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.

I'm a bit lost as to why the opinions expressed about, for instance, Moby Dick means that the Buffistas are, of all things, anti-intellectual.

The dense discussions on the show threads I think are evidence to the contrary. The problem, of course, is that in the show threads we're all discussing the same text, and because we're here, we pretty much all agree that we like it (Allyson notwithstanding *grin*) and are interested in discussing it.

In this thread, there is no one text under discussion for most of the time, except when the latest Harry Potter comes out. That's a structural issue, but it's also a social issue: we are not here to discuss the Western Canon, or the Great Books, or Moby Dick. The lit thread, however pleasant a source of recs and light discussion, isn't the point or even a great draw for members of B.org. It's a side dish.

If this were Readerville, then maybe I'd be more inclined to agree that there were something missing in the discourse here. But it's not.

I like meaty discussion as much as anyone does, but I find myself bristling at the concept that we're anti-intellectual because our discussion doesn't fit Hecubus or Hayden's notions of what it should be. What I've learned from the Kafka/Sartre threads is that there's no way to impose your will on a discussion here, and it's very divisive to try.

You want a discussion about the value of Moby Dick? Start it. And don't get pissed off when people disagree with you about it. Work with what you have.

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

Gotcha. Missed the "precluded" part.

Although now that I see it, I'm confused by the question. Are you asking, "If I identify with a character, can I no longer analyze it?" or "Can I only analyze if I identify with the character?" Or neither?

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.

FWIW, critical discussion has helped me delve further into and really appreciate many more books than the opposite. That's me. I know there's room for me and Deb here, but maybe we do need to do some tinkering.

The more I think about the book club idea, the more I like it. I spent my bus ride home playing with some ideas on how we might do such a thing. OTOH, I don't want to derail the current conversation. Later on tonight perhaps those of us who want to discuss that issue in more detail can try to throw some ideas around?

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure why you think that my position negates yours

I think because of the presentation that both you and David are giving: I'm finding a sense in there, not that Reader ought to be willing to try and stretch themselves by giving every great book at least one shot (which, whereas I won't do it if the first book I try by an author doesn't talk to me, a la Charles Dickens, whom I detest, I can still think a worthy if somewhat unrealistic ambition), but rather that, if Reader doesn't ignore their gut-take on the book and go with a purely cerebral take on it, he's being anti-intellectual.

That, I completely disagree with. I don't actually like discussing books very much, and generally come in here to see who's reccing what. I don't read books in groups - there's snobbery for you, but really, it comes from the "muHA! I have ALL THE POWER!" gestalt of having lectured classes. I'd rather get the class talking than participate in the discussion. And when it comes to being told why something should work for me, I reach for ordinance. I hate that beyond expression. But that? It's just me, and my take.

And as a writer, with whatever small cred that carries with it, I would just like to say this: anyone who has sat down and written a work of fiction - yes, specifically fiction - has pulled off something mind-boggling. It's incredibly difficult to do, those people, that journey, those roads, that ending, the mechanics, all of it.

So I have to think that damned near any book I pick up has the potential to challenge me. I'm just more likely to allow myself to be challenged if it isn't being force-fed to me, like medicine.

And me out the door - train south in an hour. Interesting discussion, all.

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

Yeah, I can see how people of this day & age would like their writing more focused. Most writers believe in economy, and I love economy when it's used well.

I loved the meandering, though. You know while reading it that Melville kept thinking, "Why not just talk about maps here? It'll help the reader to understand the implications of the last few ships they meet." The digressions gave it more of a boozy, conversational feel, I thought, and most of them were funny as hell to boot.

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

All I'm claiming is that "intellectual books" and "canon" are not the same set. They intersect, sure, but they're not the same. Also, for the most part, it looked to me like the discussion of the relevance of canon was more about "who decides what's canon, and how, and what use is a list that no one can agree on and which keeps changing?" than about "what use are the books on that list?"