So, Hec, assuming there is a canon, do you really think it can be made independent of social agenda? Or is it a mistake to even try? Cause some critics get really freaked by attempts to adjust it.

Well, that's their issue. Canon always changes and always reflects its time. And there are counter-canons, and sub-canons (gay literature, Western fiction, modern poetry.) It's always going to matter to somebody because what you assert as meaningful will often challenge what someobdy else thinks is important. It's not supposed to be resolved one way or the other - it's necessarily in tension and up for grabs. Else your culture is dead.

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.

Bullsheet. I can scroll back up and find the quotes if you like. It was absolutely no different than me bitching about cat talk and astrology. I had to learn scroll on or participate. The responses people had to the discussion were resentful and took the stance that very nature of the discussion was wankery.

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.

I don't say anybody's stupid, nor is that my opinion. I do still believe this thread has a strong anti-intellectual bias and always has. I apologize if you felt I was disrespectful. As a matter of record, I will note that I consider you to be intelligent, well capable of deep research and thought, have no doubt you were an interesting lecturer at Oxford, and you are an accomplished writer. To my mind, you are suis generis and beyond comparison or generalization.

So no disrespect to you, and none intended to anybody else.

I respect that people read for different reasons. (Just as Deb stated herself.) That's fine. Honestly, I am very cognizant that genre work, even things which are considered "low culture" can produce work of subtlety and sophsitication. I mean - I've worked for a comic book company and written about the most critically reviled pop music of the last fifty years. I'm glad to know that Georgette Heyer is distinguished among the regency era writers, and that Jennifer Crusie's writing is particularly witty.

But the responses to the critical discussion that happened today were so defensive, resentful and derailing that it pissed me off.

And I wasn't the only person that took it that way either, as hayden's first post indicates.

he digressions annoyed me no end -- which is also my problem with Dostoevsky.

Now this is very much a matter of you like. There is a whole category of writers who might be called, for lack of a better word, encyclopediasts. For example I remember a Thomas Mann (and damn my memory I don't reembember which Thomas Mann) where a character checks into a hotel room. And we are treated to five pages on the art of being a hotelier. And some of it actually proves relevent to later plot. But most of it is there becasue Mann found the intricacy of what it takes to run a hotel fascinating. And, as a reader so did I. I enjoyed the hell out of it. And I enjoy the fact that Mann does this all the time. But I can totally see how someone else might not enjoy that kind of digression (or just not enjoy Thomas Mann's digression, while reveling in someone else's) and be driven totally bugfuck crazy, and hate the author for ever.

Maybe for some reading THE CLASSICS at a younger age, when they are more open to things and not so set in ways, would enjoy them more as adults because it's a love they have had for quite a while.

I don't know. I loved Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as a kid- but I now snicker at my younger dumber self. I blame Florence King.

And we are treated to five pages on the art of being a hotelier. And some of it actually proves relevent to later plot. But most of it is there becasue Mann found the intricacy of what it takes to run a hotel fascinating. And, as a reader so did I. I enjoyed the hell out of it.

I haven't read Mann, but this is definitely how I feel about Melville. I think it's one of the radical innovations of the book. If he just told the narrative of hunting the whale you'd have maybe a novella. And would make an interesting anecodote for most people, but would only really be meaningful for people who had been 19th century whalers. So he immerses you in that world, tries to educate you so that you understand not just what happened, but why it's significant. The weight of things.

I wonder if "great literature" is like a foreign language? For some, being exposed to the language at a young age makes it very easy to learn.

I think the younger the age, the lower the comprehension (generally), but the more you have under your belt when you start reading at a high comprehension, the less like a babe in the wilderness you might be. Heaven knows, I started a campaign of reading "great books" -- it started as books I'd "read" (skimmed) in college -- when I was 25, because I felt like I hadn't really read Bleak House and wanted to. And in the process of reading, discovered how many books I haven't read, and how possible it is to despair of ever "catching up". This year, I discovered the works of Elizabeth Gaskell, of whom I'd never heard despite taking a 19th C. Brit Lit course in college.

Whereas, I had read a great deal of mythology as a young child, so when I read retellings or versions of myths as novels, or epic poems, or even as plays, I have a solid grounding in the facts of the matter, and do not feel like a contextless goof. Sometimes my reactions change, between childhood exposure and adult exposure, but I'd far prefer to have read D'Aulaires Book Of Greek Myths at age 9, and then watch the Oresteia on stage at age 25, than watch the Oresteia cold.

But the responses to the critical discussion that happened today were so defensive, resentful and derailing that it pissed me off.

t Little voice in my head saying leave it alone, but I'm not.

I get that, but I also get how the first post caused some people to feel defensive and resentful. And, last I checked, we are all pretty much adults who can carry on a hard but honest debate about pretty much anything. If the conversation others were having pissed you off, then either: go away, have another conversation backchannel, or have one inthread, parallel to the one being had. But don't shit on the rest of us and the conversation we were having because you don't like "the tone".

I think Melville and Mann definitely have that in common. I have to confess that I read and enjoyed Moby Dick at 12. And I'm at the shallow end of the pool when it comes to literary insight on this board. I think I've just always had a weakness for encyclopediac writers. And hec, your comment just make me realize that it relates to my love of good world building; I never realized until now that I love Melville and Heinlien on similar grounds.

[Edited a typo reversing the meaning of the second sentence.]

You know what's good readin'?

The Destroyer series. Remo Wiliams RAWKS!

...

What?

There's a novelisation of Chronicles Of Riddick in the stores. I suppose they'll novelise anything. But if I can't see him and hear him? I'm a little detached from the premise.

t makes note to ita's Christmas list: Chronicles of Riddick on tape with Vin reading.