[Dragaera] Cool Stuff Theory of Litterature was: (RE: Steven Erikson (was: Reading series))

[skzb]

Michael Wojcik wrote:
>  
> But a traditional Marxist reading of Mieville's work would see
> Mieville as determined by his class position.

Um.  Not so much.  That is a pseudo-Marxist approach.  A traditional 
Marxist reading would focus on finding the fundamental contradictions 
that drive the work.  For example, in The Book of the New Sun, much of 
what makes it work is the contradiction between Sevarian's humanity and 
the inhumanity of his profession.  It would also focus on the 
relationship of form to content, and of the particular to the general 
(internal quest vs. external, and  the ways in which the characters do 
or do not expression universal human problems, and how a given work 
succeeds or fails in presenting that).  "A work of art must be 
considered first of all as a work of art." - Trotsky.

Recommended reading: Trotsky's Literature and Revolution.

Oh, and less insulting form is TrotskyIST (unless you are choosing to be 
insulting deliberately, which is of course your right).

>  As an educated
> intellectual raised in a leftist household, Mieville is of course a
> member of the vanguard, and is using a popular genre to illustrate
> class conflict for the masses, and thus raise consciousness. In the
> Marxist interpretation, this does not arise from what happens to float
> his personal boat; it's a typical Trotskyist fallback for the
> (leftist) intellectual elite, attempting to reach the masses after
> failing to acquire the political power necessary to institute a
> socialist government. (Note Mieville ran for Parliament.)
>
> And don't even get me started on poststructuralist critiques of the
> author-function (which I think are important meaning-making
> formulations, but don't do a heck of a lot to actually explain how
> writing happens).
>
> I personally am rather more inclined to temper economic determinism
> with a belief in significant, if vexed, agency and subjectivity. So I
> wouldn't advance a vulgar-Marxist theory of literature myself. But
> since I also believe in the unconscious and the hermeneutics of
> suspicion, I find the CSTOL too simplistic - I think authors often
> don't know themselves why they put certain elements into their work.
>
>   

-- 
Steven Brust
skzb at dreamcafe.com
MENTES INDIGNORVM FRANGERE