Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
Yeah, it does depend on the dog.
A couple quick thoughts for now on the TV article:
I really like what he has to say on irony as tyrannical/inescapable--Though I wonder how much of that is TV-fueled. Aren't fear of looking naive and looking gullible closely related? Gullibility is something kids prey on (in other kids). I don't know how much we've internalized the irony/poker faced cool of TV by age 6 or 8 or even 10.
He has a little section where he talks about how all the authority figures on TV are either mocked and not respected, or respected only through self-mocking (he makes a couple exceptions for people who manage to organize so much chaos that they earn respect). I'd argue the X Files goes very much against that. The search for the truth in that show is a pretty damn earnest thing, in the face of essentially insurmountable odds. Even beside that example, though, I think the exceptions prove the real rule: respect must be earned in these shows, it's not simply blindly given. Self-deprecation expresses self-awareness, and I like my authority figures to be self-aware; it's a good barometer for critical thinking. I don't think DFW ever expressly criticizes the authority-leery aspect of TV, but he does include it as a supporting point in his overall criticism. I just don't find that feature problematic, in itself.
Third, I was thinking of how the internet affects the argument. In some ways, the internet makes it worse, makes poker faced coolness and constant irony a requirement for survival, and probably entrenches them more deeply because they're bred through two-sided interaction, active learning and participation, rather than passive watching (which of course still has its place). I was reminded of the the reid "needs money," given2trade believes him thread multiple times through the paper. At the same time, the aforementioned active participation alleviates some of DFW's other problems with TV. It gives an avenue for creativity and agency, whether it's blogs, flickrs, or message boards. Also, with something like news which he mentions a few times, it actually makes news agencies more accountable and news more accessible. More broadly than news, the internet opens many new avenues for learning, and makes information much more accessible.
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:40 am Posts: 25451 Location: 111 Archer Ave.
A few weeks ago, the local news broke into regularly scheduled programming to report on a bomb threat that was phoned in to the UT campus. It turned out to be a hoax, obviously, but during the broadcast I felt a little guilty that I was worried about the Ransom Center and the DFW archives more than anything else.
I'm really enjoying Every Love Story... but some parts are "technically" challenging. The bits dealing with philosophy and how DFW tried to incorporate that into the writing are hard to follow for me sometimes. It makes me want to take some literary theory courses, even if they aren't related directly to DFW.
For you lit pros, which book(s) would you recommend for someone with no formal literary training who wants to learn about the subject? Is that too broad a question?
Sort of. If you want a really broad selection of critical theory and to see how it's evolved, get the Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism. But if you want to start diving into linguistics, philosophy, etc. (meaning specific thinkers DFW was in conversation w/), I'd try to get some of their books and possibly companion readers.
You also might want to start looking at different schools of theory and see what you like. I've found Viktor Shlovsky's books/theory (Russian Formalism) really useful/interesting. Theory of Prose and Literature and Cinematography are both excellent. I know ST and someone else here have read Walter Benjamin. He's brilliant. It isn't exactly lit. theory, but you might like The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction , especially because of your familiarity w/ Gaddis.
And to improve close-reading and acquiring terms/vernacular ("literary training"), take a look at James Wood's How Fiction Works (though a lot of people despise it). It's mildly technical but a good primer.
I think the question is do you want a broad selection of theory or a specific group of theorists. I imagine ST and Mick will have more to add.
_________________
lennythetent wrote:
my boredom doesn't have a window
Last edited by withoutrings on Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:41 am Posts: 5867 Location: Providence, RI Gender: Male
As withoutrings said, do your best to get a hold of the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. I know that the 2001 edition (not the most recent anymore) is available on most torrent sites if you don't want to shell out cash for it. The introduction to that will give you a great overview and lead you to the direction of some theorists or philosophers that might interest you. The headnotes to each section also give a pretty good overview of each theorist and how they connect to others. When I have more time, I'll post of some who's-who that might be important for Wallace.
_________________ "I wish that I believed in fate / I wish I didn't sleep so late"
"The real truth about it is: no one gets it right / The real truth about it is: we’re all supposed to try"
I think I'll make How Fiction Works and the Norton Anthology top priorities. I don't know enough to choose a specific school, so I think they'll do the best job as primers.
Also, I think I'm going to start re-reading TPK before the year is over.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum