Well, Jacques, we're different types of people. I only enjoy
reading while I'm assessing the work I read. I don't find it
difficult at all. There's no 'test,' and I enjoy using my
mind this way. I'm not sure I could behave any other way. I
agree with you that most books suck, however. I do find it
funny that you started out calling me an elitist and now you
dismiss academics, who have actually taken the time to try to
comprehend in depth the work in which they're interests lie,
as not having the foggiest idea of how a good book comes to
be written. I'm guessing you're of the good-books-by-accident
school of thought. If that's the case, though, how can Ruth
Rendell and Frederick Forsyth be so consistently good?
Different strokes for different folks, Jacques. You may be
right for you, but you're not universally correct. Believe me
on this!
Patrick King
--- Jacques Debierue <
matrxtech@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- 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
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Dec 2006 EST