Now, McEvoy also comments on the excerpts by Salinger. McEvoy notes: “What
Salinger concludes might equally be concluded of masturbation.”
I think there is a way to read “Grice without an audience” as a defense of
onanism – and Donleavy wrote deeply about it in his “Etiquette” manual! --. In
fact, I believe ‘masturbation’ is used figuratively by some literary critics to
refer to what we may call “Grice-without-an-audience” types.
For the record, it’s about time to ascribe “Grice without an audience” to its
proper author. It’s Alec Hyslop, of Latrobe. His other writings include: “Other
Minds as Theoretical Entities”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 54, Other
Minds, Dordrecht: Kluwer, “Sartre and Other Minds,” Sartre Studies
International, 6, With F. C. Jackson, “The Analogical Inference to Other
Minds,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 9. “Grice without an audience” is a
short piece for “Analysis,” vol. 37.
McEvoy goes on: “It’s hardly a compelling philosophy of writing.”
Well, I’m not sure what Hyslop would say. Hyslop is interested in the
‘conceptual analysis’ of ‘mean’ and ‘communicate’ in terms of intentions. So,
if to ‘mean’ or ‘communicate,’ you must intend that there IS an addressee such
that this addressee will come to believe that you, qua utterer, believes that
p, or desires that p becomes the case, there is a feeling that if you have a
further intention that no such addressee exists, you are in trouble. Grice
seems to amend this by allowing that U = A, i.e. that the utterer can be his
own addressee. But this would NOT be covered by Hyslop’s analysis of ‘Other
minds’ – an entry on which Hyslop wrote for the Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy.
McEvoy goes on: “Most bad writers might claim to write just for themselves and
their own pleasure.”
When I said this was Griceian and Grecian, I was thinking of the post-Socratic
philosophical emphasis on ‘pleasure’ (hedonism). It might be useful to revisit
what the post-Socratic philosophers thought about ‘doing something for the
pleasure of it’ – i.e. the pleasure of the agent. It may be different for
‘joint enterprises’ – mutual pleasure – and for activities meant to ‘pleasure’
others.
McEvoy: “Admittedly they might alternatively claim they write for the good of
humanity and the effort needed is painful, but this only
tells us such claims have little necessary bearing on literary merit.”
Provided this is something _objective_ that belongs in Popper’s W3. I can think
of Emily Dickinson (recently portrayed in film, as directed by a British
director, by Cynthia Nixon). She was an excellent poet, but I don’t think she
was obsessed about a Kantian aesthetic judgement about the ‘literary merit’ of
what she wrote!
McEvoy: “Bearing in mind that Nobel Prize Winner Bob Dylan … summed up the
current era as the "Age of Masturbation" (see liner notes to _Biograph_).”
Perhaps he read Donleavy!
“He didn't mean it in a good way.” -- So perhaps he did NOT write Donleavy!
Incidentally, what is the ETYMOLOGY of the thing Dylan said that was the age
of? Of course, there’s non-Graeco-Roman “Onanism,” but the other term may be a
good exercise of Grice’s Modified Occam’s Razor. How many SENSES do we have. I
hate it when lexicologists say, “perhaps”. The long-standing speculation is
that the Latin word from which the English lexical item derives, is altered
(probably by influence of turbare "to disturb, confuse") from a hypothetical
form *manstuprare, from manu, ablative of manus "hand" (see manual) + stuprare
"defile" (oneself), from stuprum"defilement, dishonor," related to stupere "to
be stunned, stupefied" (see stupid). But perhaps the first element represents
an unattested *mazdo- "penis" [OED].
Hyslop should be interested. R. C. Scruton, the Griceian philosopher, has a
long essay on “Sexual desire,” and he expands on this, from a Griceian
perspective. Scruton refers to the objectification involved, and the rest of
it. But Scruton’s idea is that it is not as simple as non-Griceians may think
it is – there may be an intended ‘other mind’ involved.
McEvoy goes on: “So while Salinger's comment might seem pleasingly
individualistic and modest, it can also be viewed as a reflection of the
Dylan's Age of Masturbation.”
I think Dylan is being hyperbolic --. I know, it’s his type of humour. But
‘age’ seems to be over-generalistic. Perhaps he meant the age he was familiar
with! – And I grant that “Onan’s age” does not quite the same Dylanian ring to
it.
McEvoy: “Should have added this: The Village Voice prints its final edition –
with Bob Dylan on the cover The Village Voice prints its final edition – with
Bob Dylan on the cover By Edward Helmore By mid-morning on Thursday many of the
Voice’s famous red distribution boxes were empty, as New York’s beloved w...”
