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

[Michael Wojcik]

Jerry Friedman wrote:
> --- On Thu, 1/22/09, Martin Wohlert <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.

And second, the theory is that authors will write about what interests
them, 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. (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.)

> This is helpful, but unfortunately, I don't see that it
> settles whether Steven means "cool" as any different from
> "good", which I think is what Eugene and I are discussing.
> 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.)

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.

-- 
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University