Calle wrote:
The way we were taught, all works are supposed to stand by themselves. When evaluating a literary creation, you look only at the creation itself. You disregard when it was created, you disregard who created it, you disregard why it was created; you just look at the creation as it appears before you. No more, and no less[1].
and Fiona responded:
However, this strikes me as effectively impossible to do. Whenever you read a programme or watch a book, you cannot avoid bringing in some of the surrounding context.
True - we're subjective creatures by nature, composed of our own individual experiences, and everything we perceive is affected by that.
But Calle's point is, boiled down, is that each creation is supposed to be considered as itself (through your own filters) rather than the creation plus a list of notes from the creator saying, "See, what I meant here was..."
Fiona continued:
Basically, by this analysis a Mills and Boon romance is every bit as literarily valid as a Shakespeare play. Which is something I've never been able to accept-- and frankly, very few English departments seem to be teaching First-Year Mills and Boon, despite the litcrit movement.
Hang on. They are equally valid, but that doesn't make them equally good. (caveat: I've never read a M+B, and never read most of Shakespeare) M+B books are formulaic. I've often argued (though not here) that a M+B can be just as good as the best literature you can find - it's just *much* harder to do so, because you've also got to fit the formula, and so requires far greater skill from the writer. That doesn't make it impossible.
steve