In Longinus' On the Sublime, he suggests that there's an importance in the role of the listener to achieve sublimity. He asserts that "it is our nature to be elevated and exalted by true sublimity" (Longinus, 350) and that that is why we must "ask ourselves whether any particular example does not give a show of grandeur" (Longinus, 349) to assure our senses, which are said to be innate, that the text in question is not "vain and hollow" upon dissection.
Bakhtin's assertions coincide with Longinus' in that the listener's role is participatory: "the fact is that when the listener perceives and understands the meaning (the language meaning) of speech, he simultaneously takes an active, responsive attitude toward it" and that the process of considering whether or not he/she finds the text effective and agreeable is adopted "for the entire duration of the process of listening and understanding, from the very beginning" (Bakhtin, 68).
Bakhtin states, though, that this process and "the degree of this activity varies extremely," and that the "the listener becomes the speaker." As such, it can be interpreted that both authors suggest that the listener's role must be an active one if a work is to achieve true sublimity.
2 comments:
But doesn't Bakhtin claim that all readers take on an active role? Regardless of whether or not they want to? He states that each reader comes to an agreement or disagreement with the text, and that's his active response. To me, it seems as if he says every reader is somehow contracted to this active role when reading. So, using what you said, wouldn't all readers reach sublimity if all they need is an active role? And if so, doesn't this "cheapen" speech? I feel that speech should be profound enough....or maybe sublimity profound enough, so that not everyone can reach it right away. Shouldn't the relationship between listener and writer be a bit more complex, so that an understanding of higher ideas and more intelligence is needed to reach sublimity? If not, then why study language at all, unless we're just studying how various individuals reach sublimity?
I like the idea of "the sublime." I feel like I have definitely read texts that left me in awe and perhaps tore everything up "like a whirlwind" (Longinus 347). However, I had not given much thought to my role as a reader. Even as I read Longinus, I thought of the role of the reader as being the recipient of the sublime, not necessarily an actor in its success, but it only makes sense that the reader/listener must take an active role. This is supported by Bakhtin when he expresses that when "the listener perceives and understands the meaning (the language meaning) of speech, he simultaneously takes an active, responsive attitude toward it" (Bakhtin 68). In responding to Marianna earlier, I came to understand the importance of the reader/listener's understanding of the speaker's message. Only when the reader/listener can comprehend the message and magnitude, can the sublime be reached. Let's pretend that Aristotle achieves the sublime in one of his pieces. If a five year old were to read that piece, the sublime would be lost on the child. What I have learned is that the sublime requires an active and understanding reader/listener.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.