Subject
Re: VN and debunking the postmodern myth (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Andrew Langridge <zed@ix.net.nz>
This is way out of context, but it's a quote worth trotting out on the
slightest pretext:
"A work in which there are theories is like an object which still has its
price-tag on it." (Proust, Time Regained, 278 in the Modern Library edition)
Marcel's final volume has screeds of interesting things to say about writer
/ reader relationships, such as:
"The writer's work is merely a kind of optical instrument which he offers to
the reader to enable him to discern what, without this book, he would
perhaps never have perceived in himself. And the recognition by the reader
in his own self of what the book says is the proof of its veracity [. . .]"
(322)
How's that for a theory? (How's that for a price-tag?)
Andrew Langridge
----------
>From: Galya Diment <galya@u.washington.edu>
>To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
>Subject: Re: VN and debunking the postmodern myth (fwd)
>Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 6:01 AM
>
>From: Robert Rabiee <costanza2000@yahoo.com>
>
>Dear Andrew,
>
>A quick note. When I think of theory that is both
>interesting and infintely readable, I immediately
>think of Roland Barthes's "A Lover's Discource
>(Fragments)," or Derrida's somewhat psychotic "The
>Post Card."
>
>As to the broader question of theory, I necessarily
>see no problem with it, as long as it isn't taken TOO
>seriously. I try and see it as a game, a chess
>problem, that needs solving. Does it necessarily help
>to unlock secrets of the texts? Often times yes, often
>times no.
>
>But none of this changes the fact that writing (and
>reading) theory, no matter how beautiful or
>fascinating, can never really replace the impact of
>capital-L Literature. The root of all my academic
>interests is my love of reading, plain and simple.
>Theory is just an interesting subgenre.
>
>All the best,
>
>
>Robert Y. Rabiee
This is way out of context, but it's a quote worth trotting out on the
slightest pretext:
"A work in which there are theories is like an object which still has its
price-tag on it." (Proust, Time Regained, 278 in the Modern Library edition)
Marcel's final volume has screeds of interesting things to say about writer
/ reader relationships, such as:
"The writer's work is merely a kind of optical instrument which he offers to
the reader to enable him to discern what, without this book, he would
perhaps never have perceived in himself. And the recognition by the reader
in his own self of what the book says is the proof of its veracity [. . .]"
(322)
How's that for a theory? (How's that for a price-tag?)
Andrew Langridge
----------
>From: Galya Diment <galya@u.washington.edu>
>To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
>Subject: Re: VN and debunking the postmodern myth (fwd)
>Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 6:01 AM
>
>From: Robert Rabiee <costanza2000@yahoo.com>
>
>Dear Andrew,
>
>A quick note. When I think of theory that is both
>interesting and infintely readable, I immediately
>think of Roland Barthes's "A Lover's Discource
>(Fragments)," or Derrida's somewhat psychotic "The
>Post Card."
>
>As to the broader question of theory, I necessarily
>see no problem with it, as long as it isn't taken TOO
>seriously. I try and see it as a game, a chess
>problem, that needs solving. Does it necessarily help
>to unlock secrets of the texts? Often times yes, often
>times no.
>
>But none of this changes the fact that writing (and
>reading) theory, no matter how beautiful or
>fascinating, can never really replace the impact of
>capital-L Literature. The root of all my academic
>interests is my love of reading, plain and simple.
>Theory is just an interesting subgenre.
>
>All the best,
>
>
>Robert Y. Rabiee