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

[Jerry Friedman]

--- On Fri, 1/23/09, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik at newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> <martin_wohlert at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>From The Paths Of The Dead:
> >> . . . First theory: "The Cool Stuff Theory of
> >> Literature is as follows: 
> >> All literature consists of whatever the writer
> thinks is cool. The reader 
> >> will like the book to the degree that he agrees
> with the
> >> writer about what's cool.
> > 
> > I don't think this line, quoted before, suggests
> any kind
> > of collaboration.  It just means that readers will
> like
> > the book if their standards are the same as the
> author's.
> 
> I think the important points are, first, that the CSTOL is
> not meant
> to describe a school, but a theory of literature - that is,
> it's a way
> to think about literature, not a way to produce it.
> It's descriptive, not prescriptive.

I don't agree.  Part of what Martin quoted was advice
to authors.

> And second, the theory is that authors will write about
> what interests
> them,

Is that different from what they enjoy?

> and readers will like their works if they share those
> interests.
> I don't believe it says anything about economy; if the
> author and
> reader think economy is cool, then they'll both like
> the work.

Agreed.

> (And of
> course this often varies from work to work. _Ethan Frome_
> and _The
> Great Gatsby_ are quite economical; _The Age of Innocence_
> and _Tender
> is the Night_ are deliberately not.)
... 

> > If "cool" does just mean "good", which is more or less
> > what I've been saying, then the CSTOL is
> "generic" and
> > might appear not to have a whole lot of content. 
> > Hasn't everybody always believed it?
> 
> Well, no. There are a great many theories of literature,
> and quite a
> number of them pay no attention to the author's affect
> at all.
> 
> Thus, for example, a CSTOL interpretation of China
> Mieville's novels
> might point out that they are filled with things (such as a
> zillion
> sorts of strange monsters) that Mieville has claimed, in
> interviews
> and such, to find cool - including plots animated by
> individual
> responses to class struggle, which Mieville, as a
> Trotskyite, thinks
> is a cool way to view social conflict.
> 
> But a traditional Marxist reading of Mieville's work
> would see
> Mieville as determined by his class position. 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.)

But isn't this "vulgar-Marxist" analysis, as you call
it below, or the more Trotskyist approach that Steve
outlined, a way of /explaining/ why Mieville finds those
things cool?  It doesn't ignore the author's affect; it
just sees it as one mechanism by which the underlying
causes operate.  (Same with Freudian criticism, if there
still is any.)

> 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).
...

Well, you got me there, but aren't don't plaisir and
even jouissance occasionally come up in those critiques?
Oh, I wasn't supposed to get you started.

Jerry Friedman