And he wouldn’t argue, probably, with what you’re talking about in terms of criticism as well. What he wanted to avoid was people saying “this poem is about this,” and that’s the end of the discussion. It’s not really about anything — it’s like saying a person is about something. You can talk about art all you want — certainly Brooks did. : )

With regards to the heresy of paraphrase, how about this: removing value judgments, can the paraphrase be appreciated as art?

But of course it can, as Mozart’s variations on “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” convinces me. Trust me on this, I am taking criticism into “artful” directions here on Superfani. Pontifus is aware of my project, and I’m a week behind in the writing of it.

The adaptation of the Ghost in the Shell animes are paraphrases of the manga, are they not? Heretical is an arbitrary description I believe.

“What the object brings to the table is a kind of shell, inside which there is infinite space, or at least immeasurable space, that the enjoyer fills with meaning. Or at least that’s how I think of it.”

That’s pretty good. Maybe we should all come up with our own obscure metaphors for the object of art.

Joking aside, I think of it a bit like a platter. It shows up empty and the audience piles up different things on it, but only what the platter can support. Of course, I just made that up right now, so it’s not nearly as rigorously accurate or sci-fi cool as yours.

The main difference between us, I think, is that elucidation, placing in context, &c., are all just forms of entertainment to me. I’m relatively proud that I came up with this idea (which has become pretty important to me) on my own, but it’s not new. Michael Chabon espouses it in the first essay of his non-fiction collection, Maps & Legends. Not that that should win you over, plenty of other people will say exactly what you are. And so long as you make entertaining criticism, I don’t really care. ^_^

Honestly, I’m just glad anyone commented at all. Imagine the horror of most of the people on Anine Nano finding this on their lists this morning.

Criticism is meant to elucidate, place in context, etc

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this assumes that any criticism can be absolutely, objectively “correct.” I don’t believe this to be the case. That is, I’m wont to say that all criticism — actually, all readings of a text are “right,” but that’s predicated upon them being right for the individual readers who put them forward. Criticism can elucidate, and it can certainly give me insight into the reading experience of others, but if an element experienced precisely as by another isn’t there for me, it isn’t there for me, and, in all likelihood, no amount of criticism is going to put it there. It ultimately doesn’t teach me anything about the art it discusses — it can teach me about criticism, to be certain, about the act of reading, but if I see something in a text, it’s because my mind, knowing what it knows, put it there, not because it’s there objectively.

Besides, what does it matter to my reading and use of criticism what criticism is “meant” to do?

Or if you want to go all einstein/saussure and stuff you can say that the meaning is dependent on both the object of art and the enjoyer of art (i.e. meaning is in the meeting of subject-object or their conjunction), but even then still there is an irreducible object there independent of you the observer/reader.

What the object brings to the table is a kind of shell, inside which there is infinite space, or at least immeasurable space, that the enjoyer fills with meaning. Or at least that’s how I think of it.

That’s just how I see it though.

I also agree, basically, with your idea that poems are reactions. I’m not sure if it’s always language. It could be, I’m genuinely not sure. Definitely I generally think writing is a reaction to writing, but I think there might be room in there for it to also be a reaction to other things. But filtered into a reaction to writing. :) So really I’m just agreeing, there, but stipulating how.

And yes, on arranging as interpretation. Cleanth Brooks called it the “heresy of paraphrase,” that a work of art is incapable of being paraphrased. If the art were meant to be in any other form, it would have been. The only way to communicate the stuff of the art (whatever it is) is to quote it.

I think maybe I ought to do the rest of the introduction in one, shorter post, as it’s literally him standing up and challenging the field. Raises hackles without arguing much (though it’s fun how much Frye gets in despite the nature of the topic). The essays themselves have much more meat that applies directly to criticism, rather than being about criticism. At any rate, there would be less chance of me maligning him through the heresy of paraphrase. ^_^

If criticism isn’t art, what is it? It’s created to be read by an audience, to entertain them (given that “enlightenment” is a form of entertainment, as not everyone enjoys it and it can’t be classified as anything else without the tricky problem of thought-control cropping up). That’s what art is, something created to entertain.

If the arts communicated with us, there would be no need for criticism. We’re basing criticism entirely on the problem of the art in question being unable to communicate with the audience. It’s easier to think of a painting: it doesn’t say anything to the viewer, it simply is, and it’s up to the viewer to interpret it. It can feel counter-intuitive, because other forms of art use language, but they’re in the same situation.

“Are all the lights in the sky our enemies?” (not from a poem, but a poetic line I’m quite fond of)

In any case, a Gurren Lagann metaphoric arrangement for ‘lights in the sky’ is different from older poems because I think that the very act of tying to say it differently, in pursuit of originality or merely escaping banality/plagiarism, or even attempting to render homage, is a reading, is criticism.

Is a reading of a reading less than art then?

Allusion, allegory, these devices are possible only through the reading of written material. Very few exceptions (and even these few I can only speculate on).

@ animekritik

The arts are dumb, and perhaps even signs are dumb (accepting intentional fallacy) because meaning is entirely in the hands of a reader, the consumer of the sign.

The consumption of a sign is an active pursuit. We ‘assign’ the signified to the signifier based on what’s available in our memory. If it agrees with our reasoning/ideology, we accept it. Often we re-send the sign(al) into the world, and when we find agreement from others (as to what it means), then the interpretation of the sign gains “power”.

I keep using this example because it is powerful: Code Geass (R2) = TRAINWRECK

To go back on topic, I feel that we are always ‘writing from’ somewhere and ‘about’ something – and this is criticism enough for me. Frye must be referring only to specific reviews, academic writing, etc. It is limiting, his definition IMO.