...on the internet by DFL in recent days;
I note that Richard Wright has just won the Turner Prize 2009. Intriguing that all his work is painted direct on to walls and later erased.
There is something nice about uncollectables and ephemerality, something socialistic?
A bit like spreading one's work on the easily erasable internet? Although human nature makes me want my work in print, too!
Re 'A Portrait of Algernon Blackwood' by tychy here: http://tychy.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/a-portrait-of-algernon-blackwood-16-episodes-and-confessions/
I think it is academic, but not snobbish.
One can be snobbish either as an academic or as a non-academic (ie snobbish that
one is not being academic). Generally speaking.
I think the article does have some faults, however, as it is infecting texts
with non-textual matters.
I am, meanhile, a great fan of Algernon Blackwood texts, as I said before ...
much of his work being brilliant both academically (i.e. linguistically,
literarily, semantically, syntactically, graphologically, phonetically,
aesthetically) *and* non-academically (as pure story entertainment stemming from
those academic aspects).
I agree regarding the use of 'hack' (i.e. agree that it should not be used of AB).
However, the author's main point is comparing (in his mind) Blackwood's serious
transcendental goals with his jobbing approach to writing, And, as I said
before, the author is here infecting texts with non-textual matters, but I do
understand the point he is making (a pointless point). :)
re tychy's jibe about low hanging fruit:
We'll get the Fruit-Stoners on to him. :)
I go along with New Critical thinking as a possible approach, but it's not mine. I am not an
academic who can worrk with literary theories and labels.
My approach is much simpler. A literary text is what we are offered by its
creator to stand alone. Simply because it *does* stand alone.
A reader's reaction to it is something separate. An infinitie number of possible
reactions (with or without pre-existing baggage in each and every reaction). All
this I agree is non-textual. It just seems logical not to extend that to
essentially unknowable things like biography (unknowable in essence and
unknowable in its effect on any art created by the subject of the biography)
etc? The author himself is (to us) unknowably fallible in knowing his own
intentions and how his intentions stem from other things in his life. Biography
is interesting in itself. A worthy discipline. But do we need it to alter the
text? (I use the word 'alter' advisedly).
I talk above about literary texts. Whether the Bible is a literary text is
"The girth of the Pyramids, the height of the Colossi, the cubic content of the
granite columns and the visage of the Sphinx expressed in yards - these convey
as little truth as the numbered leagues of the frightening desert or the length
of that weary and interminable Nile."
Algernon Blackwood - 'The Spell of Egypt'
Although I'm not a deconstructionist, as far as I know, and I know very little
of Derrida other than what I've learnt here, I do believe it is similar to my real-time reviewing.
There seems to be a pure creative natural relationship between text
and reader (however personal), unlike the menage-a-trois of (1) text and (2)
imputed author (i.e. his imputed intentions and connections with his
arguabilities of (auto)biography and things that other people have written about
him and other texts by the same author etc.) and (3) a single reader.
I agree that biography seems to be a difficult task and a worthy discipline in
itself. I congratulate anyone who undertakes it.
My favourite biography is George Painter's of Proust.