(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC
b sharp
bsharporflat at hotmail.com
Thu Sep 7 19:30:40 PDT 2006
Tony writes:
>we should be able to solve the conventional mysteries of a Wolfe story from
>the story alone. What >Wolfe says in an interview may be very illuminating,
>but if you have to *rely* on it to prove your >theory about a story, then
>you've failed to understand that story. And if you don't
>have to rely on it, then it's not key information.
I spy a difference in perspective and I think I've bumped into this
difference before (correct me if I'm wrong Tony). Perhaps it boils down to
some combination of subjective and objective.
Some appreciators of art find the interaction between artist and audience to
be a sacred thing. I can appreciate this perspective since I am more like
that with music. I'm not highly interested in all the outside influences
that might have inspired a musician (especially in jazz) to play a certain
note at at certain time. The song is exactly as it is played, and will thus
be enjoyed or not by me. External context is not so important.
With literature, for me, it is different. Words, unlike notes, are
judgeable. I feel comfortable being critical, saying "Wolfe made this story
too ambiguous with the text alone." I need to know Wolfe's background,
influences, thinking patterns to feel I might grasp his intended meaning. In
fact, with Wolfe I also need the help of other readers to grasp it. For me,
with Wolfe, all the extra stuff is "key information". Essential. I could
even say that someone who ignores outside evidence or pver-elevates the
basic text fails to understand the story.
But I can respect anyone who prefers the sanctity of the words and the
sacred bond that forms between reader and author when someone reads a story.
Who undertands a cat better, a scientist who has dissected every square
millimeter and done exhaustive biochemical and neurological
testing....or...the long time owner of a cat?
-bsharp
More information about the Urth
mailing list