This idea of what a story or novel "has to be" is fascinating, thinks I, and relevant to what we do all the time, so I'm wondering if we could keep it open for an ngoing meta-discussion in the workshop, and I would ask you all to give it some thought, adn to bring into public awareness any sources of information about the question, other answers to the question, ideas and opinions of Dr. Faustroll, whatever.
I have some sense that a story, say, that condones rape under any circumstances (not saying that today's did) would have to be a polemic of some kind, with some additional overarching argument to the contrary, some greater good argument. That to make the work palatable this is necessary. But I have not thought long and hard about this, and am open to alternative views, in fact, would like to hear other views.
What happens if a story does not achieve a balance of (I don't want to use moral here, but some other, less loaded, more secular word) impulses , but rather allows (encourages?) full on indulgence of one kind or another? Real bad behavior (toyed with in the Gaitskill title)? Would not we, as readers, supply the therapeutic opposite and see the story as an "interesting" gesture against a backdrop of an assumed-shared "balanced" world view?
Man's gotta have a code, as Omar said.
Anyway, as they say in the trade, let's discuss. Read, research, bring materials, circulate stuff, etc.
More TK
[originally posted by Rick]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment