| Author | Message | ||
     Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
Anyone heard of this convention: http://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/node/35225 | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
Anyone got any views on the three authors chosen to represent 'Contemporary Horror Fiction'? | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
imo, a good academic crystallises the transiently popular as the deserving eternal. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 85.210.16.246 |
>>Anyone got any views on the three authors chosen to represent 'Contemporary Horror Fiction'? Uh, maybe put in to give a wider spread of names? Dunno . . . | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Hmmm... | ||
| Richard_gavin (Richard_gavin) Username: Richard_gavin Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 69.157.35.239 |
"Anyone got any views on the three authors chosen to represent 'Contemporary Horror Fiction'?" Curious choices, I'd say. Especially when one considers that two of the authors have been very vocal about their disdain for Horror. | ||
| Ian Alexander Martin (Iam) Username: Iam Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 64.180.64.74 |
I'm confused as to why the University of Pennsylvania is organizing an event in the University of Westminster, or the other way around. As for the authors selected, 'contemporary horror' would seem to be a very very difficult category for someone to comprehend. Perhaps some sort of paper explaining what it isn't might help them? | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
I think it important that people here write to the email given with suggested papers. It's an opportunity for real Horrorists like us to make a difference in the academic world that has suddenly realised that there is something worthwhile in Horror literature. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
Hmmmm, the problem is if the gap between academics and practitioners is as large as it is in the field of business management (my area of work/research), then they might not welcome papers from practitioners. It looks to me like a conference purely for academics in the field. That would explain their belief that those three authors are representative of "contemporary horror". It's a bugbear of mine that - in business management for example - the gap between academics and practitioners is so wide. Business academics tend to look down on the practitioners, and the practitioners think the academics talk rubbish. Always seems daft to me - what's the point of theorising when it isn't then used/applied in the real world? I guess it's the same in the field of literature, is it? It would be nice, though, if academics in that area were willing to listen/learn from the practitioners (and vice versa, perhaps?) | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
Well, here's the big opportunity - perhaps! - to remedy that situation in the Horror field. It sounds (from what Caroline says) that there is an Alternate World of Horrorists who have their own forums etc etc about Horror (ie 'academics') and we are in a similar but different Alternate World as 'practitioners'. And neither knows of the other! Blimey! | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
Ha! I like that idea of alternate worlds - the real one and the academic one. Super! But, yes, they could do with people and ideas crossing over, one to the other, sometimes. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Academics approach literature with the attitude that authors - and their opinions of their own works - are irrelevant or even distracting from a "dispassionate analysis of the text". I know as I used to go out with such an academic and many was the argument we had on this very issue. "The author is dead!" she would cry - "Bollocks!" I would respond. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
Academics approach literature with the attitude that authors - and their opinions of their own works - are irrelevant or even distracting from a "dispassionate analysis of the text". ======================= I must be an academic, then.  But I also write the stuff and publish it.  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.162.63.33 |
Er, well, Stephen, only those of a postmodern bent. Which admittedly is quite prevalent these days. But that trend is on the wane. Thank God. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
There are a lot of misunderstandings about that 'postmoder bent'. How can one argue against an author's opinions being distracting from the work itself (a work that the author himself left as a separate distinct work free of his external opinions)? | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
I get what academics are saying but they go too far in ignoring the author altogether. There has to be a happy medium between the reader's interpretation of the text and what the author intended (and did not intend) when writing it. Yes, authors put in subconscious references all the time to their own personal lives or other works that influenced them but these never really negate the overall conscious intent that went into the writing. Academics can theorise all they want but I really believe when they try to dictate to the author that he/she didn't really mean "that" but instead meant "this" then they're disappearing up their own fundaments. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
"dispassionate analysis of the text". No such thing. And even if there is, it's worthless. | ||
| Ian Alexander Martin (Iam) Username: Iam Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 64.180.64.74 |
