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.

Jesus. This is like being sucked into some horror movie. I need to notg be here.

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

Read again. I called me arrogant, in explaining one of the reasons why I hink I react to academic litcrit the way I do. I called the teachers I'd been saddled with arrogant, because they were. Nutty doesn't like the word arrogant, and said so. I pointed out that I don't speak the language she wants me to use in prettying up the sensibilities involved, and I would let her substitute. The problem is, that leaves me with no conversational outlet at all. So I left. If the only way for me to participate in any discussion is to walk barefoot over hot coals, it isn't worth it to me. And that's a pity, because I think I have some worth in this thread, if I have worth anywhere. But I reallyo trulyo do not need this.

I would have no objection to Nutty or anyone else trying to change my opinion. That's why I asked Jess if she had links to something analytical that wouldn't squash all my garage sale right-brain connections. She knew exactly what I was talking about, and said so.

But I find I can't contribute if I'm asked to do so in a language I don't speak.

Allyson, what your beta readers give you is feedback, pure and simple. What you choose to do with that feedback is analysis. Which, since I am a huge fan of feedback, really ought to show that I don't oppose analysis. I just dislike it intensely when people who aren't the creators are doing it.

I have to go. This is insane.

I called me arrogant,

Well, I was kinda not counting you, since I didn't think Ro was objecting to you calling yourself something.

No one else called you arrogant, is what I should have said.

Allyson, feedback isn't necessarily analysis. A lot of what I give is emotional reaction, which as today illustrates, is different from intellectual reaction. The opinions I share with another writer are how I reacted emotionally to what s/he wrote, and simple line-editing bits. It's one reason I don't ever feel qualified to crit someone else's content. Exceptions are if I see a section would work better in another spot, or a timeline may need adjusting. But the elements a writer writes about? All their business. It works for me, or it doesn't. I can only explain how I feel about it.

I can only explain how I feel about it.

Which doesn't preclude it being analysis.

I think the feedback I gave Allyson on the second essay I wrote counted as analysis, but it was me trying to extrapolate my POV.

Now, she's more than welcome to go mano a mano with me, but in the end there's something irrefutable I have to offer -- I'm not her. What you mean when you write/paint/dance/sing is important, but the minute it travels beyond your space, and you care about the responses, the not-you is also important.

Mine isn't the one true answer, but/because there's only so much that any one person can see.

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.

It reads to me like the dispute here is not about one having a preference, but rather more about what one thinks others should do or not do. It seems to me if you find analysis useful or enjoyable or not, you can seek it out or do it or not, without hurting anyone who feels differently.

I mean, right?