Sartre Missed James Joyce's Point or The Raven Chides Blackness
Nattering on from yesterday.... Kramer shot back: "Drop the Orence. It's not my name.
I have no idea why you think I had any interpretation of Sartre in mind when I basically punned on solitary as a punishment.
It appears that Sartre's meaning was explained by Sartre, and it's closer to what you think I was implying - but wasn't - than you say. There are no mirrors in Sartre's hell because without mirrors, we know ourselves only by what others see in us, and considering who these poor bastards are cooped up with, that's going to be hell.
I like your view that personal responsibility renders others' opinions irrelevant. As Richard Feynman put it, "What do You Care what Other People Think?" If we can get our self-image from our own good behavior, we are immune to the opinions of others. But that does not appear from the easily available statements by the author to be what he had in mind.
But then, Sartre may have missed Joyce's point: as artist, his job was done when he wrote the play. Now he has no say in how the work is read.
Either way, if you have a macro point to make, you should be aware that, at least in my not terribly humble opinion, it is being lost in verbal preciosity."
The Nattering One dropped a hammer on clueless Kramer: "At least we do not disagree on substance here, my view on taking ownership, something that is sorely lacking in this day and age. But I am quite sure we will disagree on much to come..
Orence may not be how your name is spelled, but it is phonetically how Daud and Farraj (two young orphans) affectionately addressed Lawrence of Arabia. I was using it as a term of endearment, mea culpa, I take ownership. In order not to antagonize or offend thee, effendi, we shall drop it and something else...
I do not think the author Pater appreciates being painted as an immature young man who is paring his fingernails while others comment about his work. Your regurgitation of Joyce was devoid, and can rightly be interpreted as such. I jokingly called you out on it, mea culpa, again I take ownership...
But rather than take ownership for your faux pas, you feign ignorance of the joke, misemploy Sartre, impugn my English, accuse me of winks, nods and secret handshakes? Reply by pawning off your misemployment as a pun, claim Sartre may have misunderstood your interpretation of Joyce, and finish with a flourish citing "preciosity" on my part?
Artful dodging Effendi, the above behavior on your part, can only be referred to as pompous in the extreme.
For one who waxes literary (Joyce, Sartre (your "pun" was a misemployment), Feynman (physics), then opines of "Sartre missing Joyce's point" to claim verbal preciosity on the part of another - as in over refinement in the choice of words? IMHO - Effendi, The raven chides blackness.
Your statement: "Sartre may have missed Joyce's point: as artist, his job was done when he wrote the play. Now he has no say in how the work is read."
Well there you go again. You should be aware that "Joyce did complain that readers tended to forget the last four words of the title....A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man." Perceptions of James Joyce; Harvard Prof. John V. Kelleher; The Atlantic, March 1958.
Not that he didn't have the right to, but somehow Joyce must have missed his own point, at least according to Kramer.
A fitting image indeed. Effendi, Even if you feign blissful unawareness of your behavior, if you have any point to make, you should be aware that, at least in my not terribly humble opinion, it is being lost in severe verbal thickness which is cloistered in an air of pomposity.
Good day Effendi."
I have no idea why you think I had any interpretation of Sartre in mind when I basically punned on solitary as a punishment.
It appears that Sartre's meaning was explained by Sartre, and it's closer to what you think I was implying - but wasn't - than you say. There are no mirrors in Sartre's hell because without mirrors, we know ourselves only by what others see in us, and considering who these poor bastards are cooped up with, that's going to be hell.
I like your view that personal responsibility renders others' opinions irrelevant. As Richard Feynman put it, "What do You Care what Other People Think?" If we can get our self-image from our own good behavior, we are immune to the opinions of others. But that does not appear from the easily available statements by the author to be what he had in mind.
But then, Sartre may have missed Joyce's point: as artist, his job was done when he wrote the play. Now he has no say in how the work is read.
Either way, if you have a macro point to make, you should be aware that, at least in my not terribly humble opinion, it is being lost in verbal preciosity."
The Nattering One dropped a hammer on clueless Kramer: "At least we do not disagree on substance here, my view on taking ownership, something that is sorely lacking in this day and age. But I am quite sure we will disagree on much to come..
Orence may not be how your name is spelled, but it is phonetically how Daud and Farraj (two young orphans) affectionately addressed Lawrence of Arabia. I was using it as a term of endearment, mea culpa, I take ownership. In order not to antagonize or offend thee, effendi, we shall drop it and something else...
I do not think the author Pater appreciates being painted as an immature young man who is paring his fingernails while others comment about his work. Your regurgitation of Joyce was devoid, and can rightly be interpreted as such. I jokingly called you out on it, mea culpa, again I take ownership...
But rather than take ownership for your faux pas, you feign ignorance of the joke, misemploy Sartre, impugn my English, accuse me of winks, nods and secret handshakes? Reply by pawning off your misemployment as a pun, claim Sartre may have misunderstood your interpretation of Joyce, and finish with a flourish citing "preciosity" on my part?
Artful dodging Effendi, the above behavior on your part, can only be referred to as pompous in the extreme.
For one who waxes literary (Joyce, Sartre (your "pun" was a misemployment), Feynman (physics), then opines of "Sartre missing Joyce's point" to claim verbal preciosity on the part of another - as in over refinement in the choice of words? IMHO - Effendi, The raven chides blackness.
Your statement: "Sartre may have missed Joyce's point: as artist, his job was done when he wrote the play. Now he has no say in how the work is read."
Well there you go again. You should be aware that "Joyce did complain that readers tended to forget the last four words of the title....A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man." Perceptions of James Joyce; Harvard Prof. John V. Kelleher; The Atlantic, March 1958.
Not that he didn't have the right to, but somehow Joyce must have missed his own point, at least according to Kramer.
A fitting image indeed. Effendi, Even if you feign blissful unawareness of your behavior, if you have any point to make, you should be aware that, at least in my not terribly humble opinion, it is being lost in severe verbal thickness which is cloistered in an air of pomposity.
Good day Effendi."
Comments