Hear, hear, Gary. What's the point of discussing art if you're not passionate about it. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.162.63.33 |
As I said, it's a bit of a straw man to lump all academics in the same theoretical wing. There's a huge range of perspectives on this issue. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
I have a passion for what the author puts on the page with the genuine sincerity that it will be read for what *it* is, not what *he* is. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
As I've said before, artist and art are inseperable IMHO. They're part of the same beast. That's certainly true in my case, anyway. My work is my blood spilled onto the page. Once, in my younger madder days, I wrote a short-short story in my own blood. Took me ages. I have a friend who painted a picture for his girlsfriend using his own blood, shit, spit and semen. Now tell me the artist isn't the art. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
I'm not arguing with that, Zed. Of course art and artist are inseparable in the creative forge, but, I repeat, I have a passion for what the author puts on the page with the genuine sincerity that it will be read for what *it* is, not what *he* is. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
And by that I mean the 'it' is the author as represented by 'it' - not an author who changes, is rumoured about, misunderstood, loved, hated. All that latter is important but its importance is in the 'it' not in the rumours and unknowabilities. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
Someone on this forum recently thanked me for putting his or her story in the public domain without his or her name for that very reason. He or she was in the story, so it didn't matter about the externals of what the name reperesented in different ways over the years. | ||
| Richard_gavin (Richard_gavin) Username: Richard_gavin Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 65.110.174.71 |
I'm in agreement with Prof. Fry here. Some acadamic genre studies are dull, irrelevant, self-serving and pointless. But others are keenly insightful, bright and passionate. I've drawn a lot of pleasure from reading some scholarly writings on how horror works. (As a quick aside, how many of you cite Stephen King's Danse Macabre as a major early influence? Surely his book is academic on some level.) I see nothing wrong with poking at a story with the intellectual stick, espeically after repeated readings. After all, the process doesn't alter the original text in any way. The story remains. If you find someone's theories about it are foolish, simply discard them. But then ask yourself *why* you disagree with them. How do *you* perceive this story? It's a good exercise. An author may have written that great horror story in a white heat of creative passion, and the first-time reader might have been equally affected by it. But what then? Surely some stories are worthy of more than one reading. What is a Horrorist (to borrow Des's term) to do with a story once (to borrow B.B. King's phrase) the thrill is gone? To use a bad metaphor, think of a horror text as a house on fire and you, the reader, as the fire chief. When you first arrive, your entire focus is that fire. You are thinking of nothing but the force and heat of it. But once that fire is out and the smoke has cleared, chances are you'll want to step back into that charred house and see what caused the fire, what the damage was, what is salvageable. This second visit to the house does not diminish the overwhelming force of that initial fire, but it might provide you with a deeper appreciation and understanding of what you went though. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
"Academics can theorise all they want but I really believe when they try to dictate to the author that he/she didn't really mean "that" but instead meant "this" then they're disappearing up their own fundaments." But can't an author be enlightened about meanings he didn't realise were present in the text he wrote? It's certainly happened to me on occasion. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
My, there's a great academic-style debate going on on this thread now. Academics get passionate about things too, you know! Bear in mind I was only talking about what happens in the field of business management - I've no idea if it's the same in literature too as I've never worked in that area. I think it's unfortunate when academics all get tarred with the same brush - there will be some who are open to the "real world" and others who are quite content to sit in their ivory towers and theorise without it having any practical value. Ramsey can probably answer this but am I right in thinking Liverpool University is pretty good when it comes to bridging that gap between academia and the writers themselves? I believe Ramsey has contributed to their archive of horror texts? I think it's called something like SF Hub? | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.47.71.202 |
'But can't an author be enlightened about meanings he didn't realise were present in the text he wrote? It's certainly happened to me on occasion.' When Des reviewed my book he pulled out one I hadn't thought about. 'Death may be the ultimate bull-run, indeed. But when the midwife herself is the last left to die, who helps her transit? The author of this book was that very midwife, abandoned there at its end, with only one more note to write.' | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.47.71.202 |
What Des didn't know, couldn't know - is that when my mother and my sister died, during the writing of the book, it indeed left me as the oldest living female in my family. Bit of a sobering thought that. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
