Comments on: Sometimes a “Smear” is Just a Skid Mark

By: RMH

RMH — Fri, 15 May 2009 16:29:05 +0000

I’m not a hard and fast New Critic by any means either, and I hear you on how works are constructed within a certain time and place. I think there are absolutely limits in Mailer and Roth’s work, but I think you can read them within the work without going to biographical criticism. That said, I think it’s interesting to consider those limits, how they affect the worldview of the particular novel or piece of “journalism.” Also, I can see the limits of a work in one area, at the same time being fascinated by other things it is able to do very well. For instance, while I acknowledge Roth’s limited female characters, I love his exploration of the failing industrial city in American Pastoral.

By: Pilgrim Soul

Pilgrim Soul — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:27:27 +0000

RMH: I’m not sure I disagree, but I would argue with you about Mailer and Roth where, as I say, I think the limits their demographic imposed on them have seriously bled into their work.

I’m not totally New Criticism-oriented, though, largely because I believe that all artistic works are not only constructed but received in webs of meaning imposed by culture and history. So I can’t totally divorce author from work.

By: RMH

RMH — Fri, 15 May 2009 13:41:50 +0000

I’m firmly with the death of the author camp. Whether or not a writer is a dick is only important to me insofar as one might have to deal with the writer person to person. Of course, I tend to like “masculine” writing. Roth, Mailer, and Hemmingway are/were most certainly dicks, but there is value in their work, and the gossip doesn’t affect the work for me.

By: masagoroll

masagoroll — Fri, 15 May 2009 04:47:36 +0000

One of my profs told me that Derek Walcott came to our college (Baylor University in Waco, Texas) for a poetry festival and his wife or girlfriend or somebody like that came with him and kept constantly having to, like, snap him back into line when he went off and randomly hit on students. Ew! Apparently he’s quite a smarm.

That is all I have to offer to this conversation, haha.

By: PhDork

PhDork — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:39:27 +0000

I’ll leave a Mamet post to you, P.Soul, as mine would look more-or-less like this:

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh.

By: BeckySharper

BeckySharper — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:06:25 +0000

@Spark: Yeah, I don’t think the impotence or infidelity ipso facto makes him a bad guy, but there’s no doubt that he put his women through a lot of grief because of those things. But he’s one of the many writers who is best admired on the page only.

By: bluebears

bluebears — Thu, 14 May 2009 20:45:58 +0000

@JD: oh you are kidding me. what a douche.

By: Spark

Spark — Thu, 14 May 2009 20:43:55 +0000

Thanks, Pilgrim. Eugenics: it tripped up the best of them. (I’m looking at you, Margaret Sanger.)
Becky, infidelity and impotence (not at the same time?) aren’t the worst dudely offenses, but all the same, I’ll hop off the Yeats-defense train now.

By: FashionablyEvil

FashionablyEvil — Thu, 14 May 2009 20:34:39 +0000

emilyanne, it seemed like one of those common knowledge rumors–everyone’s heard it, but doesn’t really have firsthand knowledge of the truth. That said, I find those don’t usually persist that long unless there’s some truth to them.

By: BeckySharper

BeckySharper — Thu, 14 May 2009 20:33:11 +0000

@Spark: Yeats’s relationships with women were deeply fucked up. I always thought his obsession with Maud Gonne was downright creepy. He and Maud did eventually get it on, and the evidence–from their letters and his poetry–would indicate it was an EPIC FAIL. He had repeated affairs during his marriage to his wife Georgie, and spent a lot of time trying to resolve recurring impotence, including trips to a doctor in London for hormone injections.
Dude could write his ass off, though.