Reception Theory and Les Liaisons Dangereuses (Dangerous Liaisons) :: Liaisons Dangereuses Dangerous Liaisons

Reception Theory and Les Liaisons Dangereuses (Dangerous Liaisons)   Of all the literary critical theories til now discussed, I find reception theory by far the closely intelligent and rewarding. After all, where does literature become literature, where does it happen so to speak, if not in the mind of the reader? Without the reader, literature is inky blobs on paper. This correlates to Berkeleys solipsistic parity of a tree falling in the woods. Without a listener does it operate a sound? Well, technically, it emanates vibrations, but exclusively an ear will image those vibrations as sound. Thus with literature. The mind of the reader, operating on the text with its dissimilar literary and extra-textual codes, makes it literature. In the case of Les Liaisons Dangereuses, reception theory is not only helpful, it is positively essential to any sort of literary discussion of the novel. Considerations of authorial intent are clearly to no avail, in that, due to the i nformal format, no such intent can be gleaned from the text. Try as we might to construct some sort of original meaning in the mind of the author, we find at last that the meanings we come up with stupefy been supplied by ourselves. Laclos is like the hand of the puppeteer we never see it, although we know that it is commanding the whole show. All we see are the ornate, 18th century marionettes as they dance through each dastardly deception, each dangerous liaison. level(p) more maddening than trying to find authorial intent in the pages of Les Liaisons Dangereuses is the (one would think) comparatively simple task of ascertaining the moods and motivations of the characters themselves. Since we know that the majority of the characters are correct to full-blown liars, writing one thing to one person and sooner another to another, who do we believe? When seeming to bear ones soul is righteous one more weapon in the arsenal, how are we supposed to gibe when actual soul-bearing i s taking place? Here, again, reception theory comes to our rescue. By looking at at our own literary and non-literary conventions, we begin to feel more surefooted about the proposition that Valmont truly is in love with the Presidente and that the Marquise really is in love with Valmont. After all, thats what makes it good, isnt it? Without having love rear its ugly motion at some point, the book would be a monotone, an unrewarding and deject look at people at once glamourous and depraved.