tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post112517545091675662..comments2024-01-01T05:14:46.672-05:00Comments on Double Articulation: On Interpretation: Comic Books, Superheroes, and the Horizon of MeaningJim Roeghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16381244745309535742noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post-1125872244022062872005-09-04T18:17:00.000-04:002005-09-04T18:17:00.000-04:00No problem, Jim.I was expecially fascinated by the...No problem, Jim.<BR/><BR/><EM>I was expecially fascinated by the dbvani/rasa suggestion-response concept</EM><BR/><BR/>Indian aesthetic theories have fascinated me for a long time. Most of what I had understood came from readings about drama and music (interpretive readings of the <EM>Natyasastra</EM> for example) and the application of <EM>rasa</EM> theory to the performance arts. Until reading Hogan's essay, I never realized the depths with which Indian theories dealt with literature.<BR/><BR/><EM>Basho's "romantic" (ethnocentric terminology becomes a problem!) theory of poetry and loneliness, which I find just tremendously evocative.</EM><BR/><BR/>Basho and Zeami have always fascinated me. I don't know if part of that is my Buddhist background and leanings, or if I just really enjoy finding complexity in the simplest of ideas. Yeah, ethnocentric terminology becomes a problem--and I think the current "manga is not comics" debate is just another interesting instance of the whole problem.<BR/><BR/><EM>A course based on the Norton World Masterpieces anthology mentioned in the essay should be required for every Humanities degree imo (if not every degree period). If I ruled the world, anyway.</EM><BR/><BR/>I agree wholeheartedly. And I think that any degree focusing on literary theory and criticism should focus on, well, literary theory and criticism--which means the student should have as much familiarity with Zhang Longxi as she would Fish and Gadamer; be as well aquainted with literary histories that include Ibn Rushd and Abhinavagupta as well as Aristotle; and be able to articulate the differences (and commonalities) between the ideas of <EM>bana</EM>, <EM>dhvani</EM>, <EM>katharsis</EM> and the <EM>tao</EM>.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, I think the degree title should recognize a difference between students that have studied <EM>literary theory and criticism</EM> as opposed to students that have studied <EM>Western literary theory and criticism</EM>. If I ruled the world, anyway. ;)<BR/><BR/>Now maybe I can go blog about some of this--just don't post anything for a few days ok! hehJon Silpayamananthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956747018534076778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post-1125689416088751522005-09-02T15:30:00.000-04:002005-09-02T15:30:00.000-04:00Jon - sorry for taking so darn long to reply. I w...Jon - sorry for taking so darn long to reply. I wanted to read that Hogan article first and this was the first chance I've had. Thanks so much for this link! Anyone else interested in literary theory should check it out. I was expecially fascinated by the dbvani/rasa suggestion-response concept and by Basho's "romantic" (ethnocentric terminology becomes a problem!) theory of poetry and loneliness, which I find just tremendously evocative. Thanks again for this introduction to these debates (very reminicent of the way that postcolonial criticism has completely reframed our understanding of "modernism"). A course based on the <I>Norton World Masterpieces</I> anthology mentioned in the essay should be required for every Humanities degree imo (if not every degree period). If I ruled the world, anyway.Jim Roeghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381244745309535742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post-1125515730969674932005-08-31T15:15:00.000-04:002005-08-31T15:15:00.000-04:00Jim,Just a few quick comments:but my (very qualifi...Jim,<BR/><BR/>Just a few quick comments:<BR/><BR/><EM>but my (very qualified) defense of authorial intention actually comes out of my reading of postcolonial theory</EM><BR/><BR/>Aha! I knew there was something lurking in what you had written that you didn't explicitly state or refer to. Using Indian critical methods, I could say that the <EM>dhvani</EM> ("suggestive meaning"--but literally <EM>sound</EM>) of your blog post prompted a particular <EM>rasa</EM> in me. :)<BR/><BR/><EM>And the falseness of this dichotomy is especially evident in Said, whose own education was, I believe, "Western"</EM><BR/><BR/>Right, at Princeton and Harvard.<BR/><BR/><EM>This is too big a topic to get into right now(!), but in a nutshell, I have long found poco crit's focus on examining ideology, context, and intention to be a welcome corrective to the popular "Western" "death of the author" position.</EM><BR/><BR/>Much too big! And poco crit is a <STRONG>very</STRONG> welcome corrective. To be fair (and to qualify some of the statements I made in the previous comment) I was referring more to a number of comics bloggers that tend to focus on litcrit (especially post-structuralism with nods towards pomo). A handful have made mention of poco, in particular Said, but that usually boils down to the erroneous assumption that <EM>Orientalism</EM> is just about the Middle-East, which is demonstrably false upon even a cursory reading of his <EM>Orientalism</EM>. The Middle-East <EM>is</EM> the focus, but Said talks about a plurality of "Orientalisms" which include excursions in colonial British India and China, and French Indochina. <BR/><BR/>And <EM>Orientalism</EM> is really only a case study for his <EM>Culture and Imperialism</EM>. I'd have to agree with you about Said if only because of the enormous influence he's had on poco.