who's Christian?

[jbor]

----------
>From: Thomas Eckhardt <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>
>

> I have not defined anything. Novels with an utterly transparent implied author
can
> be masterpieces whereas novels with shifting PsOV, various equally trustworthy
> narrators etc. can be boring as hell.

That was part of it and, thinking of Dickens especially but nineteenth
century realism in general (which was perhaps the peak of the tradition),
this concept of an "implied author" can only be uncovered (i.e. disclosed)
by recourse to deconstructive interpretations. After all, the whole idea of
the realist novel was that there was no such thing as an "implied author",
that the novel should be "a mirror walking upon a main road" (Stendhal).

But more to the point, I don't think that there is a stable category (i.e. a
*definition*) of "inferior fiction" either. What someone else finds "boring
as hell" you might decide is "superior". Thomas Mann, for example. In
setting up a hierarchy of textual "quality" (i.e. a canon, or categories of
"inferior" and "superior" texts) you are also implicitly setting up a
hierarchy of *reader* "quality" at the same time.

snip
> Thus, my distinction between a
> text that is transparent as far as "Weltanschauung" is concerned and a text
that
> isn't, would be meaningless to the deconstructive reader, because to him no
> text can
> be transparent anyway.

> In any case, it was only a slightly ironic remark, a friendly nudge in the
> deconstructionist's ribs, so to speak. What makes you think that I meant to
attack
> or, even worse, "single out Deconstructionists as pariahs", is beyond me.

Well, no, it was dismissive. You said "a reader may rightfully assume" that
the implied author's worldview and that of the real author are aligned, as
long as "he or she is not a Deconstructionist". Whether only "slightly
ironic" or not, what it conveyed to me is that you believe that the
Deconstructionist's reading will be "wrong" on this point. I don't think
that this is correct at all.

They were only minor points. You are obviously offended by the fact that I
have dared to try and discuss them with you, though I have no idea why this
should be the case, so let's just forget it.

best