Subject
- Salt and Lo -=: Critieria for evaluating subtext
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. Tom Bolt, writer of poetry and prose, critic, and artist, proposes
some exceedingly sound thoughts on critieria for evaluating proposed
literary influences. Apparently inspired by the Maar affair, they offer a
theoretical framework for many of the issues involved. His thoughts are of
particular interest in that he is the author of a stunning long poem "Dark
Ice" that has an intricate and fascinating relationship with _Pale Fire_.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Bolt" <t@tbolt.com>
> Dear NABOKV-L,
>
>
> Is there a serious approach to making or
> evaluating assertions around "influence"
> or (as it were) "unconscious intertextuality"?
>
> I try to use these steps:
>
> 1. Enlarge the frame of reference. Similar
> themes and ideas and stylistic directions
> come up again and again, even where they
> are unlikely to have been transmitted.
>
> 2. Limit strictly the weight given to priority
> alone. Priority is not a proof, no matter how
> obvious it may appear to make a connection.
>
> 3. Avoid magical thinking. Do the math.
> Understand actual probabilities rather than
> relying on intuition. (Our intuitive response
> to coincidence is almost always wrong.)
>
> 4. Understand the creative process.
>
> 5. Understand the nature of "originality" in
> context (author, era, history, probability,
> repetition of themes)
>
> 6. Take your conclusions seriously--use the
> test, "Would I put something important at
> risk based on this?"
>
> -----
>
> 1.
> Enlarge the frame of reference.
> Consult literary history to see which themes
> come up again and again. See, for instance,
> Stith Thompson's _Motif-Index to Folk
> Literature_ before deciding that A must
> have derived an idea or theme from Z.
>
>
> 2.
> Limit strictly the weight given to priority alone.
> "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" is by far the
> favorite logical fallacy when it comes to
> theories of literary influence. If famous A's
> themes are echoed in unread Z's prior
> work, then A (though a remarkable author
> in her own right, and endlessly inventive)
> must have lifted them from poor dim Z.
> Unless this fallacy is properly understood,
> wherever a potential source exists and
> comes first in time, however likely or
> unlikely, it will always seem like proof.
> It is NEVER proof. Priority can only
> establish possibility, never causality.
>
> In the case of the so-called "ur-Lolita," the
> argument rests heavily on mere priority--the
> primary claim. (Conclusive proof that the
> work is a forgery dating from 1978 would
> of course demolish the argument that the
> "ur-Lolita" could have influenced our Lolita.)
>
>
> 3.
> Avoid magical thinking. Do the math.
> Review the mathematics of coincidence to
> understand the reality rather than one's
> unexamined, automatic perception. If it is
> at all possible that an event or cluster of
> events may be coincidental, use mathematics
> to get a clear idea of the probabilities
> involved. Unnoticed coincidences are
> everywhere. Assigning meaning to the few
> we happen to notice is a form of magical
> thinking.
>
> "There are many simple reasons why most
> people misinterpret coincidences. Humans
> have a poor innate grasp of probability, we
> believe that all effects must have deliberate
> causes, we do not understand the laws
> regarding truly large numbers, and we easily
> succumb to selective validation - the tendency
> to remember only positive correlations and
> forget the far more numerous misses."
> http://www.theness.com/articles/coincidence-cs0104.html
> See also:
> http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/coincidence.html
>
> In the case of the so-called "ur-Lolita," the
> secondary arguments are all based on the
> idea that a cluster of what appear to be
> important similarities cannot be coincidental:
> a) that the two authors lived in the same city
> at the same time; b) that an important
> character is given the same name in both
> versions; c) that there is an unfortunate
> relationship between an older man and a girl
> (though otherwise quite different in all
> other particulars).
>
> These arguments imply:
>
> i. That, though an inventive writer, VN needed
> to scrounge around in the work of others for his
> ideas (this plays into a crude suspicion that
> people with highly developed creative abilities
> must "get their ideas" from somewhere [usually
> somewhere obvious]);
>
> ii. That, though a scrupulous person, a master
> of allusion, and a supremely conscious author,
> VN would lift plot elements and a character
> name from another work without providing explicit
> signposts (such as merciless parody) that direct
> us unequivocally to the original;
>
> iii. Or, alternatively, that VN could be unconsciously
> influenced by the crude mechanisms so far
> proposed--and that those powerful unconscious
> influences could lead to such obvious conscious
> manifestations as a character's name without VN
> remembering he had read or heard of the book (!);
>
> iv. That there MUST be a causal connection, even
> excepting the unlikeness of i-iii, because such a
> coincidence--well, just feels unlikely. I mean, what
> are the odds? You get that funny feeling thinking
> of it, as when two people in a group of
> twenty-three share the same birthday!
>
> The truth is, we can't evaluate the comparative
> probabilities unless someone does the math.
> (Tabloid editors can be expected to run with
> sensational claims without subjecting them to
> a rigorous critical evaluation as part of the
> editorial process. Is the TLS a tabloid?) With
> conclusions that cannot be verified or falsified,
> the responsibility to investigate is not less.
>
> Please notice I do not say that Mr. Maar is wrong;
> only that he has marred his argument, and
> demonstrated nothing. The "resemblance" can
> certainly be a coincidence. Nabokov could
> certainly have used cheap source material
> and transfigured it with delight; but not
> without "attribution." If "Lolita," both as
> title and as name of the martyred girl, is a
> reference to the von Lichberg book, why is it
> unlike all other Nabokovian references in being,
> not an explicit signpost or a direct allusion,
> but only the shadow of a madman's fancy?
>
>
> 4.
> Understand the creative process generally; and
> then in light of era, milieu, and Individual Talent.
> Without an understanding of how creative work
> is done, readers risk falling back into crude
> characterizations of the creative process--
> scratching our heads and grumbling that the
> artist "must have got it somewhere."
> I would like to believe that literary scholars
> have some understanding of how artists create
> their works, but few are uniformly convincing
> on this point. Those who do have wonderful
> insights and understanding seem to have
> arrived there through intuition, rather than
> as experts in how writers arrive at a finished work.
>
> A couple of points:
>
> i. People with highly developed creative abilities
> are likely to invent things independently that
> others have already invented independently.
> Superficial, and even deep, similarities abound.
> This kind of thing happens in science as well
> as the arts.
>
> ii. People with highly developed creative
> abilities are also susceptible to influences--but
> very seldom through the crude mechanism of
> one-to-one correspondence that is often
> supposed. Influences are fluid; when they
> emerge in a new work of art, they are untraceable
> (unless the writer wants them traced). I take the
> "bars of the poor creature's cage" story as a kind
> of a parable of how such influences operate: a
> work may have its genesis in an influence we will
> probably not be able to guess, often something
> quite indirect. Seldom will it be someone else's
> work; and, where it is, it will almost never be
> recognized.
>
> Many a determined reader in earnest pursuit of
> influences brings along the wrong set of tools. It
> is something like watching someone attempt to
> catch butterflies wielding a bicycle instead of a net.
>
>
> 5.
> Understand the nature of "originality" and its
> context.
> Standards of "originality" are local in time
> and place (current standards being a kind of
> copyright-infested, cutely referential, and
> otherwise decaying Romanticism). Not Samuel
> Johnson's standards at all, and of course not
> Shakespeare's. But Nabokov's standards of
> originality are also his own. He was meticulous
> and specific about his references; Poe, Catullus,
> et al., but not Z?
>
> A writer can only be "original" -- however we
> define it -- within a universe that includes
> coincidence, basic human themes, names, words.
>
>
> 6.
> Would you trust in the argument or assertions
> put forward if doing so really cost you something,
> or put something important at risk?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> ============================
>
> "Coincidence is the evidence of the True Believer."
> --Chet Raymo
> Skeptics and True Believers
> Walker and Company, 1998, p. 107.
>
>
> "Obviousness is always the enemy of correctness."
> --Bertrand Russell
>
>
> "It is also important to remember that the
> connection between a cause and its effect must
> be a legitimate consequence of natural laws.
> Pseudoscience frequently misapplies
> irrelevancies (such as simple coincidence) to
> imply such a connection, then brings in
> untestable (therefore scientifically meaningless)
> supernatural* agents to connect cause and effect."
> --Zoran Pazameta
> The Laws of Nature: A Skeptic's Guide
> http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/laws.html
>
>
> "When the original is well chosen and judiciously
> copied, the imitator often arrives at excellence
> which he could never have attained without
> direction; for few are formed with abilities to
> discover new possibilities of excellence, and to
> distinguish themselves by means never tried
> before."