<BR/><BR/>I'm feeling the itch of my <EM>muse</EM> so I just might be blogging about all this tonight.<BR/><BR/>In the meantime, here's Patrick Hogan's <A HREF="http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Hogan_ethno.html" REL="nofollow">Ethnocentrism and the very idea of literary theory</A>. Some points are a little off base--but he's defeding some territory after all--if nothing else it gives a very nice [polemical] overview of "non-Western" literary traditions, theories and criticisms and Comparative Literary Criticism.Jon Silpayamananthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956747018534076778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post-1125490098413480372005-08-31T08:08:00.000-04:002005-08-31T08:08:00.000-04:00****THEORY GEEK ALERT****Jon,Thanks for elaboratin...****THEORY GEEK ALERT****<BR/>Jon,<BR/>Thanks for elaborating! What you say is so interesting to me, particularly this:<BR/><I>alot of European and American criticism has veered away from intention whereas it is still holding its own in Chinese and Indian criticism</I><BR/>I didn't get into it in my post, nor do I know anything about the specifics of "Eastern" (fear the homogenizing term!) lit crit, but my (very qualified) defense of authorial intention actually comes out of my reading of postcolonial theory, particularly Said (admittedly the most "traditional" of poco's holy trinity, but also, in many ways, the best imo). This is too big a topic to get into right now(!), but in a nutshell, I have long found poco crit's focus on examining ideology, context, and intention to be a welcome corrective to the popular "Western" "death of the author" position. Said's writing about individual authors is particularly inspired and the way he moves between an analysis of ideology and intention in a book like <I>Orientalism</I> is my idea of great criticism. I'd love to hear more about the specifics of author-centered criticism in China and India!<BR/><BR/>Briefly, I also wanted to comment on this:<BR/><I>the Western and Eastern dichotomy is very problematic</I><BR/>Agreed. And the falseness of this dichotomy is especially evident in Said, whose own education was, I believe, "Western" (correct me if I'm wrong)--so there's enormous cross-pollination going on already within poco crit. But the other funny thing about the false dichotomy is that in my experience, <I>most</I> "Western" academics (unless they identify their approach as explicitly poststructuralist) actually ignore the "death of the author" routine in practice, producing critcism that remains animated by at least some implicit presumption of authorial intent. Some might see this return to the author as a regression or a reactionary move, but to me, it's a necessary qualification of that more extreme poststructuralist moment of the 1960s-80s. Thanks again for the fascinating post--and again, I'm looking forward to your further thoughts on all this at Mae Mai!Jim Roeghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381244745309535742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post-1125467031735814412005-08-31T01:43:00.000-04:002005-08-31T01:43:00.000-04:00Jim,Thanks for your kind words. I mostly just wen...Jim,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for <B>your</B> kind words. I mostly just went off on a tangent about why alot of European and American criticism has veered away from <EM>intention</EM> whereas it is still holding its own in Chinese and Indian criticism. This is especially interesting to me because in the latter countries there are critical tools and incredibly complex theories for the reconstruction of authorial intent that we just don't normally find in contemporary "Western" (I know the <EM>Western</EM> and <EM>Eastern</EM> dichotomy is <STRONG>very</STRONG> problematic) theory and criticism. <BR/><BR/>I guess the main idea I was trying to convey was just because Western literary theory and criticsm <EM>assumes</EM> that we can't retrieve the intent of the author (or that the author's intent is no longer important) that doesn't mean authorial intent <EM>can't</EM> be retrieved (or that authorial intent isn't of primary importance).<BR/><BR/>My response was obviously related to <EM>Culture and Imperialism</EM> (ala Said and subaltern theories) as the contested grounds of legitimate theory and criticism in both India and [especially] China can be seen as a struggle between <EM>Western Cultural Theory and Criticism</EM> and <EM>Eastern Traditional Theory and Criticism</EM>. <BR/><BR/>This is all, of course, an oversimplification and as the silly saying goes, "all generalizations are false."<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I was a little annoyed that my response was lost, but at the same time I'm glad as I didn't have to clutter your comment section with too many ideas that were only slightly relevant to your post. Looking forward to reading more.Jon Silpayamananthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956747018534076778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post-1125444063428494442005-08-30T19:21:00.000-04:002005-08-30T19:21:00.000-04:00Jon--that just utterly bites. I'm so sorry to hea...Jon--that just utterly bites. I'm so sorry to hear that Blogger ate your comments/essay; I would have loved to have heard what you had to say--especially since I've already checked out your excellent blog and know that it must have been incredibly interesting!! On the bright side, the promised reconstruction gives me another excuse to stop in at Mae Mai again soon (not that I needed one--I want to hear more about Culture and Imperialism!). Thanks for the comment all the same, and for the kind words.Jim Roeghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381244745309535742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post-1125431171690405802005-08-30T15:46:00.000-04:002005-08-30T15:46:00.000-04:00Hey Jim,As I was re-reading this in the wee hours ...Hey Jim,<BR/><BR/>As I was re-reading this in the wee hours of the morning I had a couple of questions. The questions ended up being a little more than that as I went off on tangents. I think my response ended up being nearly as long as your post.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, as I tried to post it for some reasons blogspot.com was acting wonky last night and it wouldn't take so I lost the whole thing. I tried posting something at Mark's blog too--that wasn't working either--so I'm assuming it was a blogspot thing. I'm sure my slot-ass dial-up connection didn't help matters either.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I really didn't want to try to re-write it again (I'll probably just expand on some of the issues I brought up at my blog) but instead just wanted to say, again, that this is a very nicely done and well thought out post. I only wish my previous response could have contributed to the discussion, but hey--shit happens.Jon Silpayamananthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956747018534076778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post-1125358876922107542005-08-29T19:41:00.000-04:002005-08-29T19:41:00.000-04:00Guys--THANK YOU! You never know when you're tappi...Guys--THANK YOU! You never know when you're tapping away at your keyboard whether or not you're making sense or writing about anything that others will be interested in. I really, really appreciate these very kind--not to mention stimulating--comments.<BR/><BR/><B>Mark</B> - I've already replied over at <A HREF="http://fossen.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Focused Totality</A>, but sincere thanks again for the plug and for the high praise. <BR/><BR/><B>Kurt</B> - I admit it: I had to Google "Godel, Escher, Bach" (looks amazing!)--thank you for reading and for the extremely generous comments. I love your prof's dictum about intentionality and failure; failure is underrated if you ask me, especially in art.<BR/><BR/><B>D.C.</B> - Sleep? Oh yeah...I remember that.<BR/><BR/><I>once you start reviewing something, do you leave "reader space" and become something else? An uncertainty principle, where the act of reviewing means you're no longer able to be a proper reader. If the intended purpose of a work is to be enjoyed, rather than analysed, then a reviewer could be missing out on what is actually important.</I><BR/><BR/>So true. And I try not to be such a drag all the time. :) Seriously, though, and despite all evidence to the contrary, I'm actually an incredibly lazy reader and the only time I really "analyze" a comic is when I sit down and actually review it. They really are two different modes of reading. <BR/><BR/>Is one right and the other wrong? Does this distinction simply replay the debate between authorial intention (entertainment) and readerly projection ("deep thoughts") that was raised by the original question? I don't think so--at least, not necessarily. It's true, in a sense, that as critics we "murder to dissect," but very often all we're doing is putting a name and a logic to something we intuitively feel when we read "for fun" but haven't quite been able to articulate. (The pieces treating my childhood memories of comics reading are largely about trying to "explain" such amorphous "intuitions"--though things are complicated here by the fact that sometimes these "intuitions" really were childhood projections. Less often than I thought though!) The danger of critical analysis is that you always risk discovering something terrible about a book or comic you love, and this can "ruin" the book for you. Personally, though, I get more out of moving from the "reader space" to the "critic space" than I do if I stay put, so the risk is worth it to me. (Though I'm a bit of a hyprocrite here because some books are sacred, and I deliberately don't think too hard about them!)<BR/><BR/>Also on this point, and though I didn't do a very good job of conveying this in the original post (in the <I>House of M/Eightball</I> section), I think there is a genuine difference between works that will support highly literary readings and those that are, as you say, mainly for enjoyment--and then there is a vast hazy spectrum between these two poles. Where I'm coming from on this is that, historically, comics criticism/reviewing has largely lumped superheroes into the "entertainment only" while acknowledging a few "literary" works of comics genius, but mostly ignored the vast grey area in the middle that actually accounts for at least as many (if not more) books than the "entertainment only" category. (In other words, I wouldn't claim that we should read <I>every</I> comic as if it contained the symbolic power of Shakespeare or Proust, but even the "entertainment only" comics deploy codes, symbols, and images in more conscious and subtle ways, even just to entertain us, than comics criticism has typically been willing to acknowledge.) That's my sense of it anyway, though I think this is changing.