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

Yeah, but you did specifically argue that life's too short to read books that don't slide readily into your soul. And others said essentially the same thing. Critical reading presumes you need to read stuff that requires work, because the more complex and demanding books will be (as Typo put it) outside your weight class. You're not going to stretch unless you push yourself.

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?"

Steph, I wasn't responding to you in particular, or anyone in particular when I posted my original post. However, sure, you're qualified to respond to the question. What's not to love?

Deb, you can have your visceral love of the book. I'm not negating your internal take on things. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure why you think that my position negates yours.

"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.

Maybe so, but the implication of "I hate this particular literary book" combined with the argument that canon is useless or malevalent certainly meets your definition of anti-intellectualism.

the argument that canon is useless or malevolent

I made no such argument.

I like the idea of a "book club" or some sort of "all Buffistas reading one book" concept. Rather than focusing on the Western canon or the form of literary fiction that I've come to think of as "book club fiction," we could choose books that are championed by various Buffistas. For example, Susan could pick her favorite historical romance novel and help us understand what how the novel shows the main characterics of the genre and how it deviates. Of course, that would mean that I would try to convince you all to read The Education of Henry Adams.

That's been my mantra as I read the same sections over again, Hec. I resent it some but it's made me feel for the illiterates of the world. Not that's it's not interesting, just not incredibly of the sense-making.

I made no such argument.

Sheesh, Betsy. Do you deny that such an argument was occurring?

Yeah, but you did specifically argue that life's too short to read books that don't slide readily into your soul. And others said essentially the same thing. Critical reading presumes you need to read stuff that requires work, because the more complex and demanding books will be (as Typo put it) outside your weight class. You're not going to stretch unless you push yourself.

Ah, here's the disconnect. Okay, maybe this will explain my approach to literature a little better.*I* don't see complex/demanding books as mutually exclusive of books that get right into my soul. Why should they be? Some of the books I love are books that made me work the hardest.

Maybe so, but the implication of "I hate this particular literary book" combined with the argument that canon is useless or malevalent certainly meets your definition of anti-intellectualism.

But you're conflating "canon" and "intellectual" here. There are plenty of books that most people would consider part of the canon that are relatively light reads. There are also plenty of books that aren't really in the canon that I, at least, considered more taxing intellectually than many books that are.

But you're conflating "canon" and "intellectual" here.

That's not much of a reach. We were discussing the canon of Great Books. Not the canon of Great Beach Reads.

However, sure, you're qualified to respond to the question. What's not to love?

For me, personally, the encyclopedic wandering of the text was a big part of it.