Comments on: Writers vs. Commentators

By: David Gordon

David Gordon — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:38:14 +0000

I agree with S.M. above. That dichotomy collapses as soon we think it through. Proust comments obsessiely and relentlessly on Art, Literature and essentially provides an entire theory of the within his novel. This of course is one of his innovations. Meanwhile, Borges, the supposed commentator, is now regarded as a one of the great innovators, generating new forms for fiction.

By: steve mitchelmore

steve mitchelmore — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:52:58 +0000

It’s ironic Proust is the epitome of the non-commentator because – given the definition of commentator here – he is also clearly commentating on what went on before: think of the old title translation, remembrance of things past. Yet of course he is also creating or rediscovering the past as he writes; and only by writing can he do so.
Unfortunately this kind of taxonomy will also be prejorative as people value creativity over commentary because they have a romantic notion of a separation and tend to laud those authors who write in denial of the impossible separation or are unable to contain it in the work itself – Dickens for example – and sniff at writers like Vila-Matas who include everything in their work. Literature is part of the world too, albeit a strange part.

By: Matt Rowe

Matt Rowe — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:01:34 +0000

S/Z itself has been a while for me—and Moore makes it clear that he’s adapting to for his own purposes. What’s interesting is that his history presents the “writerly” text as the over/underdog, the perversely neglected star of the history of the novel. Does the writer/commentator schema also lead to mistakes about priority? Actually, I think Rex is genuinely about that, at least in part.

By: Scott Esposito

Scott Esposito — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 03:01:17 +0000

Matt,
That’s another interesting way to think about the dichotomy. Though I must add that after reading (and liking very much) S/Z, I’m still not completely clear on what Barthes meant by “readerly” and “writerly”

By: Matt Rowe

Matt Rowe — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 02:14:50 +0000

Lots to think about here! I wonder how (or whether) this could line up with Barthes’ distinction between “readerly” (lisible) and “writerly” (scriptible) texts—recently put to good use by Steven Moore, in The Novel: An Alternative History (at least the introductory chapter, which I picked up at MLA).

By: Alvy Singer

Alvy Singer — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:40:26 +0000

Muy interesante. Tengo mis dudas. Veo claro al sitio que quieras llegar cuando dices que DeLillo está in between (sobre todo por la voz de White Noise y la de Underworld). No lo tengo tan claro con Sebald. Quizá su autoficción ensayística despiste, pero diría que está más cerca de Vila-Matas que de Roth (del Roth novelístico, claro, no del Roth de The Facts). La presencia de Saunders me desconcierta.
Creo que otro in-betweener sería Fresán. La voz de Fresán es harto interesante porque se mueve entre la especulación de Vila-Matas y la descripción totalizadora de Proust. Sería otra conexión muy estimulante.