Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Saturday, November 26, 2005

The Good Reader

Posted by Daniel Green on 11/26/05 at 05:03 PM

Nikolai Duffy, in his essay “In Other Words: Writing Maurice Blanchot Writing”:

For Blanchot, the good reader would not be what he terms the critical reader but the literary reader. Rather than interrogating “the work in order to know how it was fashioned” (SL 203), which is to say, rather than subordinating the openness of reading to an active means of elucidating the value and meaning of the work (and, by proxy, the value of reading itself), all of which Blanchot identifies with critical reading, the literary reader or what Blanchot refers to as “the true reader” (SL 203) passively collapses before the work, giving “the work back to itself: back to its anonymous presence, to the impersonal affirmation that it is” (SL 193). The work says nothing and of the work, therefore, there is nothing to say. If the work is to remain communicable at all, this is what it is necessary to say, always again, always badly, and always for the first time. As such, the task of the good reader is not to say the work but rather to procure a space in which the work can continue not to say itself. . . .


Comments

So in other words, most of us are very bad readers.

By Miriam Jones on 11/27/05 at 09:31 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Bakhtin, by contrast, says that discourse structures itself in the direction of a response, anticipates and counts on that response—so that the imagined response to a given utterance has a kind of priority over the utterance itself. On the Bakhtinian account, the kind of reading that Blanchot celebrates would be a manifest ethical and dialogical failure. Reading as Blanchot counsels would not be reading at all, but a kind of self-evacuation, which for Bakhtin is a failure to be “answerable” to another person. (See “Discourse in the Novel.")

I’m with Bakhtin on this one.

By on 11/27/05 at 11:42 AM | Permanent link to this comment

so that the imagined response to a given utterance has a kind of priority over the utterance itself.

This is interesting, as Blanchot’s texts do often seem to function quite well without such response.  Or independent of a merely critical response, at least.  One is somewhat forced to either accept his theory of writing or...not to read him.  Or to read him only as a sort of “poetry,” no doubt many would sneer.  But is Bakhtin’s account entirely incommensurable with the reader who may ‘co-sign’ the text (Derrida), that is, in a ‘readerly’ manner?  Might you say more about why this would amount to an “ethical failure” for Bakhtin (and perhaps it all hinges on the ongoing debate over whether one reads Bakhtin prescriptively or descriptively)?

Thanks for sharing this essay, Dan.

By Matt on 11/27/05 at 02:06 PM | Permanent link to this comment

"the task of the good reader is not to say the work but rather to procure a space in which the work can continue not to say itself. . . .”

I realize that by even asking I reveal myself as sympathetic to (Blanchot’s version of) bad reading—but really. What would that involve pedagogically? How would we connect with other readers in order to cultivate and pass on the art of giving a work room in which it can continue not to say itself? Or does “literary” reading cancel out silly assumptions about a pedagogy of reading, always isolating us into states of respectfully incommunicable collapse?

By on 11/27/05 at 02:53 PM | Permanent link to this comment

It’s a good question.  To be very glib about it, perhaps, it may be a sort of collapse--one concerned for discretion and respectful of silence(s)--that returns always to the question of literature itself, but that only arrives at this question through a careful and patient reading (a reading alongside this question); that is, there are positive ways to describe this “collapse,” and as other than just a failure to comminicate.  Blanchot’s most concise thoughts on the matter can be found in The Space of Literature.

By Matt on 11/27/05 at 03:04 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I don’t really know enough about Blanchot’s view of formal literary study to say anything definitive, but I’d suspect that “good reading” has nothing to do with “pedagogy.” I’d suspect further that the whole practice of thinking about what a way of reading “would. . .involve pedagogically” has created the situation wherein we are forced to think about “a space” in which literature might be allowed to be itself.

By Dan Green on 11/27/05 at 04:03 PM | Permanent link to this comment

But is Bakhtin’s account entirely incommensurable with the reader who may ‘co-sign’ the text (Derrida), that is, in a ‘readerly’ manner?

Bakhtin’s position here is virtually identical with Derrida’s—in his early work Bakhtin speaks of “undersigning” one’s reading. There is a kind of affirmation of a text, an echoing, a complete endorsing, which is very different from the evacuation of the reading self which Blanchot seems to want. (And on these matters at least Bakhtin is indeed prescribing, since he speaks of the undesirable alternatives to the model of reading he advocates.)

By on 11/27/05 at 04:21 PM | Permanent link to this comment

"I don’t really know enough about Blanchot’s view of formal literary study to say anything definitive, but I’d suspect that “good reading” has nothing to do with “pedagogy.” I’d suspect further that the whole practice of thinking about what a way of reading “would. . .involve pedagogically” has created the situation wherein we are forced to think about “a space” in which literature might be allowed to be itself. “

From what little I know of Blanchot, that was kind of what I suspected too. But how else to prod at a statement that clearly wants to luxuriate in itself? The prose, negative logic is so seductive—I would love to drop the sentence into an essay of my own:

“the task of the good reader is not to say the work but rather to procure a space in which the work can continue not to say itself. . . .”

But I honestly have no idea what it means. Which might be why I love it, left as I am to enjoy its slyness without worrying about the need to explain it to anyone else, encouraged by a model of reading that promotes absenting oneself from the scene of literary explanation.

But after that’s taken up a few minutes of my life, then what?

By on 11/27/05 at 04:59 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Like “prefer not to say,” I am not sure what this means, nor do I understand why acting in such a supposedly passive manner somehow makes one a “good reader.” Unlike “prefer not to say,” I am not very sympathetic to this sort of talk.  My gut reaction is that it is a bunch of mystical obscurantism.

Since neither Blanchot nor Duffy seem particularly interested in persuading me of the value of this approach (and seem to even deny that one should speak of value in this context), there is not much I can do with it. 

Since the active approach to reading suits me just fine, I guess I have to just leave it at that.

By on 11/27/05 at 06:00 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Alan, you may be right.  I only ask because the late Derrida was so close to Blanchot, even when speaking of unconditional affirmation.  Then again, there’s was a relationship to occupy the scholars of the next century at least.

By Matt on 11/27/05 at 10:13 PM | Permanent link to this comment

If that paraphrase really gave us Blanchot’s idea of the good reader, I can only think that good is used here ironically. The good reader seems like the abject reader, to me—the one who regards reading as a thing that is always done once only. In a sense, that is the quantitative reader—who, if reading the text again, can be assured of reading the same text, the same master text he or she always surrendered to. The bad reader is the one whose reading actually continues the text as a state of affairs that repeats itself and has to be fought again. Each bout gives one the chance of another outcome—they are not, properly, repetitions. In this rather bogus distinction between good and bad readers, I’m all for the bad reader.

By roger on 11/28/05 at 05:47 PM | Permanent link to this comment

"in a sense, that is the quantitative reader—who,
if reading the text again, can be assured of reading the same text”

Actually, it’s just the opposite. The “bad reader” (unironic) insures, through the insistence on interpretation, that the text will always be the same on subsequent readings. In fact, why read it again at all, since it’t now been interpreted and its “meaning” made clear?

By Dan Green on 11/28/05 at 06:13 PM | Permanent link to this comment

i am very grateful to discover your site and like to take part in every topic .
yours sincerely

By on 06/13/06 at 03:29 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: