|
August 3, Evening Part Two
|
22:13
|
APPLAUSE
|
Audience |
|
August 3, Evening Part Two
|
24:47
|
APPLAUSE
|
Audience |
|
August 3, Evening Part Two
|
55:00
|
LAUGHTER
|
Audience |
|
August 3, Evening Part Two
|
56:39
|
APPLAUSE
|
Audience |
|
August 3, Evening Part Two
|
1:01:04
|
LAUGHTER
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part One
|
2:34
|
APPLAUSE
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part One
|
11:45
|
LAUGHTER
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part One
|
15:26
|
LAUGHTER
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part One
|
15:57
|
LAUGHTER
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
0:00
|
LAUGHTER
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
0:40
|
Why is it it varies from book to book and from reader to reader. But I do think that there are very many people today who simply can't read Sinclair Lewis. They just find him intolerably stupid.
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
1:03
|
LAUGHTER
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
1:26
|
LAUGHTER
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
4:31
|
LAUGHTER
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
5:46
|
INAUDIBLE come down to Earth. I dare ask a question. A very distinguished professor emeritus of Harvard has said that, "William Faulkner writes for morons," unquote. May we have some expert comment on that?
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
6:05
|
LAUGHTER
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
6:16
|
LAUGHTER
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
6:18
|
CLAPPING
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
6:41
|
LAUGHTER
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
6:46
|
INAUDIBLE
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
7:27
|
LAUGHTER
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
18:22
|
CHUCKLING
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
22:20
|
CHUCKLING
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
23:48
|
CHUCKLING
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
25:59
|
CHUCKLING
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
27:53
|
CHUCKLING
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
27:54
|
APPLAUSE
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
28:22
|
Seems to me that the most-- the very generalized discussion, which brought down INAUDIBLE , it was Ellison who said that the novel is a form of communication. And going from that, this question is directed to Mr. O'Connor, who has confused me considerably. I feel every time I stand up, there's a great chasm opening. And into this chasm disappear too many of my heroes.
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
28:50
|
CHUCKLING
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
28:52
|
Mr. O'Connor, spoke INAUDIBLE of the novel of 1970-- '50 as emphasize middle-class values. And I think I got a pattern in my mind. This has been carried on.
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
29:07
|
In the '30s, we had the proletariat semi-political novels of Dos Passos and Steinbeck in dubious battle, which communicated the values of proletariat. And since the war, it seems to me we have a great many novelists who were in the war who are trying to communicate now the great uncertainty of the orgy of violence without reason that they were engulfed in. And I wonder if, Mr. O'Connor, do you think this is a valid thing for novels to communicate?
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
29:42
|
I know it's subjective. And is very personal to an individual. The novel has certainly become that, as you pointed out last night.
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
29:52
|
Yet isn't this all part of a pattern of communication, starting with the novel forebearers?
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Three
|
30:01
|
Mr. O'Connor?
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Four
|
0:08
|
Well, I was thinking particularly of the novel since the war. The novel that you seem to think has become so subjective-- too subjective, too much INAUDIBLE.
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Four
|
1:06
|
I don't hold with that, but he says the bourgeois comes home to his wife, and his wife says, "Faulkner SPEAKING FRENCH ." And the businessman says, "oui, Faulkner SPEAKING FRENCH ." But he's never read Faulkner. Or if he tried to read Faulkner he's always stopped in the middle because it was too difficult. And INAUDIBLE ." But he's never read Faulkner. Or if he tried to read Faulkner he's always stopped in the middle because it was too difficult. And INAUDIBLE is arguing that this is intellectual suicide. It is the suicide of the bourgeoisie. And I think INAUDIBLE himself, and a number of young writers in England, are trying to get away from that. They're trying to get towards a new objectivity.
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Four
|
2:07
|
Yes?
|
Audience |
|
August 4, Afternoon Part Four
|
2:36
|
Is the writer's obligation to interpret his society with a negative capability or to repair that society, as someone in here said today?
|
Audience |