It's only recently occured to me that everything I write is secretly about boobies. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
Zed's work has its knockers. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
Whe-hey!  | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
Joking aside, one of Gary Fry's books I found was all about knives, I recall, which he was surprised about. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
Once upon a time, I'd have had something worthwhile to add to this thread. From Merleau-Ponty to Benny Hill in five years. Sigh. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
>>>Joking aside, one of Gary Fry's books I found was all about knives, I recall, which he was surprised about. I certainly was. Maybe I was subconsciously inspired by Raymond Carver. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.47.71.202 |
Thanks for sharing that erudite observation - Zed. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
"Ramsey can probably answer this but am I right in thinking Liverpool University is pretty good when it comes to bridging that gap between academia and the writers themselves? I believe Ramsey has contributed to their archive of horror texts? I think it's called something like SF Hub?" That's it indeed, Caroline, under the guardianship of Andy Sawyer: http://www.sfhub.ac.uk/ Sometimes he organises events. And years ago Ann Thompson of the English department hosted a day on horror - Jim Herbert, Clive Barker and I were the speakers, and Pete Atkins joined the final panel. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
English universities sem to be quite lucky - Graham Joce lectures in creative writing at the UNiversity of Nottingham and Trent, and Lesley Glaister (who writes ruth rendell type horror psychoological novels) teaches at Leicester. I'm sure there's more that I just don't know off the top of my head. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Graham Joyce even | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.47.71.202 |
Conrad Williams is another one - Weber. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
And Nick Royle. | ||
| Ian Alexander Martin (Iam) Username: Iam Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 64.180.64.74 |
And, for that matter, Dr. Gary Fry! I'd personally love to sit in a room and hear Gary McMahon describe his writing process, as well as story structure assembly. What makes a horror story (of any length) effective and why? How far is 'toofar' and how far is 'not far enough' to be effective? That sort of thing provides the connection of intellectual and visceral appreciation of not only what's fun to read but also *why* it's fun to read. It might also put into perspective the real heavy-lifting of the writer's work. There's a paper topic for you, Mr. McM! | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
Brilliant idea. Mr McM's 'paper' can be suggested to the email address on the conference website linked at start of this thread. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Come to my panel at World Horror 2010 and all could be revealed...  | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> Er, well, Stephen, only those of a postmodern bent. Which admittedly is quite prevalent these days. But that trend is on the wane. Thank God. How do you reckon, Gary? I see little evidence that this trend is disappearing in America. | ||
| Ian Alexander Martin (Iam) Username: Iam Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 64.180.64.74 |
I was hoping that would happen in my room, actually… however I'll see if I can get away from the dealers' table for that one (remind us all of the time, would you?). | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.27.21.184 |
>>>How do you reckon, Gary? I see little evidence that this trend is disappearing in America. I'm speaking from a social science perspective, actually. A tipping point has certainly been reached here. Whether that proves to affective across disciplines, I don't know, but 'bodies of thought' tend to be. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
But can't an author be enlightened about meanings he didn't realise were present in the text he wrote? It's certainly happened to me on occasion. Ramsey, that's definitely true and looking for hidden meanings and unconscious references in a work of literature is one of my favourite games. These add to the richness of the text but never alter the conscious motivation that went into the writing of it. I believe the author should always have the last word on what his/her work is really "about". Your books are particularly fascinating in this regard. In fact it is just such multi-layered density of meaning that draws me to certain writers over certain others - irrespective of genre. The mark of literature as opposed to entertainment imho. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I have to admit, Stephen, my motivation while writing often isn't all that conscious, except to trust my instincts as much as I can. I frequently set out to write one story, or one theme, and end up writing quite another. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
I believe the author should always have the last word on what his/her work is really "about". ================ I feel that s a very debateable point. Does anyone want to debate it? | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Hence the density... you have an initial idea - then your instinct is what gives the stream of consciousness inherent in the physical act of your creating its direction and your willingness to go with the flow (as opposed to rigid plot devising) is what imbues your writing with such richness of meaning. I'm struggling here to define what makes one writer "great" (i.e. yourself, Graham Greene or Fritz Leiber), another "inspired" (i.e. Stephen King, Isaac Asimov or Donald E. Westlake), another "entertaining" (i.e. James Herbert, Agatha Christie or Dennis Wheatley) and another a "hack" (i.e. Shaun Hutson, Jeffrey Archer or Dan Brown). All imho... | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
