--- by J. L. Speranza
In a post entitled "Napoleon/Hamlet", which J hyperlinks in "Owen Barfield", comments, this blog, J quotes from Russell's "Mathematical Philosophy" vis a vis "Hamlet" and fictional truths in general.
The point may have a connection with Grice. First, there is of course Grice's elucidations (my enemy calls them 'ramblings') in "Vacuous Names". But there are OTHER issues.
Gregory Currie has perhaps more than any other I know tried to elucidate some of the Griceain aspects of what we call 'fiction'. It is certainly NOT an issue matter.
When we turn from Lit. Crit. or literary theory to aesthetics proper, where the point belongs, I am also reminded of Anna Karenina and why we are moved by it. It may be a fiction, but are the tears fictional too?
Austin used to say it's all etiolated uses of language, and Grice is slightly more serious when it comes to metaphor, and other literary tropes. But the point about 'fictional' discourse still escapes them.
When I got hold of Mary-Louise Pratt's book, which has gone on record as the 'first serious attempt to apply Grice to literature', I cannot say I was overwhelmed! I love her, but she is teaching literature in Berkeley and not strictly to literary types, so some of her examples are rather simplistic, but she has some good quotes. In general, I prefer to read Leech (elementary as he sometimest turns to get) on 'implicature' in the novel (in collaboration with Short -- I have quoted most of his examples in this blog), and Deirdre Burton on absurd theatre and Pinter and Grice. There ARE other authors too who have made some good observations as to how the 'Gricean programme' can say a thing or two about what matters, etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
A.K. might elicit tears in you, and in many, but perhaps not in all who read it, even if they are sufficiently educated. Reading Conrad's Lord Jim back in college town years ago, I informed some undergraduate-y waif that JC was a real great, and she said (and she had read it too) boring, honkay, or imperialist, etc. Same for say Beethoven 9th. Some weep. Others...sleep.
ReplyDeleteA writer's particular style sort of engages us or not, as with music--it's not only content...Holmes' stories still entertain (at least some) because they are well-crafted, witty, somewhat unpredictable (unlike the usual whodunit potboiler) . That seems somewhat syntactic rather than strictly logical.
At times a reader's background plays a part in interpretation as well (or dare we say socio-economic conditions)-- that doesn't really get too far with the intention issue, but I wager poor readers prefer books with a slightly leftist bent (or at least social justice of sometype); rich readers probably want escape, or adventure, or Nabakovian phunn perhaps
Good. Must confess the "Anna Karenina" reference is from this collection I had to digest -- Blackwell published: "Analytic aesthetics" -- couple of interesting Gricean points in it.
ReplyDeleteJ is perfectly right. The tears are 'perlocutionary'. Surely they are not part of the utterer's intention.
But in any case, it elicits some point. Some say that indeed, ALL fiction is escapist. And so, I think Lamarque (who teaches analytic aesthetics in Yorkshire, England), was wondering if art is moral along THOSE lines. The usual objection is that there are many things to cry for (including Argentina, :)) to waste time with a 'nothing' as Karenina.
But I'll try to elaborate on this.