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."

Eh, I've said my piece. I think that's bullshit; I do think people dislike being lectured about what they ought to enjoy, because someone has designated it as "great".

Listen up, please: I am now fifty years old. I've been reading anything that appealed to me since I was five, and writing - plot, character and structure - since I was fourteen. Trust me, thinking about it doesn't make my head hurt. What makes my head hurt is people telling me that I must love something because otherwise I'm a fool.

So, just repeating, I'm not a fool. And I still don't want you, or anyone else, fucking with the mechanism of what makes me happy by insisting I dissect every single fucking word down to its molecular level, under the guise of intellectualism. If that's what makes you happy, go for it. I'll stand at your back and defend to the death your right to read that way, whether I understand why you'd want to or not.

But I want the same respect I offer. And when I'm accused of stupidity or anti-intellectualism because I do not give a single flipping hell about structure or canon? The line of disrespect has been severely crossed.

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.

I was a part of this discussion from the beginning and I didn't take anyone's post as wanting to squash the discussion on crit or great lit or what the hell ever.

Ya know what makes me angry and what I resent? That just because the conversation wasn't going in the way you might have wnted it go, you felt the need to blurt as how some of us were wrong and then take a swipe at Susan. That's how it felt to me.

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 formulaic, and that anyone who writes it is a hack?

No, I understand and respect your point. For my part, however, it is well documented.

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?

Of course not. I'm complaining about the fetishization of Elizabeth Bennett such that it obliterates any other consideration of the book. Shaw bitched about what he called "Bardolotry." I'm not talking about Elizabeth Bennett being vivid as a character - I'm talking about people who see themselves in her. That identify so strongly with her that the book is personal totem rather than something that can even be discussed as fiction.

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.

Hmm. For myself I don't see why the discussion here can't follow parallel tracks, with those who are so inclined talking about what they got out of The Great Gatsby or Ulysses or whatever, while others say they've never read it or tried and couldn't get past the first chapter for whatever reason, while still others talk about the new Crusie. I may have come across as trying to squash discussions when I never meant to just because this is such a hot-button issue for me that I can neither resist the urge to add my $0.02 nor do so calmly. And, now that I think about it, you're probably feeling just like I always feel when Natter is (to me) just starting to get really interesting, and someone says, "Oh no, not politics again," and the subject changes before I can catch up and contribute. So I'll keep that in mind and try to moderate my comments on this topic, though I can't promise not to backslide--I've been trying to control my temper all my life, and have had to accept I'll never be 100% there.

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

Thank you. And I apologize for breaking out the Cheney language at you.

Well, it is possible to read something on multiple levels...I did both with Jane Eyre at different times in my life.

There is also the squashing aspect; I'm also not a Harry Potter reader, and I certainly made no attempt to squash the conversation or move it away. This is what people are reading; this is what the thread title is all about. Just because I can't get into Harry Potter, I'd be well beyond the line if I tried squashing the conversation. I skipped the HP posts, and came in when there was something I wanted to talk about.

And when I talk about not getting canon, I can only repeat what I've had to say far too many times already: it is neither a dis nor an attempt to squash. I don't get it; it's questioning. Nutty answered a large chunk of my "what do people get out of it" question with her Beauty and the Beast experience.

Shit. I should go chill, and work. I should also shut up. It feels obvious that I'm not being clear at all.

I'm not talking about Elizabeth Bennett being vivid as a character - I'm talking about people who see themselves in her. That identify so strongly with her that the book is personal totem rather than something that can even be discussed as fiction.

Heh. I wish I saw myself in Elizabeth Bennet. Hair-trigger temper on certain topics aside, I'm much more Anne Elliott or Elinor Dashwood.

OK....how many times would anyone here attempt a difficult book before they admit they are getting nowhere fast? I used to give up much more easily, but lately my Bayliss-nature takes over and I want to stick it through.

I did both with Jane Eyre at different times in my life.

Sometimes I am a little sorry that I did not read JE at a younger age, because I suspect I would have been a lot kinder to the novel if I had. As it was, I read it at 26 and savaged it mercilessly. (Even while understanding why it was a useful addition to English classes everywhere.)

I just had no emotional connection with the novel at all, so I could see through it like it was wax paper. Then again, I saw through Hard Times like wax paper too, but I was still deeply touched when Laura went to her father and [spoiler] near the end of the novel.

I can't think of a novel that I did not read on the analytical level, in one way or another; but I can think of several that I did not read on an emotional level. Sometimes, this is perfectly fine, as the novel is best that way; sometimes, it's disastrous. Sometimes, I can find a balance, and like a book even if I don't respect it (this was true of The Count of Monte Cristo ); but the best books for me are ones that make me cry and then make me think wonderfully hard about the crying.

I'm theoretically intimidated by the idea that this thread is anti-intellectual. Considering how much of it goes over my head.

My cultural illiteracy aside, Hec, where was the quashing, again? I learn more about books I'm never going to read every time a good debate gets going. So I do pay attention. But I totally missed the quashing.