--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Patrick King
<abrasax93@...> wrote:
>
> So, Jacques, are you saying that readers who
analyze
> plots are kidding themselves; they're not
really
> analyzing the plot? Oscar Wilde said "Books
are
> well-written or poorly written," in defense
of
> so-called "immoral books." Are you denying that a
book
> can be poorly written and that someone may notice
the
> fact? Are you arguing that all books hold the
same
> value? One kills time working on the stock exchange
or
> for world peace just as well as reading a book.
Some
> people read a book, notice story twists and
language
> usage, apply it to their own ideas and write
other
> books. I think that's the general academic opinion
of
> how good books come to be written.
>
I don't think academics have the foggiest idea of how good
books come to be written. Neither do writers, in my
experience. As to value, I don't think all books are equally
good; in fact, most books suck. I was, however, saying that
while reading a book, whatever theories you may have about
books and writing have to be put on hold. Otherwise you're
not reading but studying for a test.
Everybody who has done it knows how hard it is to read a book
(or watch a film) solely in order to review it. It's not
enjoyable because there is interference. The memories of it
are memories of one thinking conceptually, rather than
memories of the book itself.
All of that said, there can be intelligent analysis of books
and film, of course. If the analysis is good enough, it can
be read as a sort of narrative in itself, even if one hasn't
read the book or books in question (or seen the film). There
was a music critic and composer called Virgil Thomson who was
so good at writing reviews of concerts that the reviews were
often better than the concerts.
Best,
MrT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 14 Dec 2006 EST