We may just have different definitions of analysis, period. Part of mine is rooted in personal arrogance

This may turn out to be true. I don't make distinctions between good analysis (correctly understanding my emotional state from something which does not describe it directly) and bad analysis (insert your favorite crackpot interpretation here) -- it's all analysis to me.

A critique is a reaction to a work designed to help the writer improve. A review is a reaction to a work designed to help the potential readers in deciding whether and why to read that work. Analysis is a reaction to a work designed to help readers in thinking about the work they've already read. If you go to #2 or #3, expecting to find #1, you'd definitely be disappointed.

I'm always a little wary of defining a thing by its quality (e.g. "All analysis is bad") because, well, it's as reductive as saying "All romance is bad", and we've had that discussion before; and because a definition based on a value judgement is necessarily going to be personal in nature, so the definition will vary from person to person. And that way lies confusion, as we've demonstrated today.

Analysis is a reaction to a work designed to help readers in thinking about the work they've already read.

Then we do agree on the definitions. I just never wanted any help in thinking about my take on what I've read. I have the deep-rooted mistrust of the opposing arrogance, there: why would their take be any more valid than mine? And since I was forced to sit in the chair, and listen to them talk, and at least half the time, I thought their take was absurd? There you have the roots of my adult dislike of analysis, which is what I think of as litcrit. Half a century, and never come across a reason to feel differently. Why would I need anyone to tell me how to think or feel about someone else's creativity?

I'll reiterate, one time for Elvis, that my dislike extends to fiction only. Science, history, medicine, whatever, bring it on. I will listen to anyone's opinion, and weigh it against what I already know. If it's something about which I know nothing, I'll listen to all of, it write down the suggested sources, and then go form my own opinion.

On the other hand, if it's something about which I personally know nothing, I'm not going to stand up in front of a class full of captive audience kids and tell them how to think. Brrrr. NOT my thing.

Um, um, speaking of criticism, can someone groom my monkey? Lubricate my social?

I've been having two solid days of self-doubt, made the mistake of reading some Sarah Vowell (dear god she's good), and want to crawl under my bed and die of shame for what I've written.

If there's a spare stroke, can someone pick it up off the floor and apply it to my ego?

why would their take be any more valid than mine? And since I was forced to sit in the chair, and listen to them talk, and at least half the time, I thought their take was absurd? There you have the roots of my adult dislike of analysis, which is what I think of as litcrit. Half a century, and never come across a reason to feel differently. Why would I need anyone to tell me how to think or feel about someone else's creativity?

LIGHTBULB! I've been reading this discussion with interest (just not anything to add), and I finally get your POV now, deb. This makes perfect sense to me.

I see analysis as a way to understand someone else's viewpoint. That doesn't negate my own opinion or make it any less valid. Rather, it opens up something I may not have thought of before. Assuming that they prove their argument with me.

Allyson, step away from the Vowell. It doesn't apply.

Yes, I agree - I think she writes beautifully. But what does that have to do with you? You write different things, different realities, from different places in the heart, and to a different end.

You're really not even writing about the same food groups. And what you're writing - your food group - you're doing in a spare, elegant prose, that has conscience as one of its propellants.

That kind of comparison exists only, and I do mean only, to drive you bonkers. If I start comparing myself to Michael Chabon...no, not even willing to go NEAR that.

Step away from the Vowell, and stop comparing. It simple doesn't apply.

I see analysis as a way to understand someone else's viewpoint.

And if that was the way it had ever been presented, I might not have had to restrain myself from standing up and telling the soi disant "expert" that his or her shit stank just like everyone else's.

But it wasn't. It wasn't "This is my viewpoint", it was "I am not a writer myself, I can't write three words of fiction in a row without plagarising, but hey, I have a degree and you're under age and by God you will sit in that chair and listen to me pull the wings off people who actually could do it, and then I will tell you how to think about it, and you can't leave! BWAHAHAHA!"

They can bite me, then and now. Feh.

But Deb, I think you're conflating two things, and I don't think that's a good idea. There is this:

Then we do agree on the definitions. I just never wanted any help in thinking about my take on what I've read.

and then there is this:

the opposing arrogance, there: why would their take be any more valid than mine?

The first part? Sure. You read your own way; you're not interested in the stuff of literary connections and references and all that. That's fine. But it's whether or not you find analysis useful to you is not the same as whether analysis is arrogant. Arrogant analysts definitely exist, and they're people to avoid; but calling all analysis arrogant is as reductive and dismissive as saying "all romance is bad".

I'm not asking you to read analysis, if it's not your thing; but I wish you wouldn't call it names in front of those of us who enjoy it.

And if that was the way it had ever been presented, I might not have had to restrain myself fropm standing up and telling the soi disant "expert" that his or her shit stank just like everyone else's. But it wasn't.

I can completely grok your POV if that's how things were presented to you. Completely. My back would have been up if someone had presented something in a "My way is the One True Way" mode.

Since I'm working on getting my teaching certificate in H.S. English/Theatre, it's nice to get a reminder on how to present literary analysis. I'm lucky that I had good teachers who were of the "This is my viewpoint. If you have another and can prove it, wonderful" school of litcrit.

Allyson, there are a couple of people here, and when I read their stuff for free, I feel like I am stealing. You are one.

Do you have a particular piece you want read, and for which you want feedback? I love to read you. You breathe life into your words--give them blood, and a heartbeat.

But it's whether or not you find analysis useful to you is not the same as whether analysis is arrogant. Arrogant analysts definitely exist, and they're people to avoid; but calling all analysis arrogant is as reductive and dismissive as saying "all romance is bad"

I don't think all analysis is bad. I'll listen to it from people who can actually do some of what it is they get paid to talk about. I spend a couple of hours a week on the phone to London with Roz Kaveney; she is an analysis queen, and we have lively conversations on it.

But she knows, when dealing with me, what my boundaries are, and she respects them. As a fourteen-year-old in a classroom, having my own gut-level take on Hamlet and having to listen to a little man waving his Oxbridge cred about like a handkerchief and insisting, for three straight months, that the only thing that mattered in the play was the homoerotic subtext?

He's being paid to do that, Nutty. And as a student - may I add, one with a brain, thank you, and one with opinions that are no less valid than his, despite the credentials - I had no right to stand up and tell him just how and why he was ruining the play for me. Believe me, I know. I tried it. Got kicked out of his class for it - he didn't want feedback on his opinions, he just wanted a captive audience, and he had one.

I'm not asking you to read analysis, if it's not your thing; but I wish you wouldn't call it names in front of those of us who enjoy it.

OK, now I'm confused, and rather edgy. I didn't start any of the conversations about it; my comments are in response to other comments. Are you saying that it's ok for the proponents of litcrit to effectively bully me out of Literary (ironic, in and of itself, now I think of it) because my opinion doesn't match theirs, but that expressing my own dislike of it is somehow not equally acceptable? And if that's not what you're saying, could you please clarify?