I can damn well set my watch by when you're going to bristle about the Romance genre being dismissed.

And I can set mine by when you're going to genially accuse the thread of anti-intellectual reverse-snobbery. So at least we're all synched up.

To play the Devil's advocate here (with the understanding that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with hayden or the idea that one must read "great books" one hates)...

I learn more, and more deeply, from a rancorous conversation in which I must to force myself to remain engaged than from a conversation between myself and someone with whom I agree and with whom conversation blooms easily.

As much as I love the Sonnets, and as much as I think I "get" them with relative ease, forcing myself to the end of Moby-Dick and discovering I loved it was more rewarding.

Now, I'm the queen of not doing things that I don't like to do, which is why my floor so desperately needs a vacuuming, so I'm not saying I do this all the time and I'm not saying everyone else should either--read what you want, and it's none of my beeswax what that happens to be. I'm just saying there's sometimes a reason to read unenjoyable texts full of hateful characters.

Some of us got fed lit like broccoli. "You'll thank me later...it's good for you."I still hate broccoli and a lot of those books. But some, I hung in with and was glad.

Hec, I think this is unfair.

You know I wouldn't have brought it up except my fucking heart sinks every time people do the tap-dance of "Reading is fun. Thinking about it makes my head hurt." Which is fine, except when people defensively take a crap on any discussion that veers from that.

We start having an interesting discussion about canon and how it can shape your reading and suddenly seven people feel compelled to note how they dislike critical reading, theory, and they're still pissed at their English professor. It's like the very existence of a thoughtful discussion on literature is a purposefully aimed slight directed right at them.

And Susan's response is a perfect example of that.

I do recall thorough, exciting discussion of a number of books, however, some of which are ambitious in nature. I really liked the talk we all had a year or two back about His Dark Materials, when Angus got himself into COMM with "Anvils out the ass!" Fact was, a large percentage of us had read it and had strong emotions about it, so talk ensued.

Two tellings things about this example: (1) "a year or two back" and (2) Angus' presence.

Hmm. What about a book club thread? Where we read stuff and talk about it- because if it's that most people are reading Harry Potter because it just came out-that's always going to exclude people like me who wait forever to buy a book.

I learn more, and more deeply, from a rancorous conversation in which I must to force myself to remain engaged than from a conversation between myself and someone with whom I agree and with whom conversation blooms easily.

I find this is sometimes true of literature. (*) I don't find it often true of conversation, however. David, if your snot-outburst above was an effort to stimulate the conversation, I'm going to be very angry with you.

If it's just you being completely wrong-headed, then we can civilly disagree. Civilly, I say!

* Sometimes, the "fighting" with the book makes me obsess on an irrelevant plot point of the novel, to the detriment of my paying attention to more important developments. Other times, when the dumbass schema of a book is laid out for me like a roadmap in advance, all that energy I would otherwise spend on the plot can be used to critique (nastily) the writer's choices in getting me from Point A to Point B.

Aye caramba, Susan. I can damn well set my watch by when you're going to bristle about the Romance genre being dismissed.

And why shouldn't I bristle? Dammit, I'm a highly intelligent person, and for the time being I'm focusing the best storytelling abilities I have on writing romances. Can you blame me for getting pissed off when people say a format I'm working hard to master and trying my best to create well-written, moving works within is inherently inferior, and that anyone who writes it is a hack?

This is a tough sentence to parse. I didn't say Jane Austen was unintellectual - though what discussion I've seen here hasn't gone much beyond strong identification with Elizabeth Bennett.

Well, to me the two things that make Austen such a brilliant writer, worthy of her classic status, are the sheer smooth beauty of her prose and the vividness of her characterization. Part of which involves readers strongly identifying with her protagonists. Are you saying that's an unworthy way to read a book?

But what about the people that get knocked off the canon? Sometimes it's "political",yeah? Cause there aren't as many female Great Writers as men.(as opposed to great writers, of which I bet it's even) That's about who decides, right?

David, if your snot-outburst above was an effort to stimulate the conversation, I'm going to be very angry with you.

Which one? The first blurt, or the snipe at Susan?

The first blurt I don't take back. You know what I'm angry about? People that don't want to contribute to the discussion wanted to squash it. That's what it felt like. That's what I resent.

As for the snipe at Susan - that was rude of me and I apologize.

What if we did have somewhere to discuss those works- or the things we think are great works. I do admit that not everyone having read them or not reading them around the same time was a fair point- though I sympathise with Hec and Hayden, in that I don't read a lot of the stuff in here.