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.

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." 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."

Man, I loves me some Hil. We're polar opposites, and I adore you.

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.

Alas, that looks to be true. But that's not a slam at you, or anyone else; it's merely a desire for the universe to be willing to acknowledge that I, at least, here really can't cope with deconstruction, because definitionally, it seems to walk all over my weirdass way of absorbing.

Is there anything out there you'd want me to see in the way of deconstruction that doesn't do that? Link me, and I'll go look, Jess. I promise.

Dude, I met Yvonne Navarro. Briefly, at that Buffy event in Chandler(Ms. Navarro lives in Sierra Vista, which, in my view accounts for some of the whining. bad-dum-pum) But I thought she needed to get over herself something chronic.

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?

Yes, please. It will make me happier. Maybe the word "arrogant" is not distressing to you, but it's distressing to me. I never use it except in insulting context.

Jessica speaks for me when she says:

The disconnect here is that your working definition of "deconstruction" seems to include "pisses me off."

It's very hard to carry on a conversation when two people's definitions of a word aren't the same; and I think most people you poll would not automatically define deconstruction as something that pisses them off. (Moreover, deconstruction is not the be-all of analysis, but that's a whole different ball of wax.) So, I feel the need to dispute your definition of words like this, or else I feel like my viewpoint will be totally written out of the discussion.

It's like how lawyers frame a debate in order to showcase only their own viewpoint? It's something that works for lawyers, but it's not very conversational, and it doesn't allow for difference and creative discussion without a whole lot of confusion and backtracking. For the sake of conversation, and the valuing of everybody's viewpoint, it's much more profitable if we use terms without loading upfront them with extremely personal meanings.

It's very hard to carry on a conversation when two people's definitions of a word aren't the same; and I think most people you poll would not automatically define deconstruction as something that pisses them off. (Moreover, deconstruction is not the be-all of analysis, but that's a whole different ball of wax.) So, I feel the need to dispute your definition of words like this, or else I feel like my viewpoint will be totally written out of the discussion.

Well - I wasn't particularly trying to carry on a conversation. I'd rather thought I was done an hour ago, having responded to an outside link. Apparently not.

But since the only word that comes to mind for the attitude I've personally experienced is "arrogant", and since I don't feel I've any earthly right to insert emotional reactions to things I haven't experienced, I will let you choose whatever word you find appropriate, and I'll do what I was hoping to do when I backed out of Literary a few months back at Warp Nine, which is not have this discussion at all.

Because, to clarify? I generally am not invested enough in this kind of discussion to do more than shrug. But because this pings so many hot buttons, and because it is my livelihood I'm talking about?

I shall back gracefully out of yet another thread, and leave it to whatever it wants to be.

Is there anything out there you'd want me to see in the way of deconstruction that doesn't do that?

With respect, good god no. I mean, first, there's the part where all of my hard-core litcrit was done in college, and so it's all in a box in my parents' attic somewhere. But also I can't imagine inflicting something as thoroughly left-brained as literary deconstruction on someone as thoroughly right-brained as you are. It would be pointless and cruel for everyone involved.

Deb, insent. Allyson, Sarah Vowell being great doesn't mean Allyson sucks. I have to tell myself the same thing about a million writers, though.

I wasn't particularly trying to carry on a conversation.

You weren't?? So, what were we doing here, talking in public? Is is that you just don't think I'm worth conversing with, or you didn't think I had a right to butt in?

I'm sorry you're walking away from this discussion, because I think there are questions of communication that bear on the writer-reader connection we might want to talk about. The use of vocabulary -- and the mutual understanding of that vocabulary -- is key to the enterprise of communication.

Talking, writing, posting on the internet -- all forms of communication, no? All forms of reaching out to another person and trying to colonize their brains.