When it comes down to it, determining the critical discourse is dependent on formalism. Which story did you like the most. That's the only way I can explain the lasting import of Yentl, while Bashevis's other queer stories have fallen by the wayside (it's possible that even he forgot about them, as he has two stories with the same name: one about gay dudes in Poland, another set in New York). I remember my old advisor, a Faulkner scholar, clarifying that she didn't put The Unvanquished on the syllabus because the book was "pretty boring".
And you know what? Determining the critical discourse this way works: these other stories of Bashevis's are terrible. Certainly there are interesting structural or post- routes to take when asking "what does it mean when someone has a 'woman's soul'?"; but, please believe me, the subject is not treated with much grace in Singer's "Two."
A quick clarification regarding discourse selection (which isn't entirely relevant): there's a big difference between choosing which works by an author are most "worthy" of analysis, and which author is "worthy" of analysis. I guess this is relevant in the context that there was a lot of controversy surrounding Bashevis's Nobel Prize win (isn't this always the case?) and his career as a whole. I guess my point is that the status of a writer shouldn't necessarily determine the shape and contours of the discourse (notice I didn't say "canon").
Goddammit. Forgot my main point with that. I'll be back.
No comments:
Post a Comment