For me, there was a lot of drama concerning Martin Heidegger and his affiliation with the Nazi Party in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, so I downloaded his interview with Der Spiegel Magazine taken in 1966 to be published posthumously, according to Heidegger’s agreement to talk about the subject for the first and last time. I thought his explanations appeared plausible and ethical, and mentioned it to Dr. Wexler, who reacted somewhat incredulously by recommending to me to read one of his books--the title of which escapes me--the implication that everything was not exactly kosher with Heidegger. His discourse on “Language” was challenging for me. Jean-Paul Sartre was more comprehensible and his past was commendable as part of the French Resistance during WWII. Reading Wolfgang Iser, at least, the first half of his “Interaction Between Text and Reader” was clearer to me; however, I found the last few pages to be esoteric and challenging as I did Roland Barthes, "Death of the Author." A common threads that I got from all the reading was the important trust the reader must have for the author and vice versa. Also, it is ultimately the reader who perceives the text. However, what reader, contemporary or posterity?
I spent the weekend rereading Iser, Barthes, Freud, and Lacan, and did some research on Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Purloined Letter,” and Jacques Lacan’s seminar from 1955 on the subject, about which I wrote the first draft and will publish it tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment