Today's debate question

Tue Dec 22 17:29:27 CST 2015

I totally identify with the paranoia!

LK

-----Original Message-----
>From: John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
>Sent: Dec 22, 2015 6:20 PM
>To: Perry Noid <coolwithdoc at gmail.com>
>Cc: Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>, pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: Today's debate question
>
>I don't tend to read much fiction where identification is that
>important, although I place a high value on empathy. Pynchon's books
>don't seem to require *any* identification with his characters, I
>reckon, but I love that their ambition is so much broader than that.
>They invoke a compassion for humanity and existence and the
>complicated world without confusing that with caring for a handful of
>fictional puppets. That seems a harder task than throwing up a bunch
>of interesting and flawed individuals who eventually have something
>bad happen to them and we go "ohhhh nooooo" and somehow that makes us
>better people. Which is 99.9% of the 'literary fiction' read and
>discussed in my country...
>
>Although that kind of fiction absolutely has its place, just not in my
>cold heart.
>
>On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Perry Noid <coolwithdoc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well I'm not sure I know how to debate this. But I've noticed some
>> resonances with the beginning of 2666 by Roberto Bolaño; the motivations of
>> the four readers of the same author.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sort of reminds me of computer assisted text analysis.
>>>
>>> Apropos of nothing but  had to post it.
>>>
>>> I think the "autistic analyst" is a good figure of speech.
>>>
>>> The computer's the idiot savant.
>>>
>>> Without the empathizing reader, it's a pretty bleak proposition all
>>> around.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying don't do it, but it's way secondary.
>>>
>>> Dispassionate analysis, I'm talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yeahp, nice response. I called it a debate question for this reason.
>>>> Let me try to frame 'the other perspective".
>>>>
>>>> Literature, including drama and (most) poetry is about Life, "life and
>>>> life only--Dylan" in ways most disciplines are not. The distancing of
>>>> Logic; science, even the objectivity of the scientific method are not
>>>> necessary to it. Our common--and uncommon humanity IS. That humanity
>>>> remains abstract and distant unless we can feel it just as our own
>>>> emotions---some say our own thoughts even (!)--are reguired to
>>>> understand our human feelings, our humanity.
>>>> Without being able to identify with the words, scenes and characters
>>>> in any work of literature we are as good as autistic. Perhaps a savant
>>>> but ultimately clueless to what matters in Literature.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Becky Lindroos <bekker2 at icloud.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > I see what you’re saying Mark but I still have to disagree with the
>>>> > broadness of your statement.    Whether or not a reader’s identification
>>>> > with the characters is a good thing or not depends on what she/he’s  reading
>>>> > - furthermore,  reading on one level does not eliminate other levels.  -
>>>> > Also,  what does “identify” mean in this case?  As far as I can think,
>>>> > identification is a range with “knowing someone like that” on one end  ->
>>>> > “caring about”  a character being in the middle range -  and becoming
>>>> > "psychologically enmeshed with a character” on the rather intense end.
>>>> >
>>>> > This is good about the more intense identification:
>>>> > http://www.salon.com/2012/05/17/can_you_identify/
>>>> > Includes books like On the Road (Kerouac) and The Sorrows of Young
>>>> > Werther (von Goethe) goes on to contemporary homosexual and racial stuff.
>>>> > **
>>>> > Also from today in Nebraska re Snoopy the comic strip - the lighter
>>>> > "knowing someone like that” -:
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.kearneyhub.com/opinions/hubcolumns/lori_potter/we-identify-with-characters-in-peanuts/article_6b6891c0-9a9e-11e5-a9e8-a79105d8c36f.html
>>>> >
>>>> > Charles Schulz and his “Peanuts” comic strip kids had been fixtures in
>>>> > daily newspapers since 1952, but their popularity soared after people saw “A
>>>> > Charlie Brown Christmas.”
>>>> >
>>>> > I was age 9 in 1965, so my friends and I were pretty much like Charlie
>>>> > Brown and his friends. Or at least we knew other kids who seemed like them.
>>>> >
>>>> > Some identified with the inept Charlie Brown, who couldn’t fly a kite,
>>>> > kick a football or win a baseball game. Others may have thought our teachers
>>>> > and other adults sounded like “wah-wah-wah.”
>>>> >
>>>> > We knew bossy girls like Lucy. For any Wilcox classmates who thought I
>>>> > was one of them, let me set the record straight. I’ve always been
>>>> > judgmental, not bossy.
>>>> >
>>>> > I was a Peppermint Patty tomboy who played sports with the boys at
>>>> > recess decades before most Americans thought it was OK for girls to do “boy
>>>> > things” and vice versa.
>>>> >
>>>> > I salute the boys who let me play and risked the shame of losing to a
>>>> > girl.
>>>> >
>>>> > We loved Linus’ innocence and understood why it was so hard for him to
>>>> > give up his security blanket. We admired the talents of Schroeder, the piano
>>>> > prodigy, and thought it would be cool to have a happy-go-lucky, dream-big,
>>>> > drama-loving dog like Snoopy.
>>>> >
>>>> > ****
>>>> > ME >  I personally identified with Charlie Brown and that’s kind of
>>>> > cool because he’s a boy. (I’ve identified with other males though so it’s
>>>> > not that big a deal.) Know any males like Lucy?  That’s called “Men Explain
>>>> > Things to Me.”  - lol -  My big identification thing was Jo in Little Women
>>>> > and Nancy Drew -  (good role model stuff there, imo.)
>>>> >
>>>> > We identify because we know folks like that - and it works well for
>>>> > adult readers in satire and tear-jerkers and anti-war movies and so on.
>>>> > Some folks identify to the extent of losing themselves in the emotions of
>>>> > the character (escape romances?)  ->   After many years of reading many
>>>> > books in many groups with many people,  I think some women tend to enjoy
>>>> > identifying with characters more than other folks (both sexes) do.  And
>>>> > those women who do place importance on the identification factor enjoy
>>>> > reading books that are aimed at that.   Do men identify with the guys in war
>>>> > novels?  (I have no idea.)  These books aren’t that great imo but they sell
>>>> > well.
>>>> >
>>>> > In Pynchon’s books I’ve identified with some of the women characters -
>>>> > a couple in AtD,  CoL49 a little bit,
>>>> > Bek
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Dec 22, 2015, at 1:57 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Proposition: That reading by identification with a character condemns
>>>> >> the reading to be second-rate most of the time. The major reason: it reduces
>>>> >> the sensibility of the writer, whose sensibility is supposed to be richer
>>>> >> than ours ( most of the time) but which at least is Other than ours....
>>>> >>
>>>> >> To ours. The vaunted empathy is crippled; the genius of observation
>>>> >> and imagination is lost. The reading is ultimately solipsistic.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Sent from my iPad-
>>>> >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>> >
>>>> -
>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>-
>Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l