> "I've heard the phrase that "writing is fantasy" but I have not heard that language is anti-phobic. Could you elucidate?
>TIA."
>From: Beaone12
You're welcome, Bea.
I'm quoting from The Haunting of Sylvia Plath, by London
University Professor of Linguistics (Actually English and Drama,
at a college within London University) Jacqueline Rose. The book
was published first by Harvard University press in 1991,
in paperback, because Plath's husband, England's Poet
Laureate Ted Hughes, a morbid bully, threatened to kill her if
the book was published in England, a fact stated by Rose in
her book.
The book has over 300 footnotes, and five pages of fine print
bibliography, almost none of which have I read. Yet, the book itself
is fairly easy reading. (Although the implications of her writing
not so easy.)
Here's a list of quotes, taken at random, from scattered pages
in her book:
1. Language is anti-phobic
2. All writing is fantasy
3. All language is metaphor
4. Writing is violence
5. ALL WRITING IS UNSTABLE AS TO MEANING
6. Writing is aggression.
This whole list runs counter to popular wisdom.
For that reason alone it would be foolish for me
to attempt to explain what Rose means. Those quotes
are NOT lined up by Rose as rules for reading and writing;
they were taken out of context by me for my own
private use; in reality they are embedded in complex
discourse on difficulties of reading and writing.
When I was ten I wrote letters to my country cousins
virtually begging to be invited up to their sheep station
(in Australia) for the holidays. To ingratiate myself
with them I wrote whopping great lies about my violence and
aggression toward other boys, gang members. My writing then
was totally naive, so virtually innocent I had zero sense of
telling lies. Rose, with great precision, explained it to me
via her book decades, many decades, later. My letters were
saved by my cousins' mother, a strict Catholic, and a great
mother of eleven children, who knew from her native intelligence
that I was NOT a violent boy. I was a showoff, and bright.
After she died, long after, her son Michael mailed photocopies to me
for which I will be eternally grateful.
Barry
3 comments:
this makes sense how you explained it to Bea. I thought there is a certain embellishment in all writings by all people whether it be a simple letter to a relative or a piece of literature that is considered a masterpiece.
betty
Thanks for you Comment Betty.
A couple of years ago the New Yorker
published excerpts from a study of
what is the literal truth in Swans Way,
from Remembrance of Things Past, and
what the novelist wrote. Albertine, for
example was not a woman, but Proust's
male chaufeur, who was married. This fact
sort of explains why in the novel the narrator
describes Albertine as a "sealed envelope
of a person." Well sure: his lover was leading
a double life! Ha!
Barry
How insightful of your aunt, and how wonderful that she hung on to those letters. It must have been fascinating to be able to reread them, and get a glimpse of yourself as a young boy. Tina http://journals.aol.com/onemoretina/Ridealongwithme
p.s. by the way, I sent a comment to your last entry, and for some reason, it must not have gone through. Hmmm ... wonder if AOL is on the blink again? Unfortunately, In my present state of confusion, I don't remember exactly what it was that I said, but to give you just a brief overview: " I agree." Yes, that's it ! Tina http://journals.aol.com/onemoretina/Ridealongwithme
Post a Comment