Exactly. A Marxist analysis can be performed by anybody on
any literature--without meaning that either the analyst or
the writer is Marxist.
Stretching things a bit, discussions
of best-seller-ness and sales figures can be construed as
Marxist analysis---<g> Joy
Mark, responding to Juri's "I want to point out once more
that to be Marxist a piece of art (novel, film, etc.) doesn't
have to point out solutions to social problems the piece of
art is addressing. . . . So, a book like RED HARVEST can be
discussed in Marxist terms. It doesn't have to have a
political agenda to it." wrote:
>
> Mickey Spillane could be discussed in Marxist terms.
There's a huge
> difference between "discussing in Marxist terms" and
claiming something
> is a Marxist work. While Red Harvest certainly
contains a critique that
> could be conceived of as Marxist, that does not mean
Hammett wrote a
> Marxist, or even a proto-Marxist, work.
>
> Any book can be discussed in terms of any literary
or social theory, but
> to say it is a work within a particular theory
implies an agency and
> intent on the part of the creator, not just the
critic. I've been
> largely on your side in saying that Al can't
possibly be as removed from
> his own social situation as he claims. We are
rejecting the romantic
> notion that a work of art is a unique creation by a
unique individual
> and asserting that both the author and the work (and
editors,
> publishers, readers, etc) are each members of
numerous fields of
> production of meaning, both in creation and
reception. However, I would
> never presume to tell Al his intent.
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06 Sep 2006 EDT