Jay,

 

I agree with you.  Beth Sweeney’s apology made it seem like my remark about posting the full scan was harsher than I had intended.  More importantly, Beth’s posting omitted the rest of my comment, which is compatible with your remarks: I encouraged more discussion.  I too was disappointed that the reaction to Moore’s story was short on thoughtful analysis.  I’ll forward my original remark directly to you.

 

 

 

Eric Hyman

Professor of English

Interim Chair

Department of English

Butler 123

Fayetteville State University

1200 Murchison Road

Fayetteville, NC 28301-4252

(910) 672-1416

ehyman@uncfsu.edu

 

 

Dear Prof. Hyman,

In her apology for posting the scan of the full text of Lorrie Moore's "Referential," Ms Sweeney says that she thought the scan was only of the first paragraph.  That's not as unlikely as it seems.  I too had sent a reference to the story, but mine did have only the first paragraph (typed, not scanned).  Ms. Sweeney went with the other one, maybe because mine contained a shamelessly self-serving link and reference to my own blog.  That blogpost was about the problem of imitation, though it was more about the elements that influence our moral judgment.  We punish our students' plagiarism, but we enjoy a good parody.  The difference seems to be in our estimate of the author's intent -- if he or she makes it obvious what the source material is, it's OK.  Obviously, Moore wasn't trying to fool anyone. 

There was another New Yorker - New Yorker parallel-stories thing a few years ago, though nobody seemed to notice -- Kate Walbert's "Playdate" and Salinger's "Uncle Wiggly."  But it was less obvious, and I'm still not sure whether it was a case of conscious homage or sub-conscious imitation/inspiration. 

As for the reaction on the List to Moore's story -- mostly name-calling, not much analysis -- I'm not surprised.  The List shares some similarity with fan clubs, so at times it seems like an Un-Nabokovian Activities Committee. 

Jay Livingston