Greatness (or not) of any writer's work is the opinion of each individual reader. These readers' needs, tastes, experience, education etc. etc. determine their view. ============================== Regarding an author being the best arbiter on his own work: POINT ACCEPTED BY ALL OF US: The writer and his writing are inseparable at point of creation or crystllisation of that writing in a public arena. DEBATEABLE POINT (mine): Writing A by Writer X. A has been left in the public arena by X as a separate thing, and the reader gives X the respect due to him by reading it for what it is without recourse to anything that was decided not to be part of A. X, when writing A, had, presumably, conscious, sub-conscious, unconscious and/or self-deceptive intentions as well as possible misinterpretatons of self in connection with X and his own intentions. In other words, A is solidly there on the page, left in that state by X (that's what it means by being WRITTEN BY X). A is the only definite thing. Meanwhile, views of A and of himself by X -- and facts available to the readers about A's life and thinking -- are all arguable and thus not definite. =========================== I feel the writer deseves this respect from his audience, i.e. to read his work as he left it to be read. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 78.147.148.35 |
I'm going to take a slightly contrarian position here, and say that I do not think an author's statement of their intent should not be 'the last word' on what a work is about. An author has already given us their words. They are there, in the text. Trying to explain what you meant by them doesn't make them mean what you wanted them to, necessarily. Ramsey and Allyson have given examples of other people finding meaning in their work that they didn't know was there. I think that, given a complete work, an author can be an informed critic of it, but other people can argue just as persuasively about what it actually contains. I also think this tends to underplay the role of the reader. Whenever I read a story, the images are personal to me, although they are prompted by the author. No matter in what detail they describe the objects and characters my brain has to fill in all of the blanks. For example, when I read 'The Voice of the Beach' my mental image is of the holiday cottages and damp beaches in the dingy part of East Anglia where I happened to grow up. The beach you envision will be different. It will be your beach, and we will all modify our beaches as the story prompts us to. Rather than being a threat to writers, however, this is a gift. Readers bring their own images, with all of their associations, if you can draw them out. The downside is that no one (except you) will ever see the story you tried to write, never mind the one you had in your head. And, once they have read your story, who are you to tell them their vision is wrong? Except by close argument from the text. Show me I'm wrong because I have misconstrued your words, not because you didn't mean what I have understood. Maybe I feel this way because I write for performance, and, specifically, comedy for performance, where you can tell instantly if you've conveyed your meaning successfully by listening for the laughs. You also don't get a forum in which to explain your intentions, or to assume the audience hasn't heard what you wrote properly (even if, as sometimes happens, a performer has performed words that weren't quite the ones you wrote down). You also, however, get the joyous moments in every piece, where an audience laughs in an unexpected place, where they've discovered something you left there by accident. I didn't mean them to laugh there, but what I wrote made them laugh and that's not a threat to my role as a writer. It's a reaffirmation that the audience are doing quite a bit of the work for me... | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
I couldn't agree more, Nathaniel . I've learnt a lot from what you say. Thanks. What part of East anglia, btw? I know lots of beaches round here. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> Ramsey and Allyson have given us examples of other people finding meaning in their work that they didn't know was there. True. It's happened to me as well. When a reader recognizes a hidden meaning I didn't intend, it can be an enlightening experience. Still, from time to time that hidden meaning is based on a clear misreading of the text -- contradictory evidence is overlooked, for instance. Readers bring a lot a given text, as they should, but some of what they bring may come from misunderstood passages, personal prejudices, or even delusions. When the hidden meaning is simply wrong, or when it is taken to be the only meaning -- that is, the actual meaning the writer intended is downplayed or ignored -- it's a very frustrating experience. Shouldn't the writer have the recourse to say the reader is wrong -- especially when evidence in the text backs up his view? | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
Shouldn't the writer have the recourse to say the reader is wrong -- especially when evidence in the text backs up his view? ============= Yes, of course, but for the reasons argued above, as just another reader who also may be wrong. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.47.71.202 |