>
> --Samuel Johnson
> Rambler No. 164
> October 12, 1751
>
>
> ------------
> * Or "unconscious," or other putative causal agents
>
some exceedingly sound thoughts on critieria for evaluating proposed
literary influences. Apparently inspired by the Maar affair, they offer a
theoretical framework for many of the issues involved. His thoughts are of
particular interest in that he is the author of a stunning long poem "Dark
Ice" that has an intricate and fascinating relationship with _Pale Fire_.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Bolt" <t@tbolt.com>
> Dear NABOKV-L,
>
>
> Is there a serious approach to making or
> evaluating assertions around "influence"
> or (as it were) "unconscious intertextuality"?
>
> I try to use these steps:
>
> 1. Enlarge the frame of reference. Similar
> themes and ideas and stylistic directions
> come up again and again, even where they
> are unlikely to have been transmitted.
>
> 2. Limit strictly the weight given to priority
> alone. Priority is not a proof, no matter how
> obvious it may appear to make a connection.
>
> 3. Avoid magical thinking. Do the math.
> Understand actual probabilities rather than
> relying on intuition. (Our intuitive response
> to coincidence is almost always wrong.)
>
> 4. Understand the creative process.
>
> 5. Understand the nature of "originality" in
> context (author, era, history, probability,
> repetition of themes)
>
> 6. Take your conclusions seriously--use the
> test, "Would I put something important at
> risk based on this?"
>
> -----
>
> 1.
> Enlarge the frame of reference.
> Consult literary history to see which themes
> come up again and again. See, for instance,
> Stith Thompson's _Motif-Index to Folk
> Literature_ before deciding that A must
> have derived an idea or theme from Z.
>
>
> 2.
> Limit strictly the weight given to priority alone.
> "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" is by far the
> favorite logical fallacy when it comes to
> theories of literary influence. If famous A's
> themes are echoed in unread Z's prior
> work, then A (though a remarkable author
> in her own right, and endlessly inventive)
> must have lifted them from poor dim Z.
> Unless this fallacy is properly understood,
> wherever a potential source exists and
> comes first in time, however likely or
> unlikely, it will always seem like proof.
> It is NEVER proof. Priority can only
> establish possibility, never causality.
>
> In the case of the so-called "ur-Lolita," the
> argument rests heavily on mere priority--the
> primary claim. (Conclusive proof that the
> work is a forgery dating from 1978 would
> of course demolish the argument that the
> "ur-Lolita" could have influenced our Lolita.)
>
>
> 3.
> Avoid magical thinking. Do the math.
> Review the mathematics of coincidence to
> understand the reality rather than one's
> unexamined, automatic perception. If it is
> at all possible that an event or cluster of
> events may be coincidental, use mathematics
> to get a clear idea of the probabilities
> involved. Unnoticed coincidences are
> everywhere. Assigning meaning to the few
> we happen to notice is a form of magical
> thinking.
>
> "There are many simple reasons why most
> people misinterpret coincidences. Humans
> have a poor innate grasp of probability, we
> believe that all effects must have deliberate
> causes, we do not understand the laws
> regarding truly large numbers, and we easily
> succumb to selective validation - the tendency
> to remember only positive correlations and
> forget the far more numerous misses."
> http://www.theness.com/articles/coincidence-cs0104.html
> See also:
> http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/coincidence.html
>
> In the case of the so-called "ur-Lolita," the
> secondary arguments are all based on the
> idea that a cluster of what appear to be
> important similarities cannot be coincidental:
> a) that the two authors lived in the same city
> at the same time; b) that an important
> character is given the same name in both
> versions; c) that there is an unfortunate
> relationship between an older man and a girl
> (though otherwise quite different in all
> other particulars).
>
> These arguments imply:
>
> i. That, though an inventive writer, VN needed
> to scrounge around in the work of others for his
> ideas (this plays into a crude suspicion that
> people with highly developed creative abilities
> must "get their ideas" from somewhere [usually
> somewhere obvious]);
>
> ii. That, though a scrupulous person, a master
> of allusion, and a supremely conscious author,
> VN would lift plot elements and a character
> name from another work without providing explicit
> signposts (such as merciless parody) that direct
> us unequivocally to the original;
>
> iii. Or, alternatively, that VN could be unconsciously
> influenced by the crude mechanisms so far
> proposed--and that those powerful unconscious
> influences could lead to such obvious conscious
> manifestations as a character's name without VN
> remembering he had read or heard of the book (!);
>
> iv. That there MUST be a causal connection, even
> excepting the unlikeness of i-iii, because such a
> coincidence--well, just feels unlikely. I mean, what
> are the odds? You get that funny feeling thinking
> of it, as when two people in a group of
> twenty-three share the same birthday!
>
> The truth is, we can't evaluate the comparative
> probabilities unless someone does the math.
> (Tabloid editors can be expected to run with
> sensational claims without subjecting them to
> a rigorous critical evaluation as part of the
> editorial process. Is the TLS a tabloid?) With
> conclusions that cannot be verified or falsified,
> the responsibility to investigate is not less.
>
> Please notice I do not say that Mr. Maar is wrong;
> only that he has marred his argument, and
> demonstrated nothing. The "resemblance" can
> certainly be a coincidence. Nabokov could
> certainly have used cheap source material
> and transfigured it with delight; but not
> without "attribution." If "Lolita," both as
> title and as name of the martyred girl, is a
> reference to the von Lichberg book, why is it
> unlike all other Nabokovian references in being,
> not an explicit signpost or a direct allusion,
> but only the shadow of a madman's fancy?
>
>
> 4.
> Understand the creative process generally; and
> then in light of era, milieu, and Individual Talent.
> Without an understanding of how creative work
> is done, readers risk falling back into crude
> characterizations of the creative process--
> scratching our heads and grumbling that the
> artist "must have got it somewhere."
> I would like to believe that literary scholars
> have some understanding of how artists create
> their works, but few are uniformly convincing
> on this point. Those who do have wonderful
> insights and understanding seem to have
> arrived there through intuition, rather than
> as experts in how writers arrive at a finished work.
>
> A couple of points:
>
> i. People with highly developed creative abilities
> are likely to invent things independently that
> others have already invented independently.
> Superficial, and even deep, similarities abound.
> This kind of thing happens in science as well
> as the arts.
>
> ii. People with highly developed creative
> abilities are also susceptible to influences--but
> very seldom through the crude mechanism of
> one-to-one correspondence that is often
> supposed. Influences are fluid; when they
> emerge in a new work of art, they are untraceable
> (unless the writer wants them traced). I take the
> "bars of the poor creature's cage" story as a kind
> of a parable of how such influences operate: a
> work may have its genesis in an influence we will
> probably not be able to guess, often something
> quite indirect. Seldom will it be someone else's
> work; and, where it is, it will almost never be
> recognized.
>
> Many a determined reader in earnest pursuit of
> influences brings along the wrong set of tools. It
> is something like watching someone attempt to
> catch butterflies wielding a bicycle instead of a net.
>
>
> 5.
> Understand the nature of "originality" and its
> context.
> Standards of "originality" are local in time
> and place (current standards being a kind of
> copyright-infested, cutely referential, and
> otherwise decaying Romanticism). Not Samuel
> Johnson's standards at all, and of course not
> Shakespeare's. But Nabokov's standards of
> originality are also his own. He was meticulous
> and specific about his references; Poe, Catullus,
> et al., but not Z?
>
> A writer can only be "original" -- however we
> define it -- within a universe that includes
> coincidence, basic human themes, names, words.
>
>
> 6.
> Would you trust in the argument or assertions
> put forward if doing so really cost you something,
> or put something important at risk?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> ============================
>
> "Coincidence is the evidence of the True Believer."
> --Chet Raymo
> Skeptics and True Believers
> Walker and Company, 1998, p. 107.
>
>
> "Obviousness is always the enemy of correctness."
> --Bertrand Russell
>
>
> "It is also important to remember that the
> connection between a cause and its effect must
> be a legitimate consequence of natural laws.
> Pseudoscience frequently misapplies
> irrelevancies (such as simple coincidence) to
> imply such a connection, then brings in
> untestable (therefore scientifically meaningless)
> supernatural* agents to connect cause and effect."
> --Zoran Pazameta
> The Laws of Nature: A Skeptic's Guide
> http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/laws.html
>
>
> "When the original is well chosen and judiciously
> copied, the imitator often arrives at excellence
> which he could never have attained without
> direction; for few are formed with abilities to
> discover new possibilities of excellence, and to
> distinguish themselves by means never tried
> before."
>
> --Samuel Johnson
> Rambler No. 164
> October 12, 1751
>
>
> ------------
> * Or "unconscious," or other putative causal agents
>