Walk your way

[Phaedra Kelly]

> >
> >Critics are readers. It's an artificial distinction distinction to try 
>and
> >say otherwise.
>
>OK, as far as the observation goes, but by critics I mean someone who is
>reading in order to make some sort of formal critique, not reading for
>pleasure.  Slice it however you like it, set up your straw men and knock
>'em down if it makes you feel good to do so. These are the dog days, after
>all.

I too question the dichotomy of critic/reader, even more so after reading 
your response.  I read for pleasure, but part of the pleasure for me is the 
analysis, though admittedly I do not write a critique (at least, not in a 
long while  :)  And I'm sure, or I hope, that those who do write critiques 
get much pleasure out of the experience, with the exception, of course, of 
bored students who do not get any pleasure out of anything.

But I do not believe it is possible to completely "get" a text, with the 
possible exception of very simple texts, such as, say a well-written 
shopping list.  One's ability to get a text changes as one grows 
(emotionally and mentally, if there is such a difference), and it changes as 
one rereads and rereads a text.  If by the reader/critic distinction you are 
contrasting one who simply reads a text once and moves on between one who 
returns to a text over and over again, then I accept your distinction.

I should also note that "getting it" can mean to many folks an almost 
intuitive understanding of what the author "means" which is very, very 
different animal than a "comprehensive" understanding.  Beatnik vs. music 
theorist listening to Mingus sort of thing.  I felt at the beginning of this 
discussion that this difference in definition was part of the reason for the 
disagreement.

cheers,
phaedra


>
> >
>There's no real difference between
> >"get[ting] it" and having a "'comprehensive' understanding" of a text.
>
>
>Really?  By "comprehensive" I means, well, just that, understanding
>something in toto, "including all or everything" -- and I simply don't
>believe you or any other reader can come to grips with any text to that
>degree.  Please feel free to disagree, but I don't believe you can support
>an argument to the contrary, i.e,. argue successfully that you can reach a
>truly comprehensive understanding of a text, because that's just not
>possible -- those signifiers just keep on a-slippin- an' a-slidin' no
>matter how hard you try to lasso 'em all and herd 'em on in the corral.
>
>I remain satisfied that Pynchon stays several steps ahead of even his most
>attentive his readers, but if you feel you have a comprehensive
>understanding of his texts, more power to you, don't let me pop your
>bubble, although I think you overreach in this instance and give yourself
>credit for insight you don't really possess.
>
>
>comprehensive
>adj 1: including all or everything; "comprehensive coverage"; "a
>comprehensive history of the revolution"; "a comprehensive survey"; "a
>comprehensive education"
>http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=comprehensive
>
>(Feel free to choose another dictionary, or another meaning of the word.
>This is the one I'm working with in this instance.  But I know my text will
>support many readings -- fewer than Pynchon's, I'm sure, but I doubt even
>the most attentive reader will exhaust them all.)




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com