Required Reading

[Kyburz at asu.edu]

You know, I read Tan's message and I still think it's reasonable to 
interpret or "over-interpret" along the lines followed by the student in 
the "4" essay.  Who would deny that cognitive maps are EXTREMELY 
difficult to "know," even within ourselves.  Tan can say that she never 
"meant" to create the design implied by the critic, but what does that 
*really* mean or "do" to the critique, invalidate it?  I hardly think 
so.  Haven't you, as writers, ever written something and maybe gotten a 
response that illuminated a perfectly logical pattern that you did not 
intend?  I have.  Am I just odd?

I can't believe that this is worth arguing;  sorry, just seems so silly 
to me.

Bonnie






On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Henry M wrote:

> I like what Chris has to say here. Pynchon does invite over-analysis 
> and over-interpretation than most authors.  Who else comes to mind? 
> Sure, Joyce is an easy target, but his language particularly asks for 
> extreme interpretation.
> 
> HDM
> 
> On  5 Dec 96 at 19:02, ckaratnytsky at nypl.org wrote:
> 
> > Date:          Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:02:19 -0500
> > From:          ckaratnytsky at nypl.org
> > Subject:       required reading
> > To:            pynchon-l at waste.org
> 
> >      Apropos of the recent NY Magazine article and the possible
> >      barrage of TRP-related publicity and consequent late-night
> >      pig-wrestling on Letterman associated with the pub of M&D
> >      (hello, Murthy!), my fellow listees may be interested to read
> >      Amy Tan's article in the December Harper's, reprinted from the
> >      fall Threepenny Review.
> > 
> >      The article, entitled "Required Reading and Other Dangerous
> >      Subjects" speaks to the issues authors (you know, as people)
> >      face when they become "canonized" or otherwise made grist for
> >      the, dare I say, grad student thesis, literary fan and, even,
> >      gah, listserv mill.  Tan writes amusingly about reading a
> >      master's thesis, a miracle of "literary sleuthing" which cites
> >      the symbolic use of the number four in The Joy Luck Club and
> >      goes on to "reveal a mystical and rather Byzantine puzzle,
> >      which, once explained, proved to be completely brilliant and
> >      precisely logical.  [The student] wrote me a letter and asked
> >      if her analysis had been correct.  How I long to say
> >      'absolutely.'  The truth is, if there are symbols in my work
> >      they exist largely by accident or through someone else's
> >      interpretive design....  To plant symbols like that, you need a
> >      plan, good organizational skills, and a precise understanding
> >      of the story you are about to write.  Sadly, I lack those
> >      traits."
> > 
> >      With regard to our friend TRP, I would say, natch, that he
> >      *doesn't* lack those traits, that he *does* have a plan, good
> >      organizational skills, etc. etc.  But I would venture to guess
> >      that serendipity, synchronicity and chance all play larger
> >      roles in his writings than we, the adoring public, think they
> >      do.  Don't they, eh, Mr. P., sir?  I think the marvelous
> >      confluence between the word and the plan and the angel of
> >      randomness is the big bang that creates works of genius. 
> >      (Remember the famous story about Beckett transcribing a door
> >      slam into the mss. of Finnegan's Wake, was it, for our boy
> >      James?  Check me on this, Joyce-l lurkers.)  
> > 
> >      I think that TRP must be gettin' quite a chuckle now and then
> >      from stuff like our microscopic meanderings through the GRGR.  
> >         
> > 
> >      Well, either that, or one royal headache.
> > 
> >      Chris
> > 
> > 
> 
> Keep cool, but care. -- TRP
> Aw, what the heck: go bananas. -- HDM
> 
> http://www.nicom.com/~gravity
> 

Bonnie L. Kyburz, Instructor
Department of English			(602) 965-7756 (office)
Arizona State University		kyburz at asu.edu
Tempe, AZ  85287-0302			*or* surfus at chuma.cas.usf.edu