I usually look at it as "justify" or "explain" rather than "prove."

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.

You seem to think that all literary analysis done by people who don't write fiction is bad, or possibly that all people who write literary analysis but not fiction are arrogant. And, as someone with a fairly good analytical brain who nevertheless does not write fiction (don't have stories in my head, never have), that does raise my hackles a bit.

I also had a few who were of the "My view is right, yours is wrong" school, and I got terrible grades in those classes, because, first, I couldn't restrain myself from raising my hand with "But couldn't it also be seen as...?" questions, even after it was abundantly clear that the teacher hated it, because I really have a total inability to not give my point of view in academic discussions, and also because I'd hand in papers with my own interpretations, because I considered it both lazy and dishonest to hand in a paper with what I knew the professor wanted to see when it wasn't what I wanted to write.

Hil just completely described my 11th grade Honors English class. Hated it. Hated that I hated it. I don't think I got terrible grades, but I got Bs when I'd never had anything less than an A. It had been my favorite subject, until Ms. W. She ruined so many books for me. She ruined reading for me, for a (very short) time. And she was wrong.

So how on earth can anyone ask someone to "prove" a viewpoint about something that's purely the result of creativity?

Yes. This. I like how Hil puts it--justify--here's why I see what I see. It's what I enjoyed about our Buffy and Angel discussions. There were almost as many viewpoints as there are Buffistas. I liked the discussion on that level--"here's what I saw," and "Oh, really, here's what I saw." I loved that people could come to the table and leave us 50 different views of the same episode. That's the sort of analysis I really grove on. My English analysis class? Not so much.

I usually look at it as "justify" or "explain" rather than "prove."

Much better word choices, Hil. Thanks. It's all about being able to answer the question, "Why do you think that?"

If it's a good teacher, then the result is to test and explore a viewpoint, rather than prove. I liked when great teachers shared insights and prodded discussion which moved me out of my comfort zone. I mean, I already knew what I thought and felt, being exposed to others' ideas could be illuminating and exciting and challenging in the best kind of way. However, I had way too many teachers of the kind Deb and Hil are describing, who seemed bent on destroying any insight rather than fostering it.

I usually look at it as "justify" or "explain" rather than "prove."

Oh, lord, we're right back to why I left Literary in the first place. Or, at least, not entirely; I'm fine with "explain" as a concept, but "justify"? No and no and no.

I'm hugely in the minority, but I'm sticking to it. My reaction to language, to paint, to sculpture, to dance, to music, to the results of any individual creative endeavour, are purely in the gut. I do not feel remotely obliged to justify my gut reaction to anyone.

If I'm writing a review, or a blurb for another writer's work? That's something I have been asked to do, have agreed to do, and, once having accepted the onus, am therefore formally obliged to justify or explain.

If the person whose work I'm reviewing asks for an explanation, I feel I owe them that, because I chose to give the review in the first place. But mostly, they're pretty damned happy with "this one got me right where I live - the emotions, to me, are transparently honest, the language is beautiful, the characters are so alive that I can hear them breathing."

Which is NOT analysis, under my definition. It's purely visceral.

I'm fine with "explain" as a concept, but "justify"? No and no and no.

I can see where the words "justify" and "prove" get your back up. These words have connotations of "you're wrong" in them.

And, as someone with a fairly good analytical brain who nevertheless does not write fiction (don't have stories in my head, never have), that does raise my hackles a bit.

Jess, but don't you have the creative skill involved in film editing? That, for me, is a form of creativity (and what's more, it's one I don't possess, so I can stare at it and go, wow, damn, that's so cool). I'd read your take on why movies work or don't work; hell, in fact, I have read them. Sometimes I disagreed, mostly I found myself nodding. But this is something where you could get up in front of a class and talk about it, with the solid cred of being someone who can do it.

But I don't remember reading anything of yours that read to me as literary deconstruction. That doesn't seem to be your thing at all, which is good in my world. Because frankly, I've never come across deconstruction by anyone that didn't piss me off.

He's being paid to do that, Nutty.

Well, he shouldn't be paid! I'm sorry you've had crappy experiences in English class.

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?

Um? I had no idea you've been bullied out of Literary. I participate in Literary all the time, and although I can remember a multivariate argument of late, I don't remember all the opinions going in one direction in the slightest. There were a number of rebukes, but they seemed handed out on all sides (and by all sides), and especially to the speakers of cruel remarks.

But here, except for a couple of your friends, you seem to be tarring all analysis with a single, unkind brush. Saying "It's not my thing" or "I don't find it useful" is fine by me; I'm not trying to force you to like analysis. But I do find analysis useful, and it is my thing, and it's hard to see someone call it "arrogant" without speaking up.

So, (1) No, it's not okay for anyone to bully anyone else out of a thread, least of all on basis of disagreement; and (2) I would like to make sure that, in disagreement, participants give each other's opinions merit and treat each other kindly.

I can see where the words "justify" and "prove" get your back up. These words have connotations of "you're wrong" in them.

Yes, exactly. "Tell me why you feel that way" would have been good, but "feel" is not a word that was ever encouraged. Which, if course, is yet another reason I still have such a bad taste in my mouth over it. It was always "tell me why you think that."

I don't think that, damnit, I feel that, and not everything on this earth can be written down as a graph, teacher person, and go deal with it.