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.

But that identification is not so much about the work.

It may not say anything about the work that you care to hear, but I think it's very much about the work. It's the very individual relationship between the product and the consumer. Perhaps to the extent it pushes the creator out of the picture, and the jarring becomes seismic when the creator's not actually done with the character. Which is, today, often.

But I contend it is about the work. Just not transferable.

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.

And you can fuck yourself with excessive detachment too, or excessive investment in the political backdrop, or whatever. It's what "too" and "excessive" are for.

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.

I never meant to say it did. Which is why I asked if identification precluded analysis.

Other people might feel it doesn't, not want another thread, hate the idea of book clubs or whatever shrug But without going as far as Hec or hayden would, I don't find a lot of the discussion in here useful to me.

I can't begin to express how much I agree with this, except possibly from the opposite side of the spectrum. I feel like most of the discussion in this thread concerns books that I've never read, barely heard of, and consequently have no ability to offer an opinion. This thread also makes me feel incredibly uneducated sometimes, and I doubt that I'm alone in this. But I certainly don't wish that everyone Farenheit 451 their conversations to make me feel better about myself, on the contrary, I wish that I had read more of the books that people are discussing so I could contribute and learn something at the same time. That's why I would embrace a book club thread wholeheartedly, if only as an opportunity to read some of 'dem smarty books y'all are blatherin' on about. And to discuss them in such wonderful company.

I'd like to point out that there is a calm, thoughtful, and--dare I say it?--intellectual discussion on the merits and pitfalls of identification with literature going on right now.

I would probably do that.I've no idea what sort of book, though.

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.

Finding one book boring isn't anti-intellectualism. Finding ALL books boring is.

Just because I don't like one specific book that's considered by many to be part of the canon doesn't make me anti-intellectualism. Or anti-reading.

In fact, saying that about me is pretty damned funny. Because I read all day long. More than just pharmacy articles.