Rating: 
Summary: A Very Clever Woman...
Review: "Against Interpretation" is a book that should be read by anyone who contradicts, argues, debates, or analyzes. Most of all, it is written as a slap in the face for the upper-class stupids who stare at Kandinsky's and fuss over issues of "control" and "chaos." It is a book for anyone who has been misunderstood or rejected, and it is a reality for editors and critics world-wide.
Rating: 
Summary: Pseudo-feminist tripe
Review: I fail to understand all of the hoopla about Susan Sontag. While I have only read a limited selection of her work, in these essays, "Against Interpretation" being the ultimate example, Sontag emerges as a simple-minded, arrogant ignoramus. In her utterly unreasoned invective, Sontag ignores (or is just unable to understand) two critical facts. First, some works of art and theory are difficult to understand (in varying degrees) without the help of interpretation. Sontag's flawed analysis of the supposed ruination of the works of Kafka by interpretation demonstrates that not only is she among this crowd, she has clearly reached new and unheard of misguided heights. Second, Sontag ignores the fact that works of art in other languages cannot be understood in translation without the help of interpretation and criticism that demonstrates the extent to which aspects of a certain culture are imbedded in the original language. This couldn't possibly be clearer than in poetry. Weinberger's excellent "Nineteen Ways of Looking at Wang Wei", which adroitly considers the subject, hadn't been released when Sontag published this essay but it probably wouldn't have made a difference. What was she thinking? The only good aspect of the essay (and why I give it 2 stars instead of 1 or zero) is the fact that it has given me ample opportunity to win arguments against individuals who are flawed in their thinking enough to enjoy Sontag's writing.
Rating: 
Summary: To Life!
Review: I'm currently writing a paper that incorporates some of Sontag's ideas in both "Against Interpretation" and "On Style" - the two most polemic of the essays in this collection. It's very dificult, however, to condense these essays down to a couple concepts, or draw a couple of quotes out of them. Each time I read these essays - perhaps because I feel such a connection with the ideas - I find myself underlining virtually half the articles. The one place I see Sontag going off is in promoting to noveau roman, and the fiction of writers like Robbe-Grillet. For one, writers who try to negate all the content from their work often merely reinforce to the critic the distinction between form and content. And two, a piece of art doesn't need to be experimental to have formal elegance. I think Sontag was promoting too many new wave artists, like Burroughs. Recently she has been writing novels similar to the nineteenth century style, which suggests that she's overcome whatever qualms she may have had with ominscent narrators like Tolstoy.
Rating:
Summary: To Life!
Review: I'm currently writing a paper that incorporates some of Sontag's ideas in both "Against Interpretation" and "On Style" - the two most polemic of the essays in this collection. It's very difficult, however, to condense these essays down to a couple concepts, or draw a couple of quotes out of them. Each time I read these essays - perhaps because I feel such a connection with the ideas - I find myself underlining virtually half the articles. I've read essays that argue something similar to what Sontag is saying, but with no where near the thrust and brio. Aside, from being an argument, it has stylization - the momentum and transparency that she recognizes in great works of art. It's telling that the reviewer below me found value in Sontag's essays because it helps him win arguments. How lackluster and antiseptic our world would be if our engagement with works of art were reduced to the level of argument; that we view art only for utilitarian reasons, or to seek truth. Criticism that justifies a work of art - politically, culturally, psychologically, however - is spiritually corrupt. Explanations too often get in the way of the luminousness of an artistic object. Criticism should complement art. It should also engage the world from a meditative standpoint, and worry less about setting boundaries and limits, or wiping out contradictions. Should art be treated as an object in the world or a statement about the world? This is a hotly debatable. I don't see art as, primarily, striving for a truth that could only be accessed through its specific medium. Art, like advanced mathematics, is striving for a formal elegance within a system. This is why Sontag says we need a vocabulary of forms. At the same time, art, though it can't be reduced to a message, does say things. This is why a meditation - activity of the conscious - is the best model for art. The one place I see Sontag going off is in promoting to noveau roman, and the fiction of writers like Robbe-Grillet. For one, writers who try to negate all the content from their work often merely reinforce to the critic the distinction between form and content. And two, a piece of art doesn't need to be experimental to have formal elegance. (The stories of Flannery O'Connor and Bernard Malamud are prime examples of art with momentum and inevitability that aren't on the edge experimentally). I think Sontag was promoting too many new wave artists, like Burroughs. Recently she has been writing novels similar to the nineteenth century style, which suggests that she's overcome whatever qualms she may have had with omniscient narrators like Eliot or Tolstoy. Nietzche said that without the concept of underlying reality, the concept appearance would not exist. Similarly, without content, form would not exist. Her essays shouldn't be seen as an attack on content. I still care about subject matter and it still influences what I read. The gratification of consciousness which art performs, however, is so expansive that it would be perilous to reduce it to the mere function of transmitting a message, making the world a better place, or seeking truth. Indeed, the study of literature has been infected by critical theory. In my grad student classes on contemporary literature (most of the books we read are lousy, yet demonstrate some cultural argument), we always ask what the book is saying and if we agree with it or not, whether it is subversive to or complicit with the dominant ideology. Either way, the deconstructionist says, the world is crammed with value. Maybe literature students will only feel worthwhile doing the work of sociologists and psychologists. All artistic form is some sort of ideology. Apparently, the mere activity of consciousness is too decadent.
