--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Patrick King
<abrasax93@...> wrote:
>
> 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 did not dismiss academics (actually, I am one). I said that
they don't have any idea of how a good book gets written...
do you know of any that know or claim to know that? I did not
say that academics (or others) cannot produce interesting
analyses of literary works. They can. When the analysis is
good, I enjoy it, even though I may disagree. A tale well
spun is always worth reading, even if it is a tale about a
tale.
>I'm guessing you're of the
> good-books-by-accident school of thought.
No. I don't think good books happen by accident, though some
are considered good (or bad) by hasty consideration, fashion,
favors owed, etc., which are accidents of a sort. Some books
even become best-sellers by accident, though in these days of
manufacturing the consumer, that happens less often.
>If that's
> the case, though, how can Ruth Rendell and
Frederick
> Forsyth be so consistently good?
I don't think those guys are very good. Good, yes, but not
very good. Probably what you mean is that they're pros, that
they know how to write. With that, I agree.
>Different strokes for
> different folks, Jacques. You may be right for
you,
> but you're not universally correct. Believe me
on
> this!
Alas, I know...
Best,
MrT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Dec 2006 EST