pumpkinstrokemarrow

Oddly, when the fat, water and gravy had settled we got far less fat than last time. Maybe a third. Presumably this meant that a lot more of the fat found its way into us.

Started on Brian Vickers' 1993 swipe at some of his literary and bardological colleagues last night, ex. Kingston Oxfam. He castigates them for their love of theoretical frameworks and sects and for their intolerance of other peoples' frameworks and sects. Their passion for forcing everything into their particular theoretical mould without any very sensitive regard for the subject - and not resulting in much illumination of it either. He devotes a chapter to bashing each of deconstructionists, feminists, new historicists, psychoanalysts, Marxists and Christians. (I wasn't aware that these last were in the field so I shall be interested to be informed). Preceded by a couple of more theoretical chapters. I don't get the impression he has much regard for any of these gangs but he seems to reserve his especial ire for the thinking coming out of France in the 50's and 60's of the last century. From the likes of Lévi-Strauss (the author of my only prize from university), Lacan and Derrida.

I was struck, in the course of a section on intentionality in 'Othello' (something, the existence of which, it seems, that the aforesaid Frenchies deny), by a paragraph on what Vickers calls divided knowledge. Where the audience is told something by one player which is not known to another. Perhaps that one player's musings on his own inner state, or perhaps one player explaining, in an aside, his attitude to another. So, in Othello, we are told at the outset that Iago hates Othello - this hatred being what underlies what Iago intends, his intentionality - and is out to bring him down. Vickers then claims that this device is peculiar to drama and opera. Which gave me pause. Why should this be? If one made a story out of Othello would one not make sure the reader knew at the outset that Iago hated Othello; well before Othello found out for himself?

But then I tried to think of some examples. The only one I could come up with for a good while was the beautiful Russian agent who is supposed to trap Agent Bond in 'From Russia with Love'. As with Othello, we know right from the outset that the beautiful Russian agent is out to get Agent Bond. Although not a particularly good example as Agent Bond is fairly sure about that as well. Then I thought about crime novels; crime being a business where one person routinely misleads another, which might be the occasion for some of the Vickers divided knowledge. Couldn't think of an example though.

Thoughts then turned to Tolstoy where Pierre, Prince Andrei and Levin are all rather given to soliloquys. But these don't seem quite the same as soliloquys in a play. So perhaps Vickers has a point. But it's not that one can't do it; rather that one doesn't. Clearly something else needing some quality time to get to the bottom of. And yet another demonstration that I am with the theory guys in spirit: a good bit of theory is a lot more fun than the play!

A fault very similar to that which Lawrence of Arabia attributed to urban Syrians.