Šonedēļ internetā. 21. Kritika
Viss tik nopietni, tik nopietni…
Vilis Kasims, jaunais vai topošais literāts, izstāsta, kāpēc viņš negrib valsts naudu:
Otrkārt, rakstot nejūtos kā valstiski svarīga darba darītājs. [..]
Man tomēr šķiet, ka nacionālās literatūras lasīšana ir valstiski svarīgs mērķis gan tautas pašapziņas, gan patēriņa lokalizēšanas veicināšanai. Pretstatā nelasīta nacionālā literatūra nešķiet ne plika graša vērta.
Tā vien gribas viņam iedot jauku, apaļu summiņu. Nu labi, pēc romāna pabeigšanas. Kaut tāpēc vien, ka viņš neiedomājas: visiem citiem klājas labāk, bet rakstnieki ir vienīgie, kam jāmaksā nodokļi un kas nesaņem atalgojumu avansā. Varbūt ar labi algotu darbu reklāmas aģentūrās nepietiek, lai spētu izprast pašnodarbinātos, darba devējus, bezdarbniekus un visus pārējos?
Savā ziņā ar to sasaucas A. Šivani (Anis Shivani) raksts “What Should Be the Function of Criticism Today?” Autors pievēršas ne tikai literatūrkritikas, bet arī rakstniecības stāvoklim, un viņa viedoklis, kādam jābūt kritiķim, mani vedināja uz pārdomām par lasītāja lomu.
The premise of this essay is that criticism needs to play a central role in the revival of literature. At present, criticism, in the form of academic “theory,” is in the curious position of simultaneous self-exaltation and self-marginalization, being a highly esoteric affair that makes no effort to reach the mass of readers.
Although the internet, as it currently stands, is only in a rudimentary form as far as the potential for humanist criticism is concerned, nonetheless our hopes must rest on it. [..] Radical, chaotic, uncontrollable energies are on the loose, and the critic must equip himself to contest on this hot terrain with all the rhetorical means at his disposal.
The successful creative writers can’t afford to offend anyone in authority who may withhold rewards and opportunity in the future—a necessary consequence of nearly all of America’s literary writers having become, in essence, state employees, upholding a collective aesthetic of bourgeois realism and individualized confessionalism, leaving the state’s politics and policies well enough alone for the sake of job security.
Rakstnieks L. Grosmens (Lev Grossman), kura vārds jau labu laiku atrodams manā “reiz es noteikti izlasīšu” sarakstā, arī runā par grāmatu recenzijām rakstā “Confessions of (Another) Book Reviewer“:
I review books if they do something I’ve never seen done before; or if I fall in love with them; or if they shock me or piss me off or otherwise won’t leave me alone; if they alter the way my brain works; if I can’t stop thinking about them; if for whatever reason I absolutely have to tell people about them. [..]
The critic’s job isn’t to change my mind about whether or not I like a book. Not anymore. The critic’s job is to make me a better reader.
Vēl cits rakstnieks Dž. Bārnss (John Barnes) lasīšanu un jautājumu, kāpēc daļa cilvēku nelasa fantastiku, apskata kā semiotiķis:
Traditional semiotic approaches have argued that one reason why some people can’t read science fiction is that they lack the reading protocols for processing it; probably the most famous formulation of this was Samuel R. Delaney’s MLA address, which is still resonating in periodic uproars in the field, such as these by James Gunn and Jo Walton.
A reading protocol is a process or method for making sense out of a piece of text, and it is often expressed as a direction or guideline, i.e. a sentence in the imperative mood, but it is very doubtful that anyone actually formulates and uses protocols in that way except in research. [..]
Why should someone who has mastered “watch for mythic allusions and motifs” be incapable of learning, “treat neologisms as clues to the underlying social relations”?
I think the better explanation is something closer to Roland Barthes’s idea in The Pleasure of the Text: a large part of the pleasure of reading is in using the reading protocols you like to use and using them well—feeling the familiar tools in our mental grasp and enjoying using them expertly in pretty much the same way a chef likes the feel of his favorite cleaver, a cartoonist uses a favorite trick of the brush, or a carpenter likes to feel a carefully cut piece fit in tight, true, and flush.
The Guardian rakstam Amazon v newspaper: which is the more valuable review? ir interesanti komentāri:
Every discussion is dominated by writers demanding attention for their writing. The stand-alone quality of the books is rarely mentioned. And if readers are mentioned at all, it is often with contempt.
Take the discussion about author collectives. These are fine initiatives, even if they do seem to be reinventing the excellent concept of the small press. But they are all about the authors and their champions, not about the readers. The comments, interesting as they are, come from people involved in these initiatives. Complaints about a ‘narrow-minded view of what constitutes good art”, ‘misguided class (and sometimes gender) based prejudices’ and a lack of ‘true curiosity’ are not just a swipe at the literary press. That’s a swipe at readers too because it implies that we are Stepfordized underlings who unthinkingly choose our books on the basis of mainstream reviews alone. [..]
If the debate doesn’t start to consider readers soon, I think we readers may need to convene a tea party at which we announce that we are going to ‘Take Back Books’ and ‘Reclaim The Reader’ as the most important person in the discussion about the future of books.
Un visbeidzot: Locus norisinājās diskusija par fantastikas un fantāzijas dzeju.