Today came the discussion of the Frye grids, which lead into a discussion of the real purpose of sports, which is to purge or displace the desire to kill or practice ritual sacrifice(it isn't often that one actually sees the umpire get killed). The notion of the purging of a scapegoat(pharmakos) from the community as atonement for the community's sins. Whether or not the scapegoat is deserving of expulsion is typically irrevelant; he/she may be expelled or done away with because they can be. It's a very terrifying thing, this instinct to mob violence. It brings up certain things that one feels might be beyond the scope of literature to explain or deal with. Things that are distressingly real and cruel and horrible. Now Northrop Frye has said that if a book is depressing there's either something wrong with you, or something wrong with the book. Having encountered a few books that have made me depressed due to their handling of their subject matter and/or how the subject matter was dealt with(Joyce Carol Oates' Foxfire is an example), and having read books with equally cruel content but somehow managing to pull through without feeling despaired about the state of the human race(Toni Morrison's Beloved could be an exampe here), I think there is some validity to what Frye says. But it is a troubling question: at what point is something impossible to be dealt with artistically, and still be genuine art? This is not a question I have any pretentions to knowing the answer to.
On a somewhat lighter note, we where presented with MA Abrams schema for how literary criticsim has evolved through time.
Ancient world which is focused on Nature and with the mimetic prinicple
Neo-Classical which is focused on Audience and with the pragamatic principle
Romantics who were focused on the Artist and with the expression principle
Modern which is focused on the text and with the objective principle
I also think it might be worthwhile to check out what Vladimir Nabokov has to say about Don Quixote.
2 comments:
An impressive entree as always, Kare Bear (yes, I just did that), but here's a random little challenge I have for ya; one that I was trying hard to accomplish myself. What if one were to write a story that doesn't fit any of the modes (Ironic, Mimetic, Romantic, etc) or Comic, Tragic and Thematic archetypes? I can't quite think of any work of fiction form the past (or even a theoretic one). Not simply a challenge (another gauntlet being thrown, if you will) but also a request. You see, I've always tried my best to be unique or different, and I'm wondering if there is even such a thing as a story that would fall outside of this "golden grid" of literary types.
Thank you for the compliment Monsieur Emery. As to whether or not it is possible to write a story that falls outside of the "golden grid" of literary types... I don't know. Its quite possible to write something DISREGARDING the modes(which is probably what a great many contemporary writers do). But than folk like Northrop Frye would probably come along and tell you "Did you know your story is an example of high-mimetic tragedy?"
So, anything is possible, but my intial response would probably be that influence of some sort or other is perhaps inescapable. It's in the telling and details of the story that true originality comes through.
And I'm off to the races...
Post a Comment