File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_2000/phillitcrit.0008, message 337


From: zatavu-AT-excite.com
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 09:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: PLC: Poetry, prose, fiction as meaningful


>  >  Well, I certainly disagree with his attitude toward women - as well as
many
>  >  other things. The thing that makes this book interesting is that you
like
>  >  the man despite the fact that he's an asshole.
>  
>  So, then, say you were going to teach this book to a class, or write an 
>  article on Miller.  Would liking the man in spite of the fact that he's
an 
>  asshole be your thesis?  And if so, how would you contextualize your
comments 
>  and deal with the substance of the text?

Well, were I to teach the text, I wouldn't give a lecture or anything on it
anyway, butask the students how they engaged the text. What did they think
about it? What did they like or dislike about it? Or him? If there were any
contradictory feelings, I would ask the students to explain them, ask why
they felt that way about him, how they thought he was able to accomplish
making us feel that way about him. I would try to guide discussion of his
novel, but I wouldn't lecture on it - which is the quickest way to make
students bored.

Now, if I were to write a scholarly article about the text, I likely
wouldn't write one that dealt with something so subjective as my personal
feelings toward the narrator, but would discuss how Miller deals with this
or that issue or uses this or that method or style of writing. For example,
I might discuss how Miller uses the surrealists' method of automatic
writing.
>  
>    Your view doesn't seem to hold, and 
>  >  >  certainly does not explain its own contradictions.  Having them 
>  explained
>  >  
>  >  >  might be helpful, for me at least.
>  >  
>  >  He wasn't writing with that goal in mind, though. He was telling a
story
>  >  first and foremost. 
>  
>  How can you tell the difference?  How can you explain the difference to
me?  
>  Say I'm a student in your class and you put Miller and O'Connor in front
of 
>  me and say, "He's telling a story first; She's developing a moral message

>  first," just for an example.  How would you point to the texts to show me
how 
>  to see this difference?  Would you teach one and not the other, and if so

>  what would your justification be for that decision? (And if the answer 
>  circles back to this assertion that he's telling a story first and
foremost, 
>  that will not do.)  And if, I, as a student, tried to argue that O'Connor
was 
>  the more interesting writer to me because I'm Catholic or because I like
her 
>  use of symbolism more than Miller's tendency to talk at his readers (none
of 
>  which statements are actually true about me) , would I be wrong, would I
be 
>  told I was wrong because my taste differed from yours?  

Well, first of all, I wouldn't make that quote. I think both were telling a
story first and foremost. I really can't say, in all honesty, how I would
approach O'Connor, tho, since I haven't read her.

Now, as for which you prefered, and for what reasons, your choice as to
which you prefered wouldn't make you wrong. LIking one book or author over
another is purely subjective. Taste can be neither right nor wrong (though
some is better than others - someone who prefers romance novels over
literature does not have as good a taste,I don't think).
>  
>  I'm not trying to be thick headed or argumentative, Troy, with these 
>  questions.  I just want to get beyond vague phrases like "story first and

>  foremost" and "likable asshole" and "good" and "garbage" to see what in
the 
>  world they mean to you, to how you want to teach, and how you wanted to
be 
>  taught. Until I really understand the meaning of such mantras, I can't 
>  respond to you in any substantial way.

When talking about "garbage," I was talking about what amateur writers
write, based on their notions of why one should write a story.

I say Miller is a "likeable asshole" because he is a bit of a jerk, but he
is very charismatic, and you become convinced that you would like himand
like to be around him - though you might at the same time keep a tight hold
on your wallet if you were around him.

WHen I say someone should be concerned with "story first and foremost" when
they write, I mean that they should think first about the characters, then
the story and is to develop around them. THe themes and "morals" of the
story will then arise through the natural interactions of the characters and
the way the author portrays them or comments about them. In rewriting, an
author then pays special attention to language and internal logic of the
story (even to consider if it is supposed to have one) first. If you go out
of your way to make sure it is "saying something," then you are going
against what it is that the novel is meant to do: emphasize ambiguity. Any
time an author has people arguing over what he "really meant," he is only
then truly successful - because then he has engaged his readers'
subjectivity.
>  
>  >  
>  >  Besides, as I have tried to point out over and over and which people
just
>  >  keep ignoring, is that this started out as an argument about why
students
>  >  should read literature.
>  
>  So, what is or would be (I don't know if you teach or not) your approach
to 
>  teaching literature?  New Critical, New Historicist, Marxist, Feminist, 
>  Reader Response, etc....?  Is there for you a split between teaching with
an 
>  approach and a 'goal' that would also be incompatible with enjoying the 
>  literature?  Given your views on what is good and bad in literature, I'm 
>  guessing that you would accept such a split, but I want to check.

Well, I would ask the students to do what I said above. That would be my
approach. Sort of a postmodern, pluralist approach. I think that there can
be several "right" readings of a text - though I also think there are also
"wrong" readings of a text. I would ask them to pay attention to what the
text says - and suggest that if it's not in the text, then that is what
makes for a "wrong" reading of it. Now, I think emphasizing those various
approaches could make the discussion more interesting, so long as one was
not amphasized over another, and alternative views from the students was
encouraged. I want the students to enjoy their discovery of what is in the
text. Imposing meaning is what drives students away.

Troy Camplin





_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html



     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005