It is a fascinating discussion. The writer intending to convey something consciously or subconsciously and the reader finding interpretations for the writer to thing about - too. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.27.21.184 |
>>>Shouldn't the writer have the recourse to say the reader is wrong -- especially when evidence in the text backs up his view? Chris, I'm pretty certain Salmon Rushdie would agree with this. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.47.71.202 |
That would be think... | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.47.71.202 |
'I'm pretty certain Salmon Rushdie would agree with this.' So much so. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 78.147.148.35 |
"Shouldn't the writer have the recourse to say the reader is wrong -- especially when evidence in the text backs up his view?" Yes, absolutely. But I would say ONLY when the text backs up his view. If the text doesn't back up his view then the reader isn't wrong. The author is wrong. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 78.147.148.35 |
Apologies for the use of 'his' up there. It's my latent phallocentrism showing through... | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
This argument is purely academic anyway, IMHO. We all bring our own baggage to fiction, and glean our own meaning from a story. That doesn't mean we're correct. I mean, if I wanted to I'm sure I could back up the view that Aickman's THE HOSPICE is about brussel sprouts from "evidence" in the text. The author can never, ever be wrong regarding what his work is about. He wrote it; his intention bled into it. Even if that intention is clear only to the author himself. Yes, meanings he didn't intend can become clear at a later date, but he's still not wrong about his themes. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> But I would say ONLY when the text backs up his view. It's a slippery defense, alas. Even clear texts can be misread by readers with agendas or political axes to grind. It can be hard to pop delusional bubbles with the blunt instruments of words. Still, readers should take the author's intent into consideration, especially when probing deeply (or writing dissertations) on that author's work. The idea that the author has no say at all in in-depth readings of his work strikes me as fascist and nonsensical: the author may not be the only authority on a text, but surely he has more say than an anonymous reader who had no part in the text's creation? Much of this attitude, in my view, exists solely to provide busywork (and perhaps funding) for insular academic circles: untalented people who want to get close enough to the fire of artistic creation that they feel the heat -- but not so close they get burned. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
I'm with Chris on this one. Even clear texts can be misread by readers with agendas or political axes to grind. It can be hard to pop delusional bubbles with the blunt instruments of words. God, yes. That's very true indeed. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.47.71.202 |
Well said Chris. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
The author can never, ever be wrong regarding what his work is about. ============= People change, minds change. Illnesses, life's problems, changing perspectives etc. My view of some of my earlier work is completely different, I feel, from what I thought when I wrote it. So Gary's statement above is correct at the point of creation, but not thereafter, I feel. And, of course, the author has a say in interperetaion. Just like any other reader. Nobody has said he doesn't have a say. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> Nobody has said he doesn't have a say. Actually, Roland Barthes and his followers have said exactly that. Type "death of the author" in a search engine and you'll see what I mean. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
Yes, but nobody is saying that here. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
If the text doesn't back up his view then the reader isn't wrong. The author is wrong. That sounds like it to me, Des. Also, the examples you cite - changing one's mind, etc - doesn't mean you were wrong in the first place. It just means you've changed your mind. There is no right and wrong here; only interpretation. And interpretation is inherently flawed, because it's so subjective. As it should be. Surely the author's subconscious mind can supply the only true interpretation. And that would be impossible. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
I think we are in agreement, Zed. (Actually the quote in your post isn't mine). (And changing mind can be caused by dementia, where I'm probably heading in a few years' time). | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 78.147.148.35 |
No, it was my quote, and I stand by it. And this is a clear example of it. You are misrespresenting what I said (that, after the point of creation, the author has as much say as anyone else in the meaning of a text) as something else (the author has no say in how their texts are interpreted). I can correct that by pointing you to what I actually said. If I can't do that then I didn't write what I meant and the fault is with me and my writing. If a reader does not understand what you mean then they are either reading badly or you are writing badly. If they are reading badly you can show that by pointing to the words you used. It's in the text. If you didn't write it down, you don't have the right to complain about being misunderstood. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 78.147.148.35 |
