Subject/Objective Reality/Illusion

[barbara100 at jps.net]

So what are objective and subjective readings anyway?  We love to toss those
words around--I remember them bouncing off the walls in class--but what do
they mean in the context of reading a novel?  A Thomas Pynchon novel, for
example. Is an objective reading one where we focus on the intent of the
writer--Gottfried as a gross example of the consequence of war and political
corruption--and a subjective reading one where we feel the text through
personal filters--the flush of my cheeks when I pictured him stuffed into
his death capsule wrapped in bridal lace and Imipolex G? If these are our
objective and subjective choices, I'd have to ask, How could we read one way
without the other? Objective/Subjective--it's like the yin and yang of
literature, and reality.




----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Panetta <judy at firemist.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:25 PM
Subject: RE: MDMD: Subject/Objective Reality/Illusion


>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org]On
> > Behalf Of Roberto No Mass Du Run Du Run
> > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 11:15 PM
> > To: Eventually everyone
> > Subject: Re: MDMD: Something that could be mistaken for a real post.
> > Subject/Objective Reality/Illusion
> >
> >
> > Can objective reading be possible?
> >
> > Of a novel? No, of course not.
> >
> > Suppose we put different texts on a spectrum ranging from Objective
> > reading to Subjective.
> >
> > Can objective reading be possible?
> >
> > Of a specific and concise scientific formula
>
> Ask Heisenberg. But we've been here before.
>
> >or a particular and precise recipe for Cream of Chicken Soup?
>
> Would that be light cream, whipping cream or whole milk?
>
> However. It is not a point worth driving home in this context.
>
> >
> > Maybe or maybe not, but reading a soup can recipe or a scientific
> > formula or a phone book, while it obviously involves some of what
> > reading a novel like M&D involves (i.e. in terms of the physical
> > operations of the organs--eye, brain), seems to be closer to objective
> > reading than reading novels or poems.
> >
> > Furthermore, I would say there are novels, just as there are recipes and
> > sculptures and paintings, that invite a more objective or subjective
> > reading stance.
>
> Flavors of objectivity? Degrees of objectivity?
>
> > Also, there are and have been approaches to literature, or more
> > generally to art, or trends in literature or art, which also invite
> > readers to assume a more objective or subjective stance. These critical
> > or aesthetic trends and theories may or may not coincide with or have a
> > reciprocal relationship with what novelists and artists are doing at the
> > time. For example, there is no reason why a Freudian literary critic
> > can't apply Freudian theories and ideas to Shakespeare's Hamlet and
> > Eminem's The Marshall Mathers LP or why Postmodern critical theories
> > can't be applied to Madonna and Milton.
>
> Yes, of course... if there's a point to doing so. Change the lens of the
> glasses and one will perhaps gain some insight...or a degree. Assuming an
> ambition towards openness or a willingness toward expanding the precept of
> one's world view. Hmm. That's a contentious statement.
>
> And why not Madonna? (Don't bother. It's not that important.)
>
> > Andy Warhol & Homer says, "Hmmmmm Hmmmmm Cream of Chicken Soup."
>
> Worked the annual Campbell Soup Company meeting a coupla of weeks ago.
This
> year's swag was a sweatshirt sporting a drawing of the classic red & white
> chicken soup can. With Warhol's signature. Is that illusionary reality or
> realistic illusion?
>
> > How does reading happen? I don't know and I don't think anyone does.
> > There are lots of wonderful theories about the reading process. There
> > are hundreds of theories about how the brain processes language and
> > symbols and so forth, but they're all very muddy and as long as people
> > keep insisting on talking about the brain as if it were only the latest
> > mechanical metaphor for out latest mechanical obsessions we'll probably
> > never find out.
>
> Ask any dyslexic and they'll agree. Save you the trouble, you can ask me.
>
> > The reader of any text decodes each symbol and word in the text by
> > searching for clues in the text and by searching in his/her brain--
> > drawing on experience with the text being read, other texts, anything at
> > all (including one's mother and her little black cat).
> >
> > Obviously, there are some things that go on in the mind of the reader
> > when reading a  soup can recipe that are exactly the same as what goes
> > on in the brain when reading a big fat novel like War and Peace,  but
> > there are very big differences too. I tend to think that there is a
> > spectrum.
> >
> > If reading a soup can recipe is closer to the objective reading end of
> > the spectrum and reading War And Peace is closer to the Subjective
> > reading end of the spectrum, we might say reading a Play like Hamlet is
> > closer to reading War and Peace than reading The New York Times.
> >
> > Does this make sense?
>
> Yeah.
>
> > Is this the way people all over the world think about different texts
> > and their utility, function, reader objectivity/subjectivity?  Is this
> > how people have always looked at different texts?
> >
> > Or is this way of looking at texts, some as works of art, some as
> > information or direction, some as news, some as entertainment, some as
> > more objective when read and other more subjective, something Modern or
> > Post-modern?
>
> Very binary. I may be reacting more to the "trend" of criticism than to
what
> you're saying. Classifications. Very handy for databases. Or cataloguing a
> collection. Or dissertations. More fairly...within the limitations of
> language, description relies on pre-established labels. An awkward device
> although I doubt that the academic community would consider other methods
of
> expression. More edginess, I agree. If you would be so kind to entertain
> this thought: While artists have strove to break out of/break away from
> conventional forms, would you agree that the critics have not? (I'm going
to
> leave this question without explanation. As much as I want to elaborate,
I'm
> more interested in first reaction. If ya'll would indulge me.)
>
> > Paul N was talking about the function of an author and I know there are
> > quite a few people that won't like what Foucault says about what an
> > author is and how applying the St. Jerome school of literary criticism
> > may not be very useful or appropriate tp Pynchon....but anyway...it's
> > simply another way to bring out the richness of texts and it might help
> > us stay on track.
> >
> > This all gets me to thinking about the Subjunctive. That's what I'm
> > working on these days, Foucault and the Subjunctive in Feminist Mexican
> > Fiction.
> >
> Sounds yummy, Terrance. Really. I confess to having not fully wrapped my
> imagination around "subjunctive." If you care to elaborate, please do. And
> someday I'd like to explain why the term Feminist Mexican irritates me.
> Meanwhile, I'm going to review what an author is.
>
> Best,jp
>
>