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.

"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."

Wow. This is pretty much the polar opposite of a few hippy teachers I had in middle and high school. "Tell me about your feeeeeeeeeeeelings." t shudder My reaction was always, "No. They're my feelings. They live in my head, and only go out visiting when I think they should, and frankly, they don't like your company."

They live in my head, and only go out visiting when I think they should, and frankly, they don't like your company."

Heh.

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.

The disconnect here is that your working definition of "deconstruction" seems to include "pisses me off." So any response I might have that views deconstruction through a neutral lens isn't going to be talking about the same thing.

But I do find analysis useful, and it is my thing, and it's hard to see someone call it "arrogant" without speaking up.

My experiences with my teachers in my life on this subject have, without exception, been excruciating encounters based in mutual arrogance. On their side, the "I am paid to do this! You will all listen to me because you are ignorant and stupid and cannot be trusted to have your own reactions" arrogance. On mine, the "who died and made you the Arbiter of All Works of Fiction" arrogance.

I can pretty up the language, I suppose, but it won't change the original experience any. And since we're agreed that teachers who do that are the wrong people to have a whiphand over students, will prettying up the language make anyone happier?

I would like to make sure that, in disagreement, participants give each other's opinions merit and treat each other kindly

This is an assumption I don't follow. Allyson posted a link to Yvonne Navarro, ranting about bad press. I read it, agreed with damned near all of what Allyson objected to about it, and added a caveat. That particular caveat, since this is my life and livelihood we're talking about, is very much a basis, a foundation, of what I need. We discussed it.

You asked me if I felt a certain way. I said yes, I do: I feel that anyone on the planet can write about their take on a work of fiction, but that publishing said review obliges the reviewer to take some responsibility for the results of their action. You also asked if I thought that only people who could write fiction should be allowed to deconstruct it, and I said yes, however illogical that opinion may sound, I do believe that, if we're talking about that captive audience, and doing it for a living. I love music, but I don't get rap - does loving jazz somehow make me an authority on other forms? I'd have to say no, it doesn't.

We agreed that review and analysis were two different things.

So I don't know what you mean by disagreement, and short of phrasing things in language that is completely surreal to me, I don't know how to answer you in a way you'd find acceptable. I gave honest answers. Not sure where the problem is, here.