Subtext?

OK, I really do apparently speak an entirely different language.

Which confirms me in the belief that I don't belojng here.

I didn't see Nutty try and change your mind about analysis, Deb, but I'll reread to doublecheck.

I saw her defend her POV, and explain her emotional reaction to yours.

Admittedly it is a fine line, but what author's work were we discussing here? My skim of the discussion was not a dissection of a work offered up for beta, but a meta discussion of HOW we should or should not discuss.

Yvonne Navarro's rant in a blog is the initial discussion point, right? It started off about reviews on Amazon and then went on to reviews more generally. What was seen as useful or not, and repeated iterations of different takes on that, with acompanying hardening feelings.

It's possible I misunderstood, but I don't particularly care for being told I'm being arrogant by having a preference for what I find useful in discussing writing either as a writer or a reader. And that is the impression I got from what I read.

I guess I don't really understand what analysis is. When I get feedback, isn't that analysis? Nutty or Jessica or ita, can you give me a simple explanation of what analysis is?

Thank you, deb, I was thinking that's where you working from, ie, a one-on-one connection with the creator, so as to avoid any guesswork.

Susan, that reminds me of a thought. Is "cock" a Britishism and "dick" an Americanism?

(oh, the questions I never thought I'd ask)

And, though Deb didn't set out to speak for me, she actually does pretty well.

Hmm, I dunno. It wouldn't surprise me, since "dick" seems like the default American term. I like "cock" better, though. Just has a nicer sound to it.

t somewhere in Alabama, a Baptist grandmother is spinning in her grave

I don't particularly care for being told I'm being arrogant by having a preference for what I find useful in discussing writing either as a writer or a reader.

Ro, the "arrogant" was applying to those supposed educators who present my-way-or-the-highway analysis. Nutty felt that all analysis was being tarred that way, not just the arrogant analysis.

No one called Deb arrogant, as far as my reread showed, and no one called non-litcritters in general arrogant either.

Okay, I'm glad to read that, anyway.

Deb, as one of the analysis-blatherers, I feel horrified and ashamed that you feel you don't belong either in Literary or here.

One of the very clear things that came out of the long, long discussion in Literary was that your feelings on litcrit are far from the minority, that there are a lot of Buffistas who are smart, bookish, and passionate, but who are mightily turned off by analysis; the size of that portion of the Buffista population seemed to be a big part of the push to create a separate book club thread for litcrit, and certainly was for me a big part of why I lobbied for a separate thread and voted "yes" for it. You weren't the minority, Literary in its old incarnation was serving your needs and those of plenty of others just fine, and the litcritters responded by creating a separate thread with a separate function, specifically in order not to bully anyone out of their original home.

And AFAICT from skimming both threads, Literary has gone back to being what it started as, a smart, witty, intellectually charged cocktail party with a dozen different conversations swirling around simultaneously and bright people squeeing over their new loves and sighing over old loves. Analysis has stopped bullying anyone else and confined itself to the book club thread; the people who want and need that can go there, the people who have the big brains and the big book love but who are repelled by analysis are at ease in Literary, and a handful of folks shuttle back and forth between the two and adjust their tone appropriately in each thread. There's no bullying, and there's no reason for anyone to feel uncomfortable or defensive about being there.