Rating:
Summary: To Life!
Review: I'm currently writing a paper that incorporates some of Sontag's ideas in both "Against Interpretation" and "On Style" - the two most polemic of the essays in this collection. It's very difficult, however, to condense these essays down to a couple concepts, or draw a couple of quotes out of them. Each time I read these essays - perhaps because I feel such a connection with the ideas - I find myself underlining virtually half the articles. I've read essays that argue something similar to what Sontag is saying, but with no where near the thrust and brio. Aside, from being an argument, it has stylization - the momentum and transparency that she recognizes in great works of art. It's telling that the reviewer below me found value in Sontag's essays because it helps him win arguments. How lackluster and antiseptic our world would be if our engagement with works of art were reduced to the level of argument; that we view art only for utilitarian reasons, or to seek truth. Criticism that justifies a work of art - politically, culturally, psychologically, however - is spiritually corrupt. Explanations too often get in the way of the luminousness of an artistic object. Criticism should complement art. It should also engage the world from a meditative standpoint, and worry less about setting boundaries and limits, or wiping out contradictions. Should art be treated as an object in the world or a statement about the world? This is a hotly debatable. I don't see art as, primarily, striving for a truth that could only be accessed through its specific medium. Art, like advanced mathematics, is striving for a formal elegance within a system. This is why Sontag says we need a vocabulary of forms. At the same time, art, though it can't be reduced to a message, does say things. This is why a meditation - activity of the conscious - is the best model for art. The one place I see Sontag going off is in promoting to noveau roman, and the fiction of writers like Robbe-Grillet. For one, writers who try to negate all the content from their work often merely reinforce to the critic the distinction between form and content. And two, a piece of art doesn't need to be experimental to have formal elegance. (The stories of Flannery O'Connor and Bernard Malamud are prime examples of art with momentum and inevitability that aren't on the edge experimentally). I think Sontag was promoting too many new wave artists, like Burroughs. Recently she has been writing novels similar to the nineteenth century style, which suggests that she's overcome whatever qualms she may have had with omniscient narrators like Eliot or Tolstoy. Nietzche said that without the concept of underlying reality, the concept appearance would not exist. Similarly, without content, form would not exist. Her essays shouldn't be seen as an attack on content. I still care about subject matter and it still influences what I read. The gratification of consciousness which art performs, however, is so expansive that it would be perilous to reduce it to the mere function of transmitting a message, making the world a better place, or seeking truth. Indeed, the study of literature has been infected by critical theory. In my grad student classes on contemporary literature (most of the books we read are lousy, yet demonstrate some cultural argument), we always ask what the book is saying and if we agree with it or not, whether it is subversive to or complicit with the dominant ideology. Either way, the deconstructionist says, the world is crammed with value. Maybe literature students will only feel worthwhile doing the work of sociologists and psychologists. All artistic form is some sort of ideology. Apparently, the mere activity of consciousness is too decadent.
Rating:
Summary: most important literay essay of the 20th century
Review: in the late 50s every one worried about the symbolism of Beckett in the theatre , kafka in the novel , and Bergman in film. Every thing also had aMarxist or Freudian interpertation. In this great essay she freed us to enjoy the arts and mass communication forever. a must read freudian interp
Rating:
Summary: Sontag vs. America?
Review: Just be aware that Susan Sontag, in the current New Yorker, dated September 24 and with a black cover commemorating the WTC disaster, has published a piece in which she attacks U.S. leaders and commentators and military personnel. The military personnel are cowards, she says. Our leaders and the media spout "self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions" she says. The World Trade Center attackers, on the other hand, she says "were not cowards" and she strongly implies they were courageous. So for all of you Sontag lovers, just be aware of who you're really dealing with.
Rating: 
Summary: A cancer on the human species
Review: No matter how many essays and books Ms. Sontag writes that have quality, they are the sheep's clothing of a genuine cancer.
Rating:
Summary: A cancer on the human species
Review: No matter how many essays and books Ms. Sontag writes that have quality, they are the sheep's clothing of a genuine cancer. She is brilliant at inserting her political agenda into her writings, and that agenda is anti-west and very destructive. Her strategies are not always easy to detect, but very effective.
Rating:
Summary: propoganda
Review: Susan Sontag is a brilliant propagandist. Propaganda is her forté. With that in mind, and also keeping in mind that she's an anti-white racist, one can read her writings and appreciate the brilliance of the "bait" - what she uses to lure us into her web.
|
