Wollheim fails to either explicate the nature of a creative process or the manner by which we can reconstruct them. He fails to adequately respond to the first objection that it is impossible to recreate the creative process absent the fortunate circumstances of either being the artist (in which case interpretation would be unnecessary) or being privy to the artists process. Absent these extremely rare exceptions, I would maintain that it is impossible to recreate the creative process, but mainly because I am not presented with a definition, of any kind, of a creative process. Is it the mental thoughts while creating a piece? Maybe it is simply the mechanical operations of the artist's limbs while painting...etc...
Wollheim's thesis fails due to insufficient evidence.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Context
On Wednesday we discussed the merit of incorporating context of various sorts into interpretations and understanding of works of literature. There is merit but there is also danger. Understanding the tumultuous nature of France and England during that time aids in an understanding of A Tale of Two Cities.
However, I think we ought to be careful about which type of context can be helpful. There are certainly facts about an author's life for instance that would prove irrelevant. Furthermore, and the true danger, is that additional information can as easily corrupt as it can enlighten. Interpretation is always imprecise but being bogged down with irrelvant information may tempt us to look for analogs in the story and maybe even create a few.
However, I think we ought to be careful about which type of context can be helpful. There are certainly facts about an author's life for instance that would prove irrelevant. Furthermore, and the true danger, is that additional information can as easily corrupt as it can enlighten. Interpretation is always imprecise but being bogged down with irrelvant information may tempt us to look for analogs in the story and maybe even create a few.
The Correct Interpretation
I would like to posit that there is a correct interpretation of a work of literature. The correct intepretation of a work of literature is that which the author intended to communicate to the extent that it is not contradicted by the denotation of the work.
For instance: I cannot write a work "The Cat is Red" and then maintain that the correct intepretation of the work is that the cat is not red. If my intention was to convey that the cat is not red and attempt to do so by writing "the cat is red" than there is no correct interpretation because my intent and the denotation was contradictory. I would also maintain that I would be an idiot, but that is of less relevance here.
This is not to say that we cannot interpret material that the author did not intend. There is great merit in recognizing implications that may have arisen by accident, and there is nothing wrong with that. But the work means what the author meant it to mean.
Nota Bene: this is not the product of long deliberation and is very open to comment and revision.
For instance: I cannot write a work "The Cat is Red" and then maintain that the correct intepretation of the work is that the cat is not red. If my intention was to convey that the cat is not red and attempt to do so by writing "the cat is red" than there is no correct interpretation because my intent and the denotation was contradictory. I would also maintain that I would be an idiot, but that is of less relevance here.
This is not to say that we cannot interpret material that the author did not intend. There is great merit in recognizing implications that may have arisen by accident, and there is nothing wrong with that. But the work means what the author meant it to mean.
Nota Bene: this is not the product of long deliberation and is very open to comment and revision.
Paradox?
Nehamas, early in the article, attempts to invoke paradox to counter the view of Corngold. "But of course Corngold's view is reached thorugh an interpretation which must be itself correct if it is to explain why there cannot be a correct intepretation of the story."
This is a valid counterpoint, and a paradox indeed. He continues: and this paradox of method is parallel to a paradox of content. He claims that if the point of Metamorphosis was that literature cannot succeed in conveyance then a paradox occurs. "But if it succeeds in communicating it, it communicates that it fails to communicate..." Again, a valid paradox and thus refutation, but then he steps slightly too far: "...and if it fails, since this failure is what it communicates, it succeeds." He is close here,a nd I undersatnd why he errs, but an error noneltheless. If the story fails to communicate that literature cannot communicate, this does not prove that literate cannot communicate; it is only that this one case failed, so it does not ultimately succeed and there is no paradox there. It is a subtle distinction, but a valid one. Indeed, Goldcorn's position falls victim to the first two paradoxes, but Nehamas is not entitled to the third.