Good to know, thanks.
McEvoy: “This is not to decry Salinger's writing but to say we live in an age
where "[The] Catcher in the Rye" is more likely seen as a study of a
heroically free-spirited anti-"phoney" than of an immature adolescent whose
harsh eye on the world obscures from his view his own excessive sense of self.
Just sayin'.”
Well, actually, there was a recent report in The New York Times, and it seems
that reception theories may tell otherwise. Reception theory, in some phoney
lit crit trend, has to do with how receivers receive stuff. One teacher, who is
keen on “Catcher in the rye,” reports one studying telling her:
“Oh, we all hate Holden. We just want to tell him, ‘Shut up and take your
Prozac.’ ”
But the NYT piece is more nuanced so it may merit a longer expansion.
“Holden Caulfied,” the NYT writes, “may have bigger problems than the insults
of irreverent parodists and other “phonies,” as Holden would put it. There are
signs that Holden Caulfied may be losing his grip on the kids. “The Catcher in
the Rye,” is beloved by many teachers. The trouble is today’s students! They
just don’t like Holden as much as they used to. What once seemed like
courageous truth-telling now strikes many of them as “weird,” “whiny” and
“immature.” Alienated Holden Caulfield has lost much of his novelty, says Ariel
Levenson, a teacher at the Dalton in the Upper East Side, Caulfield’s home
turf. Levenson notes that while students like “The Catcher in the Rye,” they
tend to find the language — “phony,” “her hands were lousy with rocks,” the
relentless “goddams” — grating and dated. “Holden Caulfield is supposed to be
this paradigm we can all relate to, but we don not really speak this way or
talk about these things,” Levenson says, summarizing a typical response. At the
charter school where she teaches, she says, “I have a lot of students comment,
‘I can not really feel bad for this rich kid with a weekend free in New York’.”
Julie Johnson, who teaches “Catcher in the Rye” at New Trier High in Winnetka,
Ill., cites similar reactions. “Holden’s passivity is especially galling and
perplexing to many present-day students. In general, they do not have much
sympathy for alienated anti-heroes; they are more focused on distinguishing
themselves in society as it is presently constituted than in trying to change
it.”
The NYT goes on: “Today’s culture is more competitive than it was in Holden
Caulfield’s days. These days, students seem more interested in getting into
Harvard than in flunking out of Pencey Prep. Students, with their compulsive
text-messaging and hyperactive pop culture metabolism, are more enchanted by
wide-eyed, quidditch-playing Harry Potter of Hogwarts than by the smirking
manager of Pencey’s fencing team (who was lame enough to lose the team’s
equipment on the subway, after all). Today’s pop culture heroes, it seems, are
the nerds who conquer the world — like Harry — not the losers who reject it.”
“Perhaps Holden would not have felt quite so alone if he were growing up today.
After all, Salinger was writing long before the rise of a multibillion-dollar
cultural-entertainment complex. These days, adults may lament the slasher
movies and dumb sex comedies that have taken over the multiplex, but back then
people like Holden Caulfield found themselves stranded between adult things and
childish pleasures. As Stephanie Savage, an executive producer of the “Gossip
Girl”, told National Public Radio, in Holden’s world “you can either go to the
carousel in Central Park, or you can choose the Wicker Bar. You can have a
skating date, or you can have a prostitute come up to your hotel room. There is
really not that sense of culture that there is now.” Some critics say that if
Holden is less popular these days, the fault lies with our own impatience with
the idea of a lifelong quest for identity and meaning that Holden represents.
Barbara Feinberg, an expert on literature who has observed numerous class
discussions of “Catcher,” pointed to a story about a Holden-loving loser in the
Onion headlined “Search for Self Called Off After 38 Years.” “Holden is
somewhat a victim of the current trend in applying ever more mechanistic
approaches to understanding human behaviour,” Feinberg notes”
A bit like Heidegger contra automation!
“Compared to Holden Caufield’s days, there is not as much room for search, for
intuition, for empathy, for the mystery of the unconscious and the deliverance
made possible through talking to another person.””
It is then that Feinberg recalls one student from Long Island who told her:
“Oh, we all hate Holden Caulfield. ‘Shut up and take your Prozac,’ I’d tell
him!”
Ah well – and then there’s the Rebel in the Rye – expanding on Salinger’s
affair with O’Neill’s daughter – and stuff.
Cheers,
Speranza
