I've just threadsucked and reread the discussion and - I don't know, I don't see the attitude that got under Hayden's skin.

First off, I think maybe it's important to remember that this conversation got started with an article that made a nasty gratuitous smack against the romance novel. So if there's ever going to be a little sensitivity on the issue, maybe it's now.

So really, where we started today wasn't dissing "Great Books" but venting a bit about books or genres that don't tend to get the respect.

Shakespeare came up when Aimee mentioned that she didn't like it - but mentioned it in the context of what an oddity it was. And the response was generally surprise mixed with suggestions for elements of his work she might not have encountered or different ways of looking at it.

Madame Bovary was brought up in derogatory terms. But while that one didn't really find any defenders, pretty much every book or author that came up thereafter had both detractors and defenders. Interspersed with that was some discussion of the value of capital-c Canon - and I'll note that the first (only?) mention of Austen was as an example of how understanding of broader Canon could give you a better understanding of her work. Ditto Milton and a few others. Not everything that came up was in that vein - I misremember now who was snarked at for excessively long sentences. But it wasn't the general vein of the discussion, as far as I can tell.

Deb G obviously has a distinctive take on canon and crit, etc. But it seemed to me like her comments too drew more discussion than " rah rah analysis sucks" or the like.

Moby Dick maybe wasn't getting showered with the love. But Steph's first comment (after she mentioned other Melville that she did like was: "Moby. Dick. I understand intellectually what he was doing with it, style-wise and theme-wise, but DAMN."

I won't dispute that Hayden might still be stinging from earlier conversations - like I said, I haven't been in this thread for very long having been on a self-imposed restricted thread diet for a while. But I honestly don't see it here.

If I'm misinterpreting things here, or if anyone has issue to take with any of this, please, please do, because I really want to understand where I'm missing things or why our perspectives might be so different.

Final comment: JZ is me in missing and wanting more focused discussion and analysis and whathaveyou. But for the most part, this seemed like a pretty rational discussion to me.

Madame Bovary was brought up in derogatory terms. But while that one didn't really find any defenders

Untrue! Dana liked it. I'd love to see her explain why, because I've hated it every time I've read it, and I read it a lot when doing my IB extended essay.

Though that's not why I hated it.

I've read about 4 translations of Anna K since writing the EE, after all, and Anna K figured more in the essay than Madame Bovine.

I'm also bored stiff by Jane Austen. Sorry to say. Just find her dull.

On the other hand, I still adore Hardy. I find Steinbeck to be hit or miss, and Dickens women make me cringe and throw things, though I've liked some of his paragraphs quite a bit.

As late as the mid 19th century, sailors in a port were observed staging Hamlet for their amusement. Shakespeare only left popular culture for the elite canon in the U.S. from the late 19th century forward. I dimly rember from history something about how it was the Jacksonian era the first greatly widened the gulf in the U.S. between popular and elite culture.

To be fair, the Shakespeare that was popular in the 19th century was thoroughly bowdlerized with happy endings for R&J etc.

How can JZ be so awesome? I do not understand it.

I know! It's beyond comprehension.

I've just threadsucked and reread the discussion and - I don't know, I don't see the attitude that got under Hayden's skin.

I re-read too. You know what I think it was? There was a pile-on of hating individual classics which after a while had a cumulative effect. Followed by a lot of people saying, "I'm not going to be made to feel guilty because I don't want to read your steeenkin' classics (read: Canon.)" Most folks were fairly reasonable during this stretch, however, there were a lot of individual asides which added to the whole "serious literature stinks" tone.

It was interesting to read Lilty's comments because there was nothing so radical in her statements, and she was entirely both reasonable and saying, "Hey this is my personal thang" but the effect of her personal statements coupled with high-fives of "Bovary sucks weasel ass" again had a cumulative effect.

Plus, the structure of this particular thread which - as brenda and Heather in particular have noted - and which Consuela amended (she's good at the clarification) dissuades critical discussion. It's more useful than stimulating.

Summation:

I have enjoyed this a bunch.

Plei is me

Wolfram and TB are both my internet boyfriends.

Yeah, I can see that Hec. I'm just sorry we got to that point. (Um, if it needs to be said, and today I guess it does: Not sorry that the discussion continued, just sorry that somehow the thousand cuts snuck in there on all sides.)

