Was Paul M's Eagleton tidbit on THE UNCONSCIOUS

[alice wellintown]

see David S. Reynolds  Beneath the American Renaissance: The
Subversive Imagination in the Age of Emerson and Melville.

see Tanner, The American Mystery

see Bradbury and Ruland From Puritanism to postmodernism : a history
of American literature

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 6:31 AM, alice wellintown
<alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yup, it ain't for the common reader, whoever she or he is. But that
> argument is easy. We can argue that about any book of this kind. Like
> the books, how to read novels or literature like a professor and so
> on, this book is not for students of fiction who are learning how
> fiction works or how to read fiction; those who are better read than
> Wood will get the most out of it, and will discover its true errors,
> accept, if not agree with, its most insightful readings. His critique
> of Pynchon is fairly solid, but, of course, it is also skewed by his
> taste, his ambition, for Wood fancies himself, somehow, a Henry James
> the critic. I any event, the chapter on consciousness is great and
> probably better and easier to read than Eagleton. The development that
> Wood traces is not new, but it provides a very good foundation for his
> examination of characters and how they work. It also supports his
> critique of author's like P and how they use and make characters. I
> don't agree that P is a child of Fielding. On this, Wood is simpley
> misreading the American Tradition that P sprung from and continues to
> advance. Tanner, as stated several times here, is an excellent
> dialectic to Wood on the American Tradition. Because so many,
> including Wood, conflate James and Conrad, then link him with
> Fitzgeral and Hemingway and all the flotsam that has been shored
> against the ruins of Eliot and James, they misread American
> Literature, ignoring its so-called renaissance period as an attempt to
> write romance in the European style (Melville & Co.).
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:40 AM, jochen stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Found that http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/august08-how-fiction-works/
>> in the Web, and found it utterly convincing.
>>
>> Perhaps there's more to find in the book - I doubt it.
>>
>> 2012/10/19 alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>:
>>> In _How Fiction Works_ , in the chapter, "A Brief History of
>>> Consciosness", Wood examines, first, the OT Story of David, then
>>> Macbeth, and then Raskalnikov. It is worth reading. It is worth
>>> reading.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Eagleton book is The Event of Literature.  The chapter I was discussing
>>>> is entitled Stategy, which according to Eagleton comes from Burke, who saw
>>>> human communication as a form of action.  Dramatism.
>>>>
>>>> On Mark's comments, for me the sure sign of real literature is originality.
>>>> The presentation of non conventional values is ipso facto originality.
>>>> Values can be expressed in a million ways.  Where does this expression come
>>>> from--from the writer's unconscious.  More generally from all that is hidden
>>>> from normal view. Nothing is new under the sun.  But much is hidden.
>>>>