Readership

[Tim Strzechowski]

Doug said:

> Tim, I think jbor's problem -- I'm not sure, of course, maybe Otto can
> explain for us what jbor is up to ;) -- is that he can't (his theory won't
> let him) admit any sort of primacy on the part of the author or the work
of
> art -- the critic (or reader, if that's the preferred term) has to be on
> par with the author in that critical approach, if not actually elevated in
> status above the artist or work of art.

Of course Rob can explain himself when he's ready, but I find it difficult
to ever imagine the critic being on par with the author. True, both artist
and critic are "creating," and to that extent they are placing text "out
there" to be read and evaluated.  But the artist is more likely to be
engaged in a proactive synthesis (i.e. the artist draws upon his/her
experiences, readings, influences, etc. and creates something *new*),
whereas the critic is more or less reactive (for, without the art upon which
to base the criticism, there'd be no critcism to create, right?).

> From a certain perspective, that
> may be true, but from another angle it seems silly.  Experience in the
real
> world tells us that riticism can certainly rise to the level of art
(albeit
> for a rather limited, specialized audience), but rarely supplants the art
> on which it comments, which generally speaks to and is enjoyed by a far
> broader audience than the critic.

I agree.  And I've read some very good criticism, but again, criticism is
the barnacle on the ship of art, in my opinion.

> jbor  also seems stuck in a critical
> approach that has to judge certain readings better or more "comprehensive"
> than others, in order to preserve the elitist notion that some readers
have
> more insight, or "get it" while others don't, instead of permitting
> democratic access to the text on the part of readers who bring vastly
> different experiences and expectations and reading approaches to a novel,
> and whose responses to the work of art have value in and of themselves,
> apart from the critical judgement of any self-proclaimed expert or judge.
>

I would hope that that is untrue.  In his previous post, Rob gave the
definitions of "esoteric" and later commented: "The first definition smacks
of elitism: only the chosen ones, or "Elect" can truly "understand."  This,
to me, suggests that he denounces the notion of an elitist reading as much
as anyone else who is a sensible, competent, and engaged reader.  I would
like to think that *all* of us accept the reality of the reader bringing
his/her life experience, readings, and literary "baggage" to the text, and
drawing upon those to help inform the reading. Hence, depending on the
reader's skill, experience, etc. s/he may have a more fullfilling reading
experience (e.g. a person who has read the Bible and, then, _The Grapes of
Wrath_, as opposed to a person who has no biblical background), but
certainly nothing close to "comprehensive."

(And folks,  I'm not suggesting that a secular reading of Steinbeck's novel
is anything less than a biblical reading.  I'm just making an example.)

Tim

>