic, moral and philosophical standards
each reader of literature works from has developed them individually. thus
even someone without knowledge of formal theories is not theory-free in the
sense that there would be some pure, tabula-rasa-ish way of viewing
literature, because that's not possible I'd say. as social beings we each
involve ourselves with the outside world with *some* tools, even if we are
unaware of them, and though having the ability to see critically, norms
(social as well as theoretical) are also what guide us.
here's a snippet from how K.M. Newton puts it in <<Twentieth Century
LIterary Theory>> (1997):
With virtually all forms of non-literary discourse certain norms and
> constraints must govern how they are read if such discourses are to serve
> the interests and purposes that direct our reading. Thus though theoretical
> questions may be raised in relation to such discourses, theory must take
> second place to these interests and purposes. This is the case whether one
> is reading a cooking recipe, a newspaper article, a work of history or
> philosophy, or a scientific paper. But with literary discourse, there are no
> practical or logical necessities external to the discourse that determine
> how it must be read. Theory is therefore* *always implied in reading
> literary discourse, since whatever norms and constraints that govern how
> literary texts are read cannot be seen as an integral part of the discourse
> itself but are *chosen, consciously or unconsciously*, from among the
> various possibilities by the reader. [my italics]
>
>
I welcome opinions on this, though as I have an exam coming up on this topic
I'll try not to muddle myself with critical second-guessing until after I
pass it. ;)
(I kid, but I do find that university studies are more prescriptivist than
really descriptivist, in practice.)
KS
2009/5/11 Halvard Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
> What do you mean when you say "no writing can be viewed
> without theory"? I'd say that any writing can be viewed
> without theory.
>
> Hal
>
> "My experience is what I agree to attend to."
> --William James
>
> Halvard Johnson
> ================
> [log in to unmask]
> http://sites.google.com/site/halvardjohnson/Home
> http://entropyandme.blogspot.com
> http://imageswithoutwords.blogspot.com
> http://www.hamiltonstone.org
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM, kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > also, not to harp too much on the subject, but the key words in my
> original
> > post were "on its own". it's true that no writing can be viewed without
> > theory, but ultrapostmodernist poetry seems to require the tinted glasses
> > of
> > a theory that, to me, feels strained & alien. even if it makes me a pleb,
> > and even though I know views are wont to shift around, at the moment I'd
> > rather produce something good within a norm than produce something bad
> > outside of one.
> >
> > KS
> >
> > 2009/5/11 kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > > I will say I appreciate the idea in provoking sneers at "a poetry field
> > > crowded by would-be sincerists unwilling to own up to their poems’
> > > self-aggrandizing, sentimental, bloviating, or sexist tendencies". then
> > > again I see nothing wrong with aggrandizement or sentimentality if it
> > isn't
> > > done vacuously, or naïvely. on my own part I can't do much in the way
> of
> > > rooting out such in my own writing, being a called-out naif myself. I
> do
> > > what I can with my pupating awareness and ability.
> > >
> > > KS
> > >
> > > 2009/5/11 kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
> > >
> > > I was curt, but I stand by the opinion, which comes from an albeit
> > >> non-postmodern stance. I know of flarf poetry, and one quote I found
> > from
> > >> Joshua Corey sums up what preconceptions I have of it: "I admire the
> > >> subversive energy of the project, the daring of setting out to write
> > >> deliberately bad poetry so as to put our received ideas of "the
> poetic"
> > into
> > >> question."
> > >> that's all well & good, but it's still bad poetry to me. I'd rather
> read
> > >> GOOD poetry that questions our received ideas of 'the poetic'.
> > >>
> > >> KS
> > >>
> > >> 2009/5/10 Barry Alpert <[log in to unmask]>
> > >>
> > >> I detect no evidence you understand it, or "flarf" at all. To elicit
> > the
> > >>> comment "bad
> > >>> poem" from a naif signals success in that range.
> > >>>
> > >>> Barry Alpert
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:28:26 +0300, kasper salonen <
> [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> >if nothing else, it's a bad poem on its own.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >2009/5/6 Barry Alpert <[log in to unmask]>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> THOUGHTMESH
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Video shocked selfless publishing.
> > >>> >> Innovation featured fact editors edited.
> > >>> >> Ambition benefitted conceptual shocked video.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Barry Alpert / Silver Spring, MD US / 5-6-09 (8:16 AM)
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Unconsciously referencing traditional forms with its 14 words, 3
> > >>> lines, &
> > >>> >> the "rhyme" of its
> > >>> >> conclusion with its opening. Also an unexpected variant on my
> > >>> >> severely-edited workings
> > >>> >> with the strategies of "flarf".
> > >>> >>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
|