RARA-AVIS: Re: Archer segue to Huston

From: Dave Zeltserman ( dz@hardluckstories.com)
Date: 21 Aug 2007


Joy, that's your prerogative here to take part or ignore those types of discussions, 'cause I can tell you there are going to be a lot of them here. You should've seen the one where we had recently on Altman's Long Goodbye. People here like to critically discuss what they like and dislike about certain works, and that's one of the reasons I enjoy being a member of this group. And I guarantee you people are going to be critically discussing works that you might love. It's going to happen. About taste in books being subjective-- of course, but there are still elements--such as style and prose, that can be discussed and analyzed.

--Dave

--- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "joyrose517" <eprn17@...> wrote:
>
> Dave, I'm sure many people in this group would welcome an analysis
of
> what is wrong with Ross MacDonald's writing, but I am not among
them.
> I
> am interested in learning about writers whose work is new to me
> (which
> is how I found out about Ross MacDonald), and when I finish a
novel I
> enjoy reading a critical analysis of the work in the sense of
> arriving
> at the meaning underlying the writing. If I enjoy the work of a
> writer,
> and someone else does not, I don't see the value in hearing why
the
> other person doesn't like it. Analyze for meaning, yes; analyze
for
> taste, no.If I like blue and miker likes green, where is the value
in
> having him point out to me that blue is not really as good as I
think
> it is? Art has meaning, but our individual tastes ultimately
prevail
> in what we choose to value.
>
> --- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Zeltserman" <dz@> wrote:
> >
> > Joy, I've been a member of RARA AVIS for a long time now, as has
> > miker, and I can tell you that is not his style. But I can also
> tell
> > you that he's someone who enjoys critically analyzing and
> discussing
> > writing.
> >
> > --Dave Zeltserman
> >
> >
> > > I think you were more interested in showing me where I was
wrong
> > than
> > > in analyzing the book.
> > >
> >
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 21 Aug 2007 EDT