Or: there are such things as bad writers. Bad writers use words they do not understand, construct sentences poorly. If someone writes a story called 'The Cat Who Could Fly' consisting of the following: 'There was a cat. It could fly. Rock on, cat.' Then if they claim that they wrote a story about a dog then they are wrong. It doesn't matter that the author got the words mixed up, or was using a metaphor no one was ever going to get, or remembers it differently, the author is wrong. Maybe the story in your head was about a dog; the one you wrote down was about a cat. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
I think a better version of the quote is: If the text doesn't back up his view then the reader might still be wrong. But the author will never convince anyone he's right. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> Then if they claim that they wrote a story about a dog then they are wrong. What if the story is about a dog named Cat? | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
That was a joke, btw. Sort of. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.27.21.184 |
May I just say that this is an extremely silly debate and that all literary theorists deserve to die? Thanks. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 78.147.148.35 |
'A Dog Called Cat' There's a country and western song in that somewhere... | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
You wrote "country and western song," but you really meant "opera." | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> May I just say that this is an extremely silly debate and that all literary theorists deserve to die? Thanks. Clearly Gary F's calling for the death of anyone who's ever even looked at a book. Don't try to talk me out of it, Gary. I'm the reader. I'm in charge here.  | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 78.147.148.35 |
Yes, Chris, perhaps it would have been better phrased like that. Which is where I take issue with what Gary said about being able to argue that Aickman's 'The Hospice' is about brussels sprouts. Not all arguments are equally valid or convincing. To suggest that any argument plucked from the air could be made equally well about any piece of writing seems, in my view, hugely insecure about how effective Aickman's writing is. Or writing in general is. Yes, people will make farcical, ideological over-readings of any piece of work you do. And those critical analyses will be unconvincing if they don't bear any relation to what you wrote. What you intended, I would suggest, is far less important than what you actually wrote, and all you can ask to be judged by is what you wrote. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 78.147.148.35 |
To which I can say, you're entitled to your interpetation, but I clearly said 'country and western song.' And my interpretation is supported by, you know, the text... | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
If it is getting silly now, a lot of sense has already been spoken on this thread, too (on all sides of the argument). So thanks.. Take what you will from it, I say. Literary theorists are just writers by another name, Gary F. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.27.21.184 |
Des, my comment was spillover from another thread. Please ignore. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
To suggest that any argument plucked from the air could be made equally well about any piece of writing seems, in my view, hugely insecure about how effective Aickman's writing is. Or writing in general is. I disagree. What it says is that anyone can justify all kinds of bollocks if they try hard enough. I do it all the time.  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.27.21.184 |
But we have a word for folk who make wildly inaccurate readings of things: lunatics. (Or BBC weathermen.) | ||
| Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker) Username: Stephen_theaker Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 62.30.117.235 |
"What you intended, I would suggest, is far less important than what you actually wrote, and all you can ask to be judged by is what you wrote." Absolutely. John Norman would say that the later Gor books are all about emancipating women, whereas the rest of the world reads them as sickening rape fantasies. The point of Barthes' writing was to open up the many, many possible interpretations of the text. (The approach Des takes with his readings of books has a lot in common with the approach suggested by Barthes in S/Z.) The death of the author was an important corrective to previous approaches to literary criticism, which often saw books only in relation to the author, and what they could tell us about the author, and how they related to the author's life. It's always interesting to hear what an author thinks a book is about, but it's just one of many points of view, many ways of looking at the text. Each critic's free to choose the approach they think is the most valuable. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
I know a family that used to own a dog called Katherine - or Kat as they used to call it... | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
...Aickman's THE HOSPICE is about brussel sprouts ... ================= Well, upon checking today, Maybury's slabs of oily turkey were alaways served with plentiful helpings of five different vegetables. I would hazard a guess that one of them was sprouts. With their generated bloating of wind and all... | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.220.102 |
BTW, this is the text of my own short short about Brussel Sprouts that was published in 1990 in an American newspaper called 'Read Me': http://weirdmonger.blog-city.com/exegesis.htm You will see how relevant perhaps it is to a reading of 'The Hospice' ... seriously. |