素人色情片

H茅ctor Hoyos on "How I Think about Literature"

H茅ctor Hoyos on "How I Think about Literature"
Date
Thu March 3rd 2011, 12:00am
Location
Pigott Hall (Building 260)

SPEAKER(S): H茅ctor Hoyos

Thursday, March 3, 2011

H茅ctor Hoyos 鈥 How I Think About Literature
"How to Read Books You Have Not Already Spoken About"

鈥淗ow do I think about literature?  Or rather, what do I think about it?鈥  Professor H茅ctor Hoyos began the third talk in the occasional series 鈥淗ow I Think About Literature鈥 by trading the word 鈥渉ow鈥 for 鈥渨hat,鈥 following in the footsteps of Professor Russell Berman, who opened the discussion last September. Professor Hoyos defended this change, saying: 鈥淚 suppose the what may be more interesting than the how, for I think about literature in much the same way I think about everything else these days, in between emails鈥︹  However, he was quick to point out he is no technophobe, and showed a youtube video that parodies commercials for ebook gadgets by praising the wonders of a 鈥渘ew鈥 technological advancement called 鈥淏ook.鈥  It is marvelous, has no cables, no batteries, doesn鈥檛 need to be plugged in or recharged, can be used anywhere, and for a nominal fee, an accessory called a 鈥渂ookmark鈥 can be used to facilitate finding one鈥檚 page.

The title of the talk, 鈥淗ow to Read Books You Have Not Already Spoken About,鈥 plays upon Pierre Bayard鈥檚 How to Talk About Books You Haven鈥檛 Read and alludes not only to how or what one reads, but how and what one doesn鈥檛 read.  These acts of non-reading, as Hoyos called them, constitute an immense part of what students and faculty of the DLCL do every day.  Yet, in this non-reading, there is much more than an un-opened book. Professor Hoyos argued that presently, literature has never been so situated, or entrenched, in context 鈥 it is virtually impossible to read a book for the first time.  He remarked that even the works we have not personally encountered are already part of our literary knowledge.  Non-reading has become a type of reading.    

An un-mediated approach to literature is therefore impossible, and yet the reader, critic, student, and professor, all play fundamental roles in the existence of literature.  Professor Hoyos noted his own approach to a life of reading:  鈥淚 do not as much think about literature as I do literature, as we all do in this Division, as we are doing right now.鈥  Literature, then, is not only the solitary and almost hermetic work of the scholar; it is in fact an activity in which we all knowingly and unknowingly participate.  鈥淭here are no private languages when we talk about literature 鈥搄argon is a different thing.  Talking about literature is a province within broader uses of language, a neighborhood within a big city,鈥 stated Hoyos.  Thus, in casting aside the illusory obstacle of seeing literature as something others do, he commented upon not only the various acts of reading, but later on the symbiotic relationship between reader and author, both doing and completing each other鈥檚 work, neither truly uttering the final word but rather actively and equally taking part in literature.

Therefore literature has taken on new non-traditional forms 鈥 and this is no euphemism for the supposed crisis in the humanities.  Professor Hoyos was adamant when he said that the book versus e-book debate is ill-founded; and although the traditional book has had a 鈥渓ock鈥 on literature, he noted that 鈥渓iterature cannot be contained by books or other contraptions.鈥

And indeed Professor Hoyos went even further, saying that merely thinking about literature becomes literature, or the introduction of something unknown and never before (not) read.  Drawing on his reading of Argentine writers C茅sar Aira and Copi, he claimed that every new act in literature is ephemeral, and underscored our own prolific role within this process. 鈥淲e have little use for criticism that does not assume itself as creation,鈥 he noted, characterizing this act of creation as  engaging every work as if it were 鈥渙n the brink of disappearance.鈥  Then, he continued, 鈥渨e must situate it.  For we owe it to the epochs and readers that made it meaningful, as we owe it to ourselves to change its position as we see fit.  We are not outside of literature, but are actors in an imminent space that has everything to lose.鈥

 - Alessandra Aquilanti, Department of French and Italian