<BR/><BR/>Sorry for going on at such length. It's dangerous to raise interesting questions around here! Thanks D.C.!<BR/><BR/><B>Chris</B> - you of all people have no cause for envy! And yes, "cruel" was my embellishment (sometimes I fancy myself a pirate). Thanks again for all your confidence and support--it really means a lot.<BR/><BR/><B>Jon</B> - the uni course on Female Detective Fiction sounds amazing, and the conclusions about "pulp" being a discursive category and not an intrinstically limiting form are music to my ears. As for this:<BR/><BR/><I>Where I come from in terms of reading is that I think that it is basically a form of communication and discourse. The more you look at all the aspects, the more you start to see that this is a huge and encompasing form of communication. It's not just artist-material-reader anymore. </I><BR/><BR/>...that sounds like the subject for a future post about the political entailments of art and narrative! Seriously, thanks for the wonderful comments. By the way: everyone should go check out Jon's very cool new blog, <A HREF="http://hypnoray.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">hypnoray</A>!Jim Roeghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381244745309535742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post-1125330008880701292005-08-29T11:40:00.000-04:002005-08-29T11:40:00.000-04:00Best Post Ever!This is great stuff Jim. Makes me ...Best Post Ever!<BR/><BR/>This is great stuff Jim. Makes me realize just how much I need to step up my writing game. I'm a bit of a theory junky myself and am trying to get back into the whole "lit crit" thing not to be pretentious but to examine the relationship I have to my world.<BR/><BR/>For my last degree I took a course on "Female Detective Fiction." It was a really neat examination of genre fiction and how writing within "rules" and knowing what "genre" and "the rules" are means you are free to explore just as much as any art form. The basic boiled down message was that there is no such thing as "pulp" only arbitrary divisions made by readers through social discourse.<BR/><BR/>Where I come from in terms of reading is that I think that it is basically a form of communication and discourse. The more you look at all the aspects, the more you start to see that this is a huge and encompasing form of communication. It's not just artist-material-reader anymore. So, where is the meaning? That's the fun thing to look for. That's what all us comic bloggers are essentially contributing to.<BR/><BR/>Again, great post.joncormierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00865627865285684437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post-1125319131033186672005-08-29T08:38:00.000-04:002005-08-29T08:38:00.000-04:00Did I really say "cruel"? That was just envy talki...Did I really say "cruel"? That was just envy talking. You're making the rest of us look bad!Chris Tamarrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06213995997020425750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post-1125312528641042702005-08-29T06:48:00.000-04:002005-08-29T06:48:00.000-04:00Great post, Jim, but where do you find time to sle...Great post, Jim, but where do you find time to sleep?<BR/><BR/>Like you, since I started reviewing, I've noticed there is much more going on in comic book stories than I realised - and that includes present day ones as well as ones from the deep past. It does rather beg the question, though, once you start reviewing something, do you leave "reader space" and become something else? An uncertainty principle, where the act of reviewing means you're no longer able to be a proper reader. If the intended purpose of a work is to be enjoyed, rather than analysed, then a reviewer could be missing out on what is actually important.Disintegrating Clonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11751287039603688094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post-1125288163634401192005-08-29T00:02:00.000-04:002005-08-29T00:02:00.000-04:00I had a professor in grad school who used to say t...I had a professor in grad school who used to say that you could only really tell what an artist's intention was when he failed. I never really understood that, but then he was my neuro-physiology prof, so go figure. <BR/><BR/>I greatly appreciate that you (and Mark as well) have been doing all the heavy lifting around the comic blogosphere of late. I’m sure your long posts scare some people off, but that’s their loss. I have a feeling you're going to become our equivalent to “A Brief History of Time” (or perhaps, for the more literate, “Godel, Escher, Bach”) – everyone will link to you and talk about you as a must read but only a small percentage will actually do so. Here’s hoping I’m wrong, you deserve to be read by everyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13604760.post-1125248056360436532005-08-28T12:54:00.000-04:002005-08-28T12:54:00.000-04:00Instead of replying, I'll just point you to my blo...Instead of replying, I'll just point you to <A HREF="http://fossen.blogspot.com/2005/08/little-weekend-linkblogging_28.html" REL="nofollow">my blog</A>.<BR/><BR/>Jim, you're really my favorite read in the WeboComicBlogoNet. I'm pretty familiar with academic litcrit, and love to see you applying it to pop comix.Mark Fossenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03623615263972844957noreply@blogger.com