tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post900697623298964387..comments2024-03-18T16:55:31.971+00:00Comments on This Space: The anguish of farewells: The Guardian on Coetzee's DisgraceStephen Mitchelmorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01658772259307446873noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-28356805714974177992008-07-07T21:47:00.000+01:002008-07-07T21:47:00.000+01:00Violence, Nicholas.Violence, Nicholas.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11708539533684206357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-4303783638460037302008-07-07T10:14:00.000+01:002008-07-07T10:14:00.000+01:00There never was a time when there was an absolute,...There never was a time when there was an absolute, universally agreed standard of literary judgement (though some historical epochs came nearer to it than others) and of course there certainly isn't now so that's all a red herring. But it is perfectly possible for people to agree some working principles that enable them speak in common about certain texts otherwise we simply dissolve into arbitrariness and say that there is no distinction between airport fiction and Coetzee. There will be differences about those principles as this series of exchanges shows and they are important, meaningful differences, that have to remain in debate, but there is no alternative to, in the end, staking your aesthetic bets somewhere and enough of us see the uniqueness and value of Coetzee's recent work to want to go on reading it and being stimulated by it. "Agreeing to differ" sounds wet but what alternative is there?Nicholas Murrayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07189263209323471368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-78606914595768625582008-07-07T00:34:00.000+01:002008-07-07T00:34:00.000+01:00I love this quote posted by nigelbeale. I was goin...I love this quote posted by nigelbeale. I was going to mention something about fairy tales, and I think this quote by Mr. Sypher speaks well to what is known of the oral, non-Grimm tradition. I attended an AWP seminar in Altlanta a couple of years ago called "Fairy Tales for Adults." The work of all of the writers/readers - all of whom were women, and many of whom have been published in Un. of Alabama's "Fairy Tale Review" - was sheer inventive play. I can't help but make the connection between those women on the panel and earlier women who created an oral fairy tale tradition. And this kind of untamed inventiveness makes me think of what's being noted here, that "wild voice of the unconscious self." Yes, and I can see this applied to Coetzee as well. Thanks for providing so much food for thought, Steve.<BR/><BR/>Meg SeftonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-4018162209920289642008-07-06T23:55:00.000+01:002008-07-06T23:55:00.000+01:00"These conversations though occasionally amusing, ..."These conversations though occasionally amusing, are, as StePHen points out, useless unless evaluative criteria are agreed upon."<BR/><BR/>What never ceases to "amuse" *me" is the faulty logic of this mantra of yours about "evaluative criteria", when it's obvious that conversations *about* "evaluative criteria" don't require an agreement on "evaluative criteria" as a starting point. And this is just such a conversation, at root... as most of them are: it is *about* "evaluative criteria" (i.e., how to judge Coetzee's work). Which is, by the way, not resolvable, though interesting ideas (ahem: theoretically) can spin off from the wrestling match.<BR/><BR/>No: there will *be* no culture-wide agreement on "evaluative criteria" because this is not 19th century New England or 17th century Holland. Long for the return of monolithic hegemony all you want: it (or its illusion) ain't coming back. What you are calling for, in the cloaked voice of the unctuous reactionary, is "order". <BR/><BR/>"Order" is over, though you can simulate it pleasantly by surrounding yourself with a circle of bloggers who more or less, often, agree. Which is surely part of the lure. But in the wider world: no. No "order". No broad agreement possible on "evaluative criteria".<BR/><BR/>Which means, I'm afraid, that the pressure is on you to A) come up with your very own beguilingly wonderful critical toolkit or B) ape/parrot/pretend.<BR/><BR/>"Of those novels I have read, Disgrace is the greatest written in the second half of the 20th century."<BR/><BR/>Welcome to the club of people with opinions. 7 billion strong and counting.A. Ominoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13807400943709124236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-11741062752826247902008-07-06T22:08:00.000+01:002008-07-06T22:08:00.000+01:00These conversations though occasionally amusing, a...These conversations though occasionally amusing, are, as StePHen points out, useless unless evaluative criteria are agreed upon. <BR/><BR/>Apropos of what the original post was about: I recently came across a quote from an obscure and gloriously named literary critic Wylie Sypher that I think aptly describes what goes on for me at least when reading much of J.M. Coetzee’s work. "The deepest ‘meanings’ of art therefore arise wherever there is an interplay between the patterns of surface-perception and the pressures of depth perception. Then the stated meanings will fringe off into unstated and unstatable meanings of great power, felt dimly but compellingly. Behind the trim scaffolding of artistic ‘form’ and logic there whispers, for a moment, the wild voice of the unconscious self -using the disturbed language of the dream and the jest, as well as the language of tragedy."<BR/><BR/>Of those novels I have read, Disgrace is the greatest written in the second half of the 20th century.NigelBealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06094387597632333192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-39813954432033095422008-07-06T18:54:00.000+01:002008-07-06T18:54:00.000+01:00"Yes, you're right about The Counterlife. Was that..."Yes, you're right about The Counterlife. Was that the last good book by Roth?"