Contentious Disciplines | Clarissa's Blog
I read those American books not for their analyses, but in a meta- sense, to gain a better understanding of the writer's cultural context and the mode of thinking. It may seem as if I'm reading them for their content, but that is almost never so, although occasionally they have a bit of content. But I do differentiate strongly between books that have real food in them and those that don't. Marechera's writing, for instance, has real food, although those who despised him stated otherwise. They say he was just eclectic, but they do not see that he was taking fabrics and designs that originated in other cultures and wrapping them round his form so that they created a snug fit with his own extremely complex situation and emotional states. He wasn't just randomly appropriating. He was doing jazz, and redesigning. Because I can understand that, I can feel enriched. But others see only the external form. They can't enter the writing holistically.
I think Americans enter gender-based writing more easily, as it strikes notes that are familiar to them. They feel the writer must be their friend or at least on their side. But if you don't take the basic gender symbolism for granted, the writing seems flat and alienating.
In any case, as you can see, this all has to do with deep subjectivity, which is culturally engendered moreover. Now the Yankees will say they have no subjectively driven .. anything. They are purely objective (they say), reading things just as "they are". But I say this is a closed perspective that denies them a lot of knowledge and self-awareness. They need to get deeper than this boring gender thing they're stuck on.
No comments:
Post a Comment