Because Todd Hasak-Lowy and I share the services of Literary Agent Extraordinaire Simon Lipskar, I feel compelled to recuse myself from rendering any official opinions on Todd's excellent debut novel, Captives, which I gulped down on my travels. But there's nothing to prevent me from allowing him to talk to you about a few things he's interested in, so today he discusses literary theory (don't run away), and Tuesday through Thursday he offers a three-part discussion on Jose Saramago's Blindness and its influence on his work. Finally, on Friday, he will offer up an early signed copy of his book, so you should be in good hands while I am away. Here's Todd:
Ladies and Gentlemen! Gather round and witness the impossible. I, your guest blogger, will attempt to convince you to acquire and read a work of literary theory! Not just that, I will, with utter sincerity, claim it to be an inspirational work for readers, writers, and academics alike (or at least for this reader, writer, and academic). If that’s not enough, I will in addition write about this obscure and possibly frightening book with an eye on taking advantage of Mark Sarvas’ (aka TEV’s proprietor and landlord) offer to let me have a platform in the run-up to the publication of my first novel.
Wish me luck.
First, the good news. Derek Attridge’s The Singularity of Literature is quite short (the body is less than 150 pages). Plus the footnotes are pretty sparse, and in general he manages, in comparison to your standard daunting book of literary theory, to undensify the proceedings in all sorts of ways that are nothing short of compassionate. Drawing on, but at the same time thankfully simplifying, the writings of notorious academic heavy-weights like Derrida and Levinas (I know, just reading their names makes you want to call the therapist you started seeing during grad school), Attridge argues that creativity involves the act of bringing and/or welcoming otherness into existence.
But—and this is the move that I love most and the one that makes me want to tell you to read it—such creativity isn’t limited to writers, it’s the purview and even responsibility of readers as well. Being a good (and Attridge would say ethical) reader involves approaching a text with the goal of finding some way to accommodate, register, and affirm its otherness without simply transforming it into “the same” (i.e. what you already know, how you already think, who you already are, etc.). In other words, a good reading of a good book will change you, fundamentally.
There’s a million things to say about this, but for now, just two observations before I sign off for the day: 1) (and I don’t mean to sound any more pissy here than necessary—my story collection got very good reviews overall, but still) Think how few reviewers (or at least their reviews) approach the books they review with anything close to Attridge’s philosophy, one reason why most reviews, even the positive ones, seem awfully dismissive on some deep level; 2) I think Attridge, in explaining what literature does or what we do when we read in the best ways, makes a great case for why we read in the first place. Because when I read his book, which happens to explore the inexpressible, invigorating experience of reading a book that changes you forever, I was invigorated and transformed. Which is why you should read it, too.
Is it bad that instead of making me want to call a therapist(haven't made it to grad school yet, that might be why), the mention of Levinas got me to excitedly click on the link?
Posted by: P.T. Smith | September 15, 2008 at 06:53 AM
Thanks for the recommendation! I've been an admirer of Attridge's work on Joyce for some time so I'll definitely check this out.
Quiztune: How are most positive reviews dismissive? Is it the structure of the reviews themselves that yields a pick or pan dichotomy or is it something reviewers bring to the review?
Posted by: Jim | September 15, 2008 at 12:09 PM