|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 6, 2018 6:21:35 GMT
Where – or when – does a literary text begin? This question raises a series of fundamental problems in literary criticism and theory. Does a text begin as the author puts his or her first mark on a piece of paper or keys in the first word on a computer? Does it begin with the first idea about a story or poem, or in the childhood of the writer, for instance? Or does the text only begin as the reader picks up the book? Does the text begin with its title, or withthe first word of the so-called ‘body’ of the text? ( Andrew Bennett and Nicholas Royle)
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 6, 2018 7:29:48 GMT
The literary text begins when the author starts developing it in his head. That's where it always starts. It can't be on a written form first without it beginning in the thoughts. So first idea in the mind and from there a story develops and gets written down for us to hear it.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 8:33:31 GMT
Where – or when – does a literary text begin? This question raises a series of fundamental problems in literary criticism and theory. Does a text begin as the author puts his or her first mark on a piece of paper or keys in the first word on a computer? Does it begin with the first idea about a story or poem, or in the childhood of the writer, for instance? Or does the text only begin as the reader picks up the book? Does the text begin with its title, or withthe first word of the so-called ‘body’ of the text? ( Andrew Bennett and Nicholas Royle) I think it starts when text becomes narrative. Imagine, you told us, Arktos members, a story, that had been made by working on it. I mean not texts like mine - not understandable and weird - but well-formed. After this we started exciting and tell that thus is a good story, and it wotrhs to be read. So, we started retelling one another your story, and moat of us wanted not to hear this story from the other Arktos member but exactly from you or to read it in original. So, I think it is a narrative and the point where the literature begins. But: Literature were different. This means every texts were different and so on. So, your hypothetical story would be classificated as any other literature texts. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 6, 2018 9:54:41 GMT
a text may be heavily based on mythology. in such case i would say that the background of the text which is part of its meaning, and thus part of the text itself is deeply rooted in history/
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 10:17:30 GMT
Precisely. But what mythologies are? They are just historical narratives that we maintain as very untruth stories (or don't verify).
And why people maintain literature as a part of the past literature tradition? Because of its knowness. I mean reading the next text people start recognizing the common things so they can speak about it as a story-going.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 6, 2018 10:31:53 GMT
If it begins when it is written down then authors of the past who passed their stories by telling them to others like as legends work today then they would be disqualified as writers. So authors can only exist after a certain time period?
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 11:58:08 GMT
If it begins when it is written down then authors of the past who passed their stories by telling them to others like as legends work today then they would be disqualified as writers. So authors can only exist after a certain time period? It seems like that. Maybe our Arktos's writings becomes 'a legend' one day?  |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 6, 2018 12:48:28 GMT
If it begins when it is written down then authors of the past who passed their stories by telling them to others like as legends work today then they would be disqualified as writers. So authors can only exist after a certain time period? authors are disqualified in many ways, but the worst of this disqualification is the literary theory of the Death of the Author which claims that the moment the text reaches the hands of the reader, the writer should disappear completely and forever leaving the text to the care of the reader who feels free to project meaning onto it |
|
aljedaxi
New Member
yes hello i am serious philosopher
Posts: 4
Likes: 5
|
Post by aljedaxi on Feb 12, 2018 4:00:52 GMT
There is the sense the story begins with the glyphs on the page. But what does that really mean? The 'beginning' and 'ending' of the book are, really, the beginning and ending of the reading (and writing) of the book. And here we have two very different ways of looking at the beginning. There is that in the realm of the author, and the reader. Since discussion has leaned more heavily on the side of the author, i'll stick to the reader.
For the reader, there is the beginning with the picking up of the book, and the ending with the finishing of the book. But the experience of reading is not confined to the time one has one's eyes trained on the book. The thinking one does while away from it is part of the experience of reading, and the thought that comes of that thinking is thought engendered by the glyphs on the page, just like the thoughts which are the verbalizations of the words represented by the glyphs. If we deny this degree of seperation, we must deny any "reading between the lines", any interpretation which does not follow directly from the words on the page.
In the same sense, we can extend the experience of reading the book far beyond when one has finished the book. It's been years since i read God Emperor of Dune, but i think of it constantly. The repercussions of the having read it are constantly unfolding within me. What difference does it make if the book is in my hands or not, if my eyes are trained on it or not? Perhaps in this same sense we can even extend the experience of reading the book out before having picked up the book, to the various things which have happened in our life to flavor our reading.
So all experiences begin to flow into each other; the lines between them grow fuzzy. I get the feeling that putting a hard stop and start on experience, once we start to define things in this broader sense, is entirely post-hoc, and not reflective of any "line" within the universe itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 12, 2018 4:07:56 GMT
If it begins when it is written down then authors of the past who passed their stories by telling them to others like as legends work today then they would be disqualified as writers. So authors can only exist after a certain time period? It seems like that. Maybe our Arktos's writings becomes 'a legend' one day? This is fact not opinion xD |
|
aljedaxi
New Member
yes hello i am serious philosopher
Posts: 4
Likes: 5
|
Post by aljedaxi on Feb 12, 2018 4:13:56 GMT
Or does the text only begin as the reader picks up the book? Does the text begin with its title, or with the first word of the so-called ‘body’ of the text? ( Andrew Bennett and Nicholas Royle) This question of the Title as opposed to the Body interests me. It gets at this question of "what is the text": Does 'The Text' include or disclude its title? Should we include the title, does the propoganda on the back and in the wings also count as part of 'The Text'? Does the information on the author count? Once we come to our conclusion, is there any way we can really convince ourself that our categorization is anything but a post-hoc rationalization, not a feature of the way in which we see the book, but a real feature of the book itself? As we run up against the question, i doubt it. And for it, i postulate: 'The Text' can be nothing other than the experience of the text proper. The upper case T text is every splotch of ink, every texture of the paper, every sound of rain we heard when reading the text, that contributed to—that fed into, that became a part of—the experience, whether we knew it or not. And we christen this experience with the identity of the prime contributor to it, the prime entity, the thing to which all other things are parergons: the title of the text. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 12, 2018 8:57:59 GMT
There is the sense the story begins with the glyphs on the page. But what does that really mean? The 'beginning' and 'ending' of the book are, really, the beginning and ending of the reading (and writing) of the book. And here we have two very different ways of looking at the beginning. There is that in the realm of the author, and the reader. Since discussion has leaned more heavily on the side of the author, i'll stick to the reader. For the reader, there is the beginning with the picking up of the book, and the ending with the finishing of the book. But the experience of reading is not confined to the time one has one's eyes trained on the book. The thinking one does while away from it is part of the experience of reading, and the thought that comes of that thinking is thought engendered by the glyphs on the page, just like the thoughts which are the verbalizations of the words represented by the glyphs. If we deny this degree of seperation, we must deny any "reading between the lines", any interpretation which does not follow directly from the words on the page. In the same sense, we can extend the experience of reading the book far beyond when one has finished the book. It's been years since i read God Emperor of Dune, but i think of it constantly. The repercussions of the having read it are constantly unfolding within me. What difference does it make if the book is in my hands or not, if my eyes are trained on it or not? Perhaps in this same sense we can even extend the experience of reading the book out before having picked up the book, to the various things which have happened in our life to flavor our reading. So all experiences begin to flow into each other; the lines between them grow fuzzy. I get the feeling that putting a hard stop and start on experience, once we start to define things in this broader sense, is entirely post-hoc, and not reflective of any "line" within the universe itself. if reading a text is this complicated with a whole lot of interwoven situations, why do people, apparently of different backgrounds, tend to agree on labeling a text as great or excellent!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 12, 2018 10:45:15 GMT
Or does the text only begin as the reader picks up the book? Does the text begin with its title, or with the first word of the so-called ‘body’ of the text? ( Andrew Bennett and Nicholas Royle) This question of the Title as opposed to the Body interests me. It gets at this question of "what is the text": Does 'The Text' include or disclude its title? Should we include the title, does the propoganda on the back and in the wings also count as part of 'The Text'? Does the information on the author count? Once we come to our conclusion, is there any way we can really convince ourself that our categorization is anything but a post-hoc rationalization, not a feature of the way in which we see the book, but a real feature of the book itself? As we run up against the question, i doubt it. And for it, i postulate: 'The Text' can be nothing other than the experience of the text proper. The upper case T text is every splotch of ink, every texture of the paper, every sound of rain we heard when reading the text, that contributed to—that fed into, that became a part of—the experience, whether we knew it or not. And we christen this experience with the identity of the prime contributor to it, the prime entity, the thing to which all other things are parergons: the title of the text. Titles are sometimes chosen with the purpose of grabbing readers' attention and enticing them to read the book. |
|
aljedaxi
New Member
yes hello i am serious philosopher
Posts: 4
Likes: 5
|
Post by aljedaxi on Feb 13, 2018 0:25:47 GMT
. . . So all experiences begin to flow into each other; the lines between them grow fuzzy. I get the feeling that putting a hard stop and start on experience, once we start to define things in this broader sense, is entirely post-hoc, and not reflective of any "line" within the universe itself. if reading a text is this complicated with a whole lot of interwoven situations, why do people, apparently of different backgrounds, tend to agree on labeling a text as great or excellent!!! Firstly, none of these processes are going on the conscious level, even if you're some hyper-post-modernist mega-philosopher.
Predominantly, regardless of the grand and multifasceted process of interpretation which is going on within the mind of each individual, there is still the question of the thing which is being interpreted. It's rather like how all sorts of chefs can create whatever they want, but are bounded by the ingredients they are given. No matter how it is they go about preparing the ingredients—besides masking the ingredients so thouroughly their flavour is no longer intelligible—the resulting dish is still going to taste bad.
The vast majority of people who read, say, "Dune" are going to come away from it liking it. There's some underlying commonality to the human experience which bleeds into the human interpretation of art. The differences are in how much people like Dune—too many people aren't going to end up quite as obsessed with it as i am. That's a function of my particular life experiences, which flavor the interpreter, and hence the interpretation.
|
|
