Literary frou-frou
May. 24th, 2006 06:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusThe essay that I'm reading.
"...focusing on the singularity of the language allows us to notice that the literariness of literature makes the language itself part of the content."
Can one shoot the author for that phrase alone? I've no doubt that somewhere there's a database with addresses and whatnot. I'm sure we can track her down.
Crap. I spend all my life trying to make what's been overly complicated, simple. Cleaning up the unnecessary confusion and obfuscation. I get the impression that these people like to bury their meaning. They're not attempting to communicate and connect.
I understand it. She's saying that the language is more important to the story than the plot, tells us more, gives us more meaning -- and I agree. The reason I think Beg Me For It is a good story is because of the POV character, how he filters the story, and what it tells the reader that it's the "ordinary guy" Ron, and what his filtering says about the gap between a horrific experience and how we handle that experience. Bottom line is that Beg Me For It is very hopeful, even while it doesn't ignore how we get effected in ways that we don't notice by the circumstances of our lives. It does say that we have power even when we're powerless. The story isn't in the plot. The story is in Ron's reactions and asides, his irreverent attitude.
Draco's a contrast, but he's doing the same thing. His bluntness shows his stark refusal to be controlled by his circumstances. But his way has its downside: he's clearer, cleaner than Ron, but all hell is unleashed against him. Ron's way is safer, but little compromises sneak in till he's changed in ways he doesn't intend. Draco's changed, too, but mostly on the outside (with all the bruises and abuse). It turns out that Draco's the one who takes lasting damage - he breaks - but his sharp words act as a wake-up call to Ron. Ultimately, the fact that Ron was starting to tell "Death Eater"-type jokes reveals something more sinister: that over time his compromises would have changed him too much. So that's the dark side weighed against the hope.
See? That was clear, wasn't it? No "literariness of literature" to be found. But yes, Spivak, how a story is told reveals a great deal.
*grumbles at overly stylistic frou-frou writing*
ETA (much later): Okay,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cesperanza's right, my dissection here isn't formalist enough. I still swung back to dissecting character. But! I can do it. Really.
On the other hand -- I feel vindicated. Learned from the prof. this morning that Spivak has won the New York Times' mean spirited Worst Academic Writer award (so has Judith Butler). More than once. Even proponents call her style "tortured English."
Yes, I feel tortured all right.
"...focusing on the singularity of the language allows us to notice that the literariness of literature makes the language itself part of the content."
Can one shoot the author for that phrase alone? I've no doubt that somewhere there's a database with addresses and whatnot. I'm sure we can track her down.
Crap. I spend all my life trying to make what's been overly complicated, simple. Cleaning up the unnecessary confusion and obfuscation. I get the impression that these people like to bury their meaning. They're not attempting to communicate and connect.
I understand it. She's saying that the language is more important to the story than the plot, tells us more, gives us more meaning -- and I agree. The reason I think Beg Me For It is a good story is because of the POV character, how he filters the story, and what it tells the reader that it's the "ordinary guy" Ron, and what his filtering says about the gap between a horrific experience and how we handle that experience. Bottom line is that Beg Me For It is very hopeful, even while it doesn't ignore how we get effected in ways that we don't notice by the circumstances of our lives. It does say that we have power even when we're powerless. The story isn't in the plot. The story is in Ron's reactions and asides, his irreverent attitude.
Draco's a contrast, but he's doing the same thing. His bluntness shows his stark refusal to be controlled by his circumstances. But his way has its downside: he's clearer, cleaner than Ron, but all hell is unleashed against him. Ron's way is safer, but little compromises sneak in till he's changed in ways he doesn't intend. Draco's changed, too, but mostly on the outside (with all the bruises and abuse). It turns out that Draco's the one who takes lasting damage - he breaks - but his sharp words act as a wake-up call to Ron. Ultimately, the fact that Ron was starting to tell "Death Eater"-type jokes reveals something more sinister: that over time his compromises would have changed him too much. So that's the dark side weighed against the hope.
See? That was clear, wasn't it? No "literariness of literature" to be found. But yes, Spivak, how a story is told reveals a great deal.
*grumbles at overly stylistic frou-frou writing*
ETA (much later): Okay,
cesperanza's right, my dissection here isn't formalist enough. I still swung back to dissecting character. But! I can do it. Really.On the other hand -- I feel vindicated. Learned from the prof. this morning that Spivak has won the New York Times' mean spirited Worst Academic Writer award (so has Judith Butler). More than once. Even proponents call her style "tortured English."
Yes, I feel tortured all right.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-24 03:10 pm (UTC)(I think I became an editor out of revenge. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2006-05-24 03:16 pm (UTC)Icarus