Author of My Brilliant Friend explains her anonymity in Paris Review

[ish mailian]

Isn't the collective intelligence idea a post death of the author spin on
Eliot's tradition and the individual talent?  None of this, as Foucault
reminds us in his famous essay, is new.


On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:16 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:

> It does tie into the death of the author but I've never heard an
> actual author protest that their work is a product of "a collective
> intelligence" rather than their own. That's fascinating and seems
> genuinely self-effacing, rather than using the whole anonymity thing
> as just another brand hook.
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:56 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  Isn't the complaint about the media yet another clever spin on the
> death or
> > disappearance of the author? One that, in protesting preserves the author
> > privilege while suppressing the real meaning of his death or
> disappearance?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I like all this and think TRP might agree. look what publicity has
> >> done for-to-Franzen, just for one example.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > "Elena Ferrante" is more Pynchonian than Pynchon.  Now considered
> >> > leading
> >> > Italian novelist of her era.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > INTERVIEWER
> >> >
> >> > Many American reviews seem to make a direct connection between the
> work
> >> > you
> >> > do writing—its sincerity, its honesty—and your keeping out of the
> public
> >> > eye. As if to say, the less one appears, the better one writes.
> >> >
> >> > FERRANTE
> >> >
> >> > Two decades are a long time, and the reasons for the decisions I made
> in
> >> > 1990, when we first considered my need to avoid the rituals of
> >> > publication,
> >> > have changed. Back then, I was frightened at the thought of having to
> >> > come
> >> > out of my shell. Timidity prevailed. Later, I came to feel hostility
> >> > toward
> >> > the media, which doesn’t pay attention to books themselves and values
> a
> >> > work
> >> > according to the author’s reputation. It’s surprising, for example,
> how
> >> > the
> >> > most widely admired Italian writers and poets are also known as
> scholars
> >> > or
> >> > are employed in high-level editorial jobs or in other prestigious
> >> > fields.
> >> > It’s as if literature were not capable of demonstrating its
> seriousness
> >> > simply through texts, but required “external” credentials. In a
> similar
> >> > category—if we leave the university or the publisher’s office—are the
> >> > literary contributions of politicians, journalists, singers, actors,
> >> > directors, television ­producers, et cetera. Here, too, the works do
> not
> >> > find in themselves authorization for their existence but need a pass
> >> > that
> >> > comes from work done in other fields. “I’m a success in this or that
> >> > field,
> >> > I’ve acquired an audience, and therefore I wrote and published a
> novel.”
> >> > It’s not the book that counts, but the aura of its author. If the aura
> >> > is
> >> > already there, and the media reinforces it, the publishing world is
> >> > happy to
> >> > open its doors and the market is very happy to welcome you. If it’s
> not
> >> > there but the book miraculously sells, the media invents the author,
> so
> >> > the
> >> > writer ends up selling not only his work but also himself, his image.
> >> >
> >> > INTERVIEWER
> >> >
> >> > You were saying that the reasons for staying in the shadows have
> changed
> >> > a
> >> > bit.
> >> >
> >> > FERRANTE
> >> >
> >> > I’m still very interested in testifying against the self-promotion
> >> > ­obsessively ­imposed by the media. This demand for self-promotion
> >> > diminishes the ­actual work of art, whatever that art may be, and it
> has
> >> > become universal. The media simply can’t discuss a work of literature
> >> > without pointing to some writer-hero. And yet there is no work of
> >> > literature
> >> > that is not the fruit of tradition, of many skills, of a sort of
> >> > collective
> >> > intelligence. We wrongfully diminish this collective intelligence when
> >> > we
> >> > insist on there being a single protagonist ­behind every work of art.
> >> > The
> >> > individual person is, of course, necessary, but I’m not talking about
> >> > the
> >> > individual—I’m talking about a manufactured image.
> >> >
> >> > What has never lost importance for me, over these two and a half
> >> > ­decades,
> >> > is the creative space that absence opened up for me. Once I knew that
> >> > the
> >> > completed book would make its way in the world without me, once I knew
> >> > that
> >> > nothing of the concrete, physical me would ever appear beside the
> >> > volume—as
> >> > if the book were a little dog and I were its master—it made me see
> >> > something
> >> > new about writing. I felt as though I had released the words from
> >> > myself.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6370/art-of-fiction-no-228-elena-ferrante
> >> >
> >> >
> >> -
> >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160114/f7378d14/attachment.html>