Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
always always never always. ok so power/control/orthodoxy? in which way? the orthodoxy, if anything, is to apply interpretations.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya, but you can't make me believe that each buendia represents a latin american nation without some sort of textual proof.
|
See, it's this kind of aggressive return to the vernacular of orthodoxy ('proof') that makes me not want to engage. I've not read Marquez (well, I have, but I thought it was shit and disregarded it) but you've essentially asked for a proof without interpretation; I can't seriously engage in literature that way, and I don't see how anyone can. Verification in suchfriends... case of his
interpretation would require the sort of academic footnoting that renders academia un-readable to most; you've both read the book, he has this take, you have the other, but you've been excessively aggressive in asking him to qualify that. You're asking him to bore you so you can say it's boring.
Quote:
|
interpretation is fine when it is called for-- in translation, diplomacy, a bit of hermeneutics to aid reading. but interpretation is the lowest form of reading pleasure i can think of. it's almost a denial of reading itself.
|
'The book should be a flat surface, empirical, read and never questioned'. How do we enjoy books? Not by a hegemony of experience, but by interpretation. Ok, interpreting Hardy as proto-Zapitista would be well off-mark, but there's a necessity for ambiguity (and thus interpretation) in any given engagement with a text.
Quote:
|
it says that the pleasure is elsewhere--not in the reading, but in the interpretation itself. which is, granted, what eggheads love to do-- not read books, but write papers about them.
|
Reading comes first, but how do we share books? In silence? In stolid regurgitation? How to we discuss them? I don't see how you're leaving any space whatsoever for discussion of literature.