This is a valid counterpoint, and a paradox indeed. He continues: and this paradox of method is parallel to a paradox of content. He claims that if the point of Metamorphosis was that literature cannot succeed in conveyance then a paradox occurs. "But if it succeeds in communicating it, it communicates that it fails to communicate..." Again, a valid paradox and thus refutation, but then he steps slightly too far: "...and if it fails, since this failure is what it communicates, it succeeds." He is close here,a nd I undersatnd why he errs, but an error noneltheless. If the story fails to communicate that literature cannot communicate, this does not prove that literate cannot communicate; it is only that this one case failed, so it does not ultimately succeed and there is no paradox there. It is a subtle distinction, but a valid one. Indeed, Goldcorn's position falls victim to the first two paradoxes, but Nehamas is not entitled to the third.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Chapter 9
I found while rereading Moby Dick this last time, a new fascination with Chapter Nine: The Sermon. I wonder what role the preacher and, more importantly, the sermon plays in the narrative. Two lines in particular stuck out to me.
The first was the last lesson the sermon was supposed to teach: "To preach the truth to the face of Falsehood." This echos somewhat one of the things Melville bemoaned in a letter to Hawthorne: that writers cannot tell the truth to their readers and expect success. One possibility was that this was Melville injecting some of his preference into the story through this sermon.
The second was the idea that Jonah thought his punishment just and was grateful for it. The idea of being grateful for punishment is rather alien, but on further reflection, punishment, when effectively employed can serve as an educational tool. The punishee may not be grateful at the time but they may be in the future. Jonah understood his actions were wrong and thus the punishment did not anger him. It is a lesson we all could learn and be better for.
I'm interested; what role do you think the sermon played in the narrative?
The first was the last lesson the sermon was supposed to teach: "To preach the truth to the face of Falsehood." This echos somewhat one of the things Melville bemoaned in a letter to Hawthorne: that writers cannot tell the truth to their readers and expect success. One possibility was that this was Melville injecting some of his preference into the story through this sermon.
The second was the idea that Jonah thought his punishment just and was grateful for it. The idea of being grateful for punishment is rather alien, but on further reflection, punishment, when effectively employed can serve as an educational tool. The punishee may not be grateful at the time but they may be in the future. Jonah understood his actions were wrong and thus the punishment did not anger him. It is a lesson we all could learn and be better for.
I'm interested; what role do you think the sermon played in the narrative?
Ishmael as Reformed
Sarah Ott describes Ishmael as a conservative puritan. While Ishmael does identify himself as a puritan, I think there are numerous textual references that stand as significant evidence against his conservatism.
Ismael once prays, with Queequeg, to an Idol. This is a charitable interpretation of the bible, not a hallmark of a conservative christian.
In reference to Queequeg, Ishmael, on page 57 says: "I'll try a pagan friend, thought I, since Christian kindness has proved but hollow courtesy." Not only does he willingly befriend a pagan, but the self critical view of Christianity is almost exclusively not a quality found in a conservative.
Again, near the beginning of chapter seventeen, Ismael decides not to interrupt Queequeg's Ramadan because Christians ought not disturb anyone's manner of worship and that Christians ought not feel religiously superior to any others. Such religious superiority is certainly often the viewpoint of conservative Christians.
Ismael once prays, with Queequeg, to an Idol. This is a charitable interpretation of the bible, not a hallmark of a conservative christian.
In reference to Queequeg, Ishmael, on page 57 says: "I'll try a pagan friend, thought I, since Christian kindness has proved but hollow courtesy." Not only does he willingly befriend a pagan, but the self critical view of Christianity is almost exclusively not a quality found in a conservative.
Again, near the beginning of chapter seventeen, Ismael decides not to interrupt Queequeg's Ramadan because Christians ought not disturb anyone's manner of worship and that Christians ought not feel religiously superior to any others. Such religious superiority is certainly often the viewpoint of conservative Christians.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Of Ott Paradoxes
I voiced in class on monday the idea that Ott was speaking, at most, of mere contradictions and, at least, unimportant tensions. As such, I was contending that the use of the term 'paradox' was incorrect. We settled the issue by claiming that ascribing contradictory discriptors to a single entity would constitute a paradox. What we missed was a line on page 28, a line that should have been articulated on page 1: "Melville's important contribution to both the novel's theme and structure is this counterbalancing of opposing tensions - what I have called paradoxes" (28). So a paradox, stipulated by Ott is merely an opposing tension. This is an understanding of this essay and of Melville that is more satisfactory to me. Properly, again, she ought to have mentioned this from the start and not more than half way through her paper, but it is revealing nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)