tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post7410211385534512347..comments2024-03-14T13:06:38.883+00:00Comments on cultural snow: Of mice and postmodernistsTim Fhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14681067872556519250noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-69270565877454473842007-09-26T20:05:00.000+01:002007-09-26T20:05:00.000+01:00Interesting post, Tim. Now I remember why I walked...Interesting post, Tim. Now I remember why I walked out of my English A-level after just one class. H'only kidding. Very interesting. Lots of psychological research, actually, on the way in which the brain essentially produces its reality in an ongoing hallucination that is only mediated by external reality, not actually created by it. And surely this must play a role when the stimulus is as poor as text (in comparison to something high-bandwidth like vision). I shall think on.Dr Ian Hockinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09120409886797256087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-49153873171180614132007-09-11T11:02:00.000+01:002007-09-11T11:02:00.000+01:00Oh c'mon, P, I'm nearly 40. I'm entitled to indulg...Oh c'mon, P, I'm nearly 40. I'm entitled to indulge in an occasional bout of reactionary, ill-informed grumbling. It's the law. I'm doing how modern music is all just boom boom boom next, and you can't tell if it's a boy or a girl.Tim Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14681067872556519250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-21970604320528708552007-09-11T10:12:00.000+01:002007-09-11T10:12:00.000+01:00Yes, but 'the majority of people' don't *always* c...Yes, but 'the majority of people' don't *always* communicate in text speak; they tend to use it only when it's the most convenient method of communication. <BR/><BR/>People (even young people) who enjoy exploring the wider potential of the English language still can and still do - there's nothing restricting them from doing so.patroclushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01933476561340044351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-66832025902702013412007-09-08T08:11:00.000+01:002007-09-08T08:11:00.000+01:00I think the problem with txtspk, as distinct from ...I think the problem with txtspk, as distinct from other developments in language, is that it restricts its variety, rather than offering new avenues. Which links it to Orwell's Newspeak, the purpose of which was to stop people from having unwanted thoughts, by removing the words they had to express them.Tim Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14681067872556519250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-13055252321591710532007-09-07T22:06:00.000+01:002007-09-07T22:06:00.000+01:00i gss sb-ltrrcy wll hv t xst lk hts.i gss sb-ltrrcy wll hv t xst lk hts.Kwokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15403848642146144331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-8342117946781514442007-09-07T14:32:00.000+01:002007-09-07T14:32:00.000+01:00"....if we're getting to the stage when the majori..."....if we're getting to the stage when the majority of people communicate in sub-literate txtspk, how does an author convey the notion that a character is sub-literate? Or will the concept of sub-literacy cease to exist?"<BR/><BR/>By a strange piece of synchronicity I find myself involved in a discussion on that very topic elsewhere. Language evolves....who for instance is to say that rappers are illiterate? Not me. I might get capped. I think it comes down to grammar. What's acceptable may undergo revision but the underlying rules do not. As to how this can be conveyed in a literary context I have no idea. Kingsley Amis probably could have done it but these days nobody wants to be judgmental. cyu.Dick Headleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978203284842718331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-40489915268091626672007-09-07T13:32:00.000+01:002007-09-07T13:32:00.000+01:00But what colour's your coat, Geoff?But what colour's your coat, Geoff?Tim Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14681067872556519250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-33533726076353769412007-09-07T13:30:00.000+01:002007-09-07T13:30:00.000+01:00I've seen the Cliff Robertson one, Anthony.I suppo...I've seen the Cliff Robertson one, Anthony.<BR/><BR/>I suppose conceptual art is one area that derails Barthes; because it's founded on the initial idea more than the execution, it's the shock of the new that matters. Although maybe there are some art fans who are so dim that, in their eyes, Duchamp is influenced by Tracey Emin...<BR/><BR/>Sorry, Bob, I still don't think art demands morality. It may benefit from it, but it's not a sine qua non. I mean, where's the morality in Led Zep? Dribbling down Percy's leg, probably.Tim Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14681067872556519250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-33681082403533603142007-09-07T13:20:00.000+01:002007-09-07T13:20:00.000+01:00Blue is worth 5. Pink, 6.I'll get me coat.Blue is worth 5. Pink, 6.<BR/><BR/>I'll get me coat.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00340519450159428760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-90888412217229461462007-09-07T12:45:00.000+01:002007-09-07T12:45:00.000+01:00"But does art have to be "essentially moral in pur..."But does art have to be "essentially moral in purpose", Bob?"<BR/><BR/>Yes, Tim. Otherwise it has no meaning to us:<BR/><BR/>"How shall we live, Brian?"<BR/><BR/>It becomes moral as soon as it addresses that question and, if it doesn't, that's the question we should ask of it. Otherwise you're just pissing in the wind.<BR/><BR/>That said, I quite liked Blue's last one...The one where she comes out as a raunchy dyke. Or am I getting Blue mixed up with Pink?<BR/>Bob<BR/><BR/>p.s. I'm listening to Led Zep right now; they certainly knew how to live.Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07104427046281324757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-67430220932454925952007-09-07T07:28:00.000+01:002007-09-07T07:28:00.000+01:00There were a couple of not-half-bad film adaptatio...There were a couple of not-half-bad film adaptations of Keyes' novel.<BR/><BR/>As your Duchamp quote illustrates, Marcel often got there first.St. Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05539878989031969603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-42490761596331663772007-09-07T02:34:00.000+01:002007-09-07T02:34:00.000+01:00It's a profoundly silly title, Billy. I can pictur...It's a profoundly silly title, Billy. I can picture a whole series: <I>Trousers for Montmorency</I>; <I>Crumpets for Humphrey</I>; <I>Nipple-clamps for Cuthbert</I>...<BR/><BR/>But does art have to be <I>"essentially moral in purpose"</I>, Bob? And the <I>"Blue are better than the Beach Boys"</I> conundrum is essentially qualitative rather than moral anyway. Amoral, perhaps... Oh, and hooray for jerk-off cleverness anyway, if the only exception is dumb apathy.<BR/><BR/>I think I mentioned the Guillemots in passing, P. You didn't go for them, I seem to recall. But isn't Observer Woman just an elaborate bit of whimsical pop irony, jerk-off cleverness for the Boden generation? Or do they mean it?<BR/><BR/>You're right, Chris, it's just the start of a process. Not so much the death of the author, but the beginning of a long tennis match between the author and the reader. And I'm Henri Leconte, so there.<BR/><BR/>Anyway I think the whole point of these counter-intuitive theories is not that they should be swallowed whole - that we should write the author out of any critical consideration in this case - but that we should use them as a basis for reconsidering our own critical behaviours.<BR/><BR/>Right, mine's a pint.Tim Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14681067872556519250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-51779229455537192007-09-06T22:15:00.000+01:002007-09-06T22:15:00.000+01:00Literary theory always did bring me out in a rash....Literary theory always did bring me out in a rash. Re:<BR/><BR/>'it's quite feasible to argue that Book B is an influence on Book A, even if B was written after A [...]. If the reader of A has already read B, it can influence the reading of that text.'<BR/><BR/>The second sentence is quite true, but the first is not proved by it, unless you accept this business about an author and a book's readers being equally important to its identity. While a book read by no-one has no identity (and an audience without a show is not an audience), you do, I think, have to give an author more credit than a readership. I love Dickens, but that doesn't make me Dickens, does it?<BR/><BR/>The 'Death of the Author' idea also has the rather unpleasant side effect that everyone who comes into contact with a book becomes a part of it, apart from the author. When placing it in terms of other things read / seen / experienced, why not include in this context your own idea of who the author is? Many books demand it.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961928950277859778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-78499618946811775892007-09-06T14:45:00.000+01:002007-09-06T14:45:00.000+01:00Bob said:>>While I don't see any harm, as such, in...Bob said:<BR/><BR/>>><I>While I don't see any harm, as such, in the argument that - for want of a better example - Blue are every bit as important as The Beach Boys if that's the way it seems in the (in my view deranged) mind of the listener, it doesn't really help us understand the work much better, does it?</I><<<BR/><BR/>True, but surely it helps us to understand the audience better, and understanding audiences better is critical to e.g. making decent telly. Otherwise you get a situation where people making telly assume their entire audience is composed of idiots who think Blue and the Beach Boys are interchangeable, and are minded to make programmes accordingly.<BR/><BR/>Or indeed, a situation where a supposedly left-wing intellectual national Sunday newspaper assumes its entire female audience is obsessed with fashion and celebrities, and is minded to produce a monthly supplement accordingly.<BR/><BR/>Didn't Tim once write a post about the Guillemots?patroclushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01933476561340044351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-41123337036225444302007-09-06T14:15:00.000+01:002007-09-06T14:15:00.000+01:00I never could spell character...I never could spell character...Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07104427046281324757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-59456869944065155262007-09-06T14:13:00.000+01:002007-09-06T14:13:00.000+01:00Or as Brecht put it:"Where do the holes go when yo...Or as Brecht put it:<BR/><BR/>"Where do the holes go when you eat Swiss Cheese?"<BR/><BR/>I agree with a lot of the "audience decides whether or not it's art or not" stuff that Duchamp set in motion when he nailed a urinal to the wall and signed it R. Mutt, but I'm afraid that what you might loosely call structuralism makes for a rather blunt critical tool as far as I'm concerned. <BR/><BR/>While I don't see any harm, as such, in the argument that - for want of a better example - Blue are every bit as important as The Beach Boys if that's the way it seems in the (in my view deranged) mind of the listener, it doesn't really help us understand the work much better, does it? <BR/><BR/>It is useful to bring whatever you can to a piece and, yes, works do rebound off and answer back to one another regardless of their place in time, but I think when you start attributing influence to people where the facts of time plainly contradict such an occurence, it's just a form of critical political correctness...there, another buzz-phrase for you, Tim: Critical correctness gone mad!<BR/><BR/>I think criticism doesn't have to be 'right'; just honest. You have to stick your neck on the line and interrogate it, but you do so accepting that your version is just a finite approximation of something that is practically infinite. I also object to something which is essentially moral in purpose (writing, singing, making films) being reduced to an intellectual exercise, with the sort of jerk-off cleverness that seems to charachterise so much of the more pedantically anti-humanist stuff.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Anyroad, lecture over and, lads - use your noddles, eh? Let's just have a bit of common sense out there, shall we?<BR/><BR/>p.s. have a listen to the Guillemots: first rate stuff.Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07104427046281324757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18775356.post-88384068606706823042007-09-06T11:33:00.000+01:002007-09-06T11:33:00.000+01:00I don't know if I'd like the book or not, but that...I don't know if I'd like the book or not, but that is a splendid title. Damn dumbing down!Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17841187654606981532noreply@blogger.com