<BR/><BR/>Well, the last *masterpiece* out of Roth was Sabbath's Theater (in my etc), but there've been worthy reads since. The Dying Animal and Exit Ghost: no and no, resp.A. Ominoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13807400943709124236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-75921661883031272092008-07-06T18:51:00.000+01:002008-07-06T18:51:00.000+01:00Gus:"Steven, to talk about the "utter subjectivity...Gus:<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Steven, to talk about the "utter subjectivity of valuation in Art" is to talk about taste, and in matters of mere taste there can be no basis for argument..." <BR/><BR/>If you're positing a counter-condition, you're trafficking in illusions, in my opinion. I.e., "prove" *definitively* that "House of Mirth" is "better" than "Valley of the Dolls". I defy you to. <BR/><BR/>In the end, we argue our preferences (Lucian Freud over Chaim Soutine? Luigi Nono over Patti Page?) and some agree and others don't; the reputations of our favorite artists rise and fall over the seasons and centuries: rinse and repeat (ad inf).<BR/><BR/>I don't like it any more than you do (O, to be right on an *absolute* scale when it comes to Art), but there you have it.A. Ominoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13807400943709124236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-83802788749509620132008-07-06T18:44:00.000+01:002008-07-06T18:44:00.000+01:00Ste*ph*en, please!Mere taste is not evaluation, is...Ste*ph*en, please!<BR/><BR/>Mere taste is not evaluation, is it? Anyway, this is for postmodernists and obsessive democrats only. I'm outta here.Stephen Mitchelmorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01658772259307446873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-79407662448199643982008-07-06T18:33:00.001+01:002008-07-06T18:33:00.001+01:00Yes, you're right about The Counterlife. Was that ...Yes, you're right about The Counterlife. Was that the last good book by Roth? <BR/><BR/>I'm not saying Diary of a Bad Year is a great novel, I just think it's been misread.Stephen Mitchelmorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01658772259307446873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-30860171079605635192008-07-06T18:33:00.000+01:002008-07-06T18:33:00.000+01:00Steven, to talk about the "utter subjectivity of v...Steven, to talk about the "utter subjectivity of valuation in Art" is to talk about taste, and in matters of mere taste there can be no basis for argument -- there simply aren't any of the conceptual, articulated connections in which argument can take root.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-37305523900490252022008-07-06T18:27:00.000+01:002008-07-06T18:27:00.000+01:00"One might say shared ground is sought and questio..."One might say shared ground is sought and questioned in Coetzee's recent novels; hence the form."<BR/><BR/>I have no problem with the form of "Diary", and was quite excited to read it at the beginning, having read of the form in the reviews: that kind of thing is right up my alley. <BR/><BR/>The problem I have is with the kitsch schematic of the melodrama that spools out across the lower half of the page. Philip Roth did more (and more cleverly) with a strikingly similar triangle in The Counterlife, and I was turned off by the self-serving piety that Coetzee smuggles into "Diary" under the cover of half-arsed gestures towards a supposedly ruthless self-criticism. <BR/><BR/>I read the book twice (readings separated by a careful cooling off period) and was *still* not persuaded (even less so), the second time through. The whole of the narrative had an underworked and almost glibly Hollywoodish quality to it that I wouldn't have been surprised to find in one of Peter Carey's weaker efforts.<BR/><BR/>Teasing out the text's *meaning*, I'm afraid, is less important to me than trusting in the author's handling of the literary elements the meanings are built into. That's why I judge it as a novel and not a text book.A. Ominoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13807400943709124236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-28435116029396881932008-07-06T17:53:00.000+01:002008-07-06T17:53:00.000+01:00So once again, you're claiming somebody is not rea...So once again, you're claiming somebody is not reading properly. Maybe you should try stating things less flippantly. Humourless is sometimes less tiresome than relentless levity.<BR/><BR/>And I don't need to concede the point about subjectivity in valuation. Evaluating art in the first place depends on shared ground. One might say shared ground is sought and questioned in Coetzee's recent novels; hence the form.Stephen Mitchelmorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01658772259307446873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-82669028544256271252008-07-06T17:34:00.000+01:002008-07-06T17:34:00.000+01:00"Steven Augustine says this 'hit it right on the n..."Steven Augustine says this 'hit it right on the noggin' despite earlier claiming that 'it's all about *taste*, and taste is *purely* subjective'. If it's all about taste, all subjective, as Jordison agrees it is, then where is the 'noggin' for anyone to hit?"<BR/><BR/>Stephen M, had you bothered to quote (or read) my entire "it's all about taste" comment, you'd have noticed that the taste riff was the set up for a joke about *my taste* versus *bad taste*. Now, I reference this joke well knowing that *massive displays of humourlessness* are the foundation of perceived gravitas in the high stakes game of literary opinion, but I'm willing to live with the loss of gravitas, love and income this flippancy causes.<BR/><BR/>On a more serious note, I'm sure you're capable of conceding that a fellow can acknowledge the utter subjectivity of valuation in Art while retaining the right to argue his preferences. It's no paradox, and if you think it is, it's because you haven't given the matter adequate thought.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>SAA. Ominoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13807400943709124236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470094.post-3169754044892595682008-07-06T17:15:00.000+01:002008-07-06T17:15:00.000+01:00"How to read like a child?" ... this strikes me as..."How to read like a child?" ... this strikes me as more than strange, as children work with great energy to find their way to the real. While their ideas are certainly infused with magical thinking, this is not the same thing as "wishful thinking?" My sense of the latter is that it is not childlike at all, but borne of the resistance to <I>give up</I> magic thinking in the struggle to engage with the real world--a resistance that implies the capacity to move beyond it--a symptom that marks the passage to maturity. <BR/><BR/>A novel that foregos wishful thinking is not "experimental," but realistic in a deeper sense than those works we normally name as such. A better term for what I look for in a novel might simply be--if the word hadn't been hijacked for other uses, Adult Fiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com