Subject
Re: Johnson-Wendel: "Time & Ebb" (fwd)
Date
Body
From: goldsub3@rz-ruhr-uni-bochum.de
On Sunday, 11. May 1997, Roy Johnson wrote
> VN's short stories are *not* uniform in their quality > and distinction.
[Whose would be?] It is our task > to discriminate between them, and to
argue our case > with evidence from the text. ------------ Of course the
stories are not uniform, and of course there may be differences in
quality. But: if we are talking about quality, is it really our task to
label a story as being "good" or "weak"? I think, this is perhaps the task
of literary criticism, but surely not of literary scholarship. If we are
to decide if a story is a story from the narrative point of view, we have
to state our definition of narrativity, too. And there are many.
Concerning values: Are there really absolute criteria to discriminate the
value of literary texts? And if there are: Who is the one to determine
them? Anyone who is interested in, for example, Soviet literature, knows
what I mean. I think, the task of literary scholarship is to unfold and
extract the complex structures that hide under a possibly simple or even
trivial surface. We have to find out what makes the text the way it is,
taking into account the text itself, its author and possible readings. If
the text is labelled trivial, we have to discriminate, what makes it
trivial (and how we define this term). If we call it simply "weak", we
ignore the fact that there may be qualities still undiscovered, and we
take our ignorance for a weakness of the text, i.e. we confuse our reading
with the meaning of the text. And every interpretation is only one
possible reading, including always an element of the reader's
subjectivity. Furthermore, one has to be very careful, for many texts
contain hidden qualities that may be completely overlooked in the first
(or even second or third) reading. Measuring a story in terms of "good"
and "bad" (easily to be confused with "right" and "wrong"), bears the
danger of implicitly labelling it as being worthless - and maybe certain
qualities are overlooked forever.
The same problems arise, if we are talking about reproaches like "mysogyny"
or "political propaganda".
Stories like "Conversation Piece, 1945", or "Tyrants Destroyed" may
of course be read as political statements - but this is just one
reading out of many, too. More interesting is to find out, how does VN
manage to create that impression in a literary way.
Another example: the story "A Slice of Life" and Roy Johnson's
interpretation of it (No. 635, 6 Jul 1995). The question, if VN was able to
create a credible female narrator (by letting her declare: "I wear
mourning for [...] the fetuses scraped out of me" - a very feminine
exclamation indeed!) is not the point. The point of interest is, why
did VN choose a female narrator especially for this story about
vulgarity and poshlost', and what may hide behind it? (And I'm
convinced there is something hiding!).
All this may sound like a rather formalist way, but I think it is the
most adequate in dealing with complex literary texts, as VN's are.
I hope, I made my point clear in spite of my clumsy English, and I'm
looking forward to any comment concerning these basic questions of
our profession.
Best regards
Ulrike Goldschweer
Lotman-Insitut fuer russische und
sowjetische Kultur
Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum
D - 44780 Bochum
On Sunday, 11. May 1997, Roy Johnson wrote
> VN's short stories are *not* uniform in their quality > and distinction.
[Whose would be?] It is our task > to discriminate between them, and to
argue our case > with evidence from the text. ------------ Of course the
stories are not uniform, and of course there may be differences in
quality. But: if we are talking about quality, is it really our task to
label a story as being "good" or "weak"? I think, this is perhaps the task
of literary criticism, but surely not of literary scholarship. If we are
to decide if a story is a story from the narrative point of view, we have
to state our definition of narrativity, too. And there are many.
Concerning values: Are there really absolute criteria to discriminate the
value of literary texts? And if there are: Who is the one to determine
them? Anyone who is interested in, for example, Soviet literature, knows
what I mean. I think, the task of literary scholarship is to unfold and
extract the complex structures that hide under a possibly simple or even
trivial surface. We have to find out what makes the text the way it is,
taking into account the text itself, its author and possible readings. If
the text is labelled trivial, we have to discriminate, what makes it
trivial (and how we define this term). If we call it simply "weak", we
ignore the fact that there may be qualities still undiscovered, and we
take our ignorance for a weakness of the text, i.e. we confuse our reading
with the meaning of the text. And every interpretation is only one
possible reading, including always an element of the reader's
subjectivity. Furthermore, one has to be very careful, for many texts
contain hidden qualities that may be completely overlooked in the first
(or even second or third) reading. Measuring a story in terms of "good"
and "bad" (easily to be confused with "right" and "wrong"), bears the
danger of implicitly labelling it as being worthless - and maybe certain
qualities are overlooked forever.
The same problems arise, if we are talking about reproaches like "mysogyny"
or "political propaganda".
Stories like "Conversation Piece, 1945", or "Tyrants Destroyed" may
of course be read as political statements - but this is just one
reading out of many, too. More interesting is to find out, how does VN
manage to create that impression in a literary way.
Another example: the story "A Slice of Life" and Roy Johnson's
interpretation of it (No. 635, 6 Jul 1995). The question, if VN was able to
create a credible female narrator (by letting her declare: "I wear
mourning for [...] the fetuses scraped out of me" - a very feminine
exclamation indeed!) is not the point. The point of interest is, why
did VN choose a female narrator especially for this story about
vulgarity and poshlost', and what may hide behind it? (And I'm
convinced there is something hiding!).
All this may sound like a rather formalist way, but I think it is the
most adequate in dealing with complex literary texts, as VN's are.
I hope, I made my point clear in spite of my clumsy English, and I'm
looking forward to any comment concerning these basic questions of
our profession.
Best regards
Ulrike Goldschweer
Lotman-Insitut fuer russische und
sowjetische Kultur
Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum
D - 44780 Bochum