Metacommentary Seminar PDF

Preview

Summary

Seminar notes on metacommentary...

Description

METACOMMENTARY SEMINAR [Frederick Jameson article] Commentary about commentary = self-reflexive; existential. Style becomes central organizing principle of literature only in 19th century; a stylistic analysis of Medieval text = anachronism. Process of self-reflection reflects on the PROCESS of reading itself [the existential aspect]. The individual subject doesn’t simply have subjective idiosyncrasies; they are reflections of historical context. Need for interpretation stems from ancient times; the need to assimilate the artefacts of other cultures i.e. move from OT to NT = process of allegorizing, imposing an allegorical reading on an older text; commentary thus necessary. Metacommentary thinks on historical preconditions for such commentary. Less concerned with personal interpretation, but more with historical opportunities/ preconditions [when/when don’t texts need interpreting]. Meanings of texts are distorted in order to fit socio-historical conditions; awareness of this leads to correction [avoidance of changing the meaning of texts Russian Formalism = counterintuitive to content reading; everything exists for the coming into being of the work; it is in one way a theory of production. This is counterintuitive as it is an inversion of our normal sense of priorities of literary production; the real end is the author’s want to write in a particular type of style, thus choosing any content which allows them to write in this style. The FORM determines the CONTENT; it is deterministic. Complete reversal of our common sense perception of the art of writing/ reading. Formalism is thus anti-interpretation; less about asking what does it mean and more how does it work? What had to happen for this to come into being? How does the form determine the content? Certain type of novel i.e. well-formed plot seems to evade need for interpretation [i.e. 19 th century realist, the fairy tale]. Yet, one of principles of metacommentary is the question of why we interpret certain texts and why we don’t interpret certain texts. For Jameson, he has a view of narrative as an aesthetic index of some positive social vitality; there is something about the raw materials of society at a certain point in time which enables a complete/ formed plot. Form = indicative of society. Psychological novel/ point of view = replaces unity of action/ completeness of events with unity of personality; actions coincide with consciousness. The process of interpretation is done for us; product of atomization of society. Psychological interiority = the new ‘plot’. One person developed over hundreds of pages. Jameson connects sociohistorical context to this new genre; point of view = not simply a neutral technique, lots of things must happen across history for this to emerge as a vogue technique. It reflects the rise of the individual and demise of ‘privileged meeting places of collective life’. Atomization of individual experience; the literary form of point of view = a product of this. Literary forms are not neutral techniques, they are indices of social processes. Structuralism = stressing that elements only have a meaning when they exist in a system of signs which are different. No element has meaning in itself; identity/ meaning is not substantial, they are relational. This questions the centrality of the individual, rise of Structuralism with death of point of view in post-modernism. Sets up binary oppositions; the crossing and blurring of oppositions is how the plot is made within the Structuralist view. Each mode of interpretation has its own historical preconditions; theories of literature are themselves products of history; he thus suggests metacommentary instead. He believes texts have an original/ essential meaning which the author themselves are not necessarily conscious of. It is censored in some way; we must understand why it is censored. The Censor of meaning is not necessarily a conscious activity on the part of the author. Meaning = multifaceted; the author may have one deliberate individual message, but many meanings can sprout. There is some kind of latent content/ wish fulfilment which exists in each text. This does not exist at the surface, it is distorted and presented through other things. The critic must explain this process of distortion to discover original wish, they may do this through their own experience of the text itself; we observe ourselves reading, thinking critically about what it is we like/dislike about the text and WHY we like/ dislike these things. Science fiction: people think the features give the reader their gratification, yet the context of the 1950s [everything impersonal rise of consumerism etc breeds rise of sci-fi as popular phenomenon = people THINK what they like is the explosions, monsters etc, but all content is just a pretext for the REAL social content, this is a Formalist argument]. Dream of non-alienated labour or other wish fulfilment = the true content at the heart of texts. Jameson sees himself reading and questions why he REALLY enjoys them. This vision of what could be is what pleases. These desires are historically mediated....