God help me, I tried to get out, but they just pulled me back in.

Brenda, I think if you'll scroll back, you'll see that there were a number of posts that said or implied that X wasn't worth continuing because it was too dense/boring/wordy etc. If I'm wrong to characterize that as "too hard," then I'm wrong. Frankly, it just drives me nuts to see such obviously intelligent people as the Buffistas refuse to challenge themselves, and it's even worse when some people want to throw their resentments ("the establishment"?) at those who do care about and want to talk about literature.

Also, I think Nabokov has a salient point about identification. If you immerse yourself too deeply in a character, you won't realize when that character is most definitely not you or anyone you'd ever want to meet. Most of Nabokov's protagonists fall into that camp, but his great books are still about as much fun as you can have with scummy lying liars.

Finally, I do like deconstruction as a theory, but it's not properly lit crit but thought crit. The lit guys appropriated it, but most of them (for instance, all but one of the English profs at my undergrad university) didn't seem to really grasp that it's more of a way of tearing down epistemological preconceptions than a treatise on Why John Barth Is A Good Writer.

I see parts of myself in Holden Caulfield, and I don't think that's wrong...a little anti-social, maybe. The bad thing is if that gets so strong, you lose track of what the book's about. And, um, maybe I should stay out of the woobie discussion...although I did start to write an analysis of mine which I didn't finish before lj went wonky...let me know if anybody wants to read it.ETA: I really should add Bayliss to the wiki on "woobie". Or TroubledButCute.

TB, that was a damned good post. Agree or disagree, irrelevant; I thought it was clear, telling and right there.

I guess my gripe is when it becomes hermetic and closed. The book or character as totem object instead of cultural currency. And my motive in that may be selfish, because I'd rather read Ple explicate what she's getting out of her Batfamily reading, then simply know she's cluching Nightwing #93 to her chest and rocking back and forth in a rapture of joy

But see, for me? "Hermetic and closed" is what happens to a good story for me when it's dissected into small pieces like a biology lab frog. If I'm being told I must enjoy it through one lens only or else I have no brains, I'm going to get defensive. I'm also going to step away from that particular discussion, because having had my beloved WitW ruined by some college yutz in a black beret - and, yes, she was wearing one, and I loathe them to this day - telling me all about how Grahame's fear of women was exemplified in the hynotic/fear response in the "Ratty meets Pan and is hypnotised" part of the book, it makes me want to rip said pontificator's head off and spit down his/her neck.

I can't intelligently address identification with characters, because, weirdly enough, I almost never do. But I'd far rather see Plei rolling around with joy than listening to her talk about it, because whereas her talking about Batman is brilliant, and mentally refreshing? Her visceral reaction is the one I can share, and the one that leaves me grinning like a loop, even with no knowledge of Batman, canon or otherwise.

edit: hayden, I think we're talking over a gulf that can't be bridged, because unless I'm totally misunderstanding what I'm reading, your world view on reading leaves absolutely no space for those of us who love the books and not only don't care why we love them, but actively don't want the visceral love potentially ruined by the cerebral or intellectual dissection. If I'm wrong, tell me. Because a lot of the answers that you felt were defensive were very simply "Look, literature or whatever is not and should be medicine, forced down my throat for my own good."

I'll pretty much read anything one time, but once is all any writer gets, difficult or not. And hell, I write far more than I read anyway; there are onlyh so many hours in the day.

There's nothing wrong with identifying with characters; I hope I didn't make it sound as though I thought that. But when it comes time to determine if the craft of the book is good/great/canon-worthy, seeing yourself in a character doesn't say anything about the craft either way.

seeing yourself in a character doesn't say anything about the craft either way.

There you go. It says something about you. For good or ill, in any number of ways. But that identification is not so much about the work.

But I also think they may underestimate how provoked that hatred is. Ideally a canon would be what was described a common language. But I think it is more a shibboleth

Maybe this is true in some circles, but it certainly hasn't happened to me since I left the academy. Quite the opposite, in fact. Typically, the response I get when I mention Moby-Dick is identical to one of the responses on this board: "Oh, I tried to read that in high school, but it was soooo boring. What's the point?"

Anti-intellectualism = the denying of the validity or marginalization of intellectual pursuits. Like reading and critical thought.

hayden, speaking just for me, this is the part of your post that made me react so strongly:

Moby-Dick is the greatest novel in the English language not just because it's so goddamn funny and entertaining, but because it's profoundly affecting, too. Just because you find something difficult at first, you shouldn't decide that it's not worth it....it's absolutely ridiculous to give up on Moby-Dick. What's not to love?

I was the one who initially trash-talked Moby Dick, so I felt like this statement was at least partially directed at me.

What got my dander up is the fact that I never said I thought it was difficulty or that gave up on it. I read the whole thing, which is why I feel qualified to express my opinion in answer to your "What's not to love?"

No...it might be why somebody started reading certain things though...(shudders to think what my identifications might be telling people right now..."I fight Authority. Authority Always Wins"?

Hayden, I edited a post above, but it may get lost in the speed of all this. So, repeating:

hayden, I think we're talking over a gulf that can't be bridged, because unless I'm totally misunderstanding what I'm reading, your world view on reading leaves absolutely no space for those of us who love the books and not only don't care why we love them, but actively don't want the visceral love potentially ruined by the cerebral or intellectual dissection. If I'm wrong, tell me. Because a lot of the answers that you felt were defensive were very simply "Look, literature or whatever is not and should be medicine, forced down my throat for my own good."

I'll pretty much read anything one time, but once is all any writer gets, difficult or not. And hell, I write far more than I read anyway; there are onlyh so many hours in the day.

Anti-intellectualism = the denying of the validity or marginalization of intellectual pursuits.

I'd define it as "the denying of the validity or marginalization of intellectual pursuits, on the grounds that they are intellectual." "I don't read intellectual books" is anti-intellectual. "I didn't like this particular intellectual book, and here's why," is not, and it seems to me that I've been seeing much more of that here than actual anti-intellectualism.