Yeah, I can see that Hec. I'm just sorry we got to that point. (Um, if it needs to be said, and today I guess it does: Not sorry that the discussion continued, just sorry that somehow the thousand cuts snuck in there on all sides.)

You know, there were frictions and flare ups, but it was also a very interesting discussion with a lot of thoughtful posts on all sides. On the whole I think we skirted disaster without ever getting into flames. (The exception being my smartassery to Susan - who despite her claims of a hot temper - was pretty reasonable in response.)

"Bovary sucks weasel ass"

But it's funny CUZ IT'S TROOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

No, really. Most over-rated work in the Western Canon. Bloom can bite me.

It's like, the Dan Brown crap of its time, without the mystical stuff.

Master and Margarita, now THERE'S a book. Which I'm about due for a re-read on, in point of fact.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that there's a disconnect right now between what's commonly accepted as Literature (in newly-writ texts only, with a handful of exceptions) and the Human Experience as Lived by the Middle Class Masses. At least in the US. It leaves an odd, bad taste in my mouth when reading, even when I enjoy it, because it feels like what I'm reading is opaque to all but a handful of the highly educated.

Err. More on this later. My pause is up.

Bloom can bite me.

Yep. Plei is me.

Everyone has written such interesting things. Unfortunately, I have nothing to add to the literary discussion, except that I, too, would enjoy participating in a book group discussion as long as 2-4 weeks were allowed read the book. And now I’m about to use the apparently reviled mememe because the discussion brings up strong feelings for me and maybe I really am part of the group after all and what I have to say might be part of the gestalt of the group after all.

I feel so sad any more at discussions like this, not for the content, but that it seems so argumentative, so This Is What I Think and Screw You, which seemed like the reaction to hayden’s interesting post, and has now come around to something else, a kind of defusing, while I was writing this.

Ever since what I perceived as the stabbing of Elena and Megan’s husband in B’cry months ago, it seems that more and more there’s a huge amount of intolerance. X really hates it when people ask her questions, and left another thread years ago because of it. Y despises porny talk and number slutting. Z can’t stand a handful of people and is actively rude and mean. Q takes serious offence at someone’s mistaken belief and keeps the offense simmering after they admit to making a mistake. P, R and K all take offense at newbie’s puppy-bouncing, are mean, and continue to be mean.

Maybe it was always that way and it’s only my perception that’s changed. The Buffistas used to seem like the most lovely quilt or mosaic in the world, with interesting people and voices and different points of view all supporting each other with tolerance and good will. It still is that, isn’t it? So what about the rancor – is it inevitable?

I'm hoping you're not trying to be patronizing and offensive to people you know are articulate, thoughtful, and incisive.

He wasn’t the least bit patronizing or offensive, at least, I didn’t see it that way. His is another interesting and valid point of point. It’s not a win/lose argument, it’s a discussion. But now, right there in print, is now a statement characterizing hayden as patronizing and offensive. It seems intolerant to me. (I’m picking that example, consuela, because you and I can go out for a beer and talk about if we want.)

I keep thinking about the Sharkey article on how internet group are their own worst enemy. Also, about how a wise person on this board theorized that there are various broad types of Buffista users: the logical arguers, the emotional relationship-pers, and the mixes of those. It’s a nicer world and a more realistic world when there is recognition that there are many types of people, whether they are ISTJ or ENTP, or signs of the Zodiac, or whatever. The rancor, attacks, intolerance. It doesn’t have to be that way, does it?

I think it is mostly structural - though I will also note the following (very few comments) over the past year

for example:

Feb 25,
Ginger

I know a number of people who pretty much only read "literary" fiction and do give me a look of disdain when I admit to mainly reading mysteries, science fiction and nonfiction. I'm just not much on most modern literary fiction. I want something to actually happen. The New Yorker once ran a cartoon that was making fun of a lot of the stuff the New Yorker buys. A man is making a peanut butter sandwich and the caption says something like, "He smoothed the thick peanut butter across the bread, watching the slow swirls cover the rough texture of the bread. It reminded hiim of the peanut butter sandwiches his mother had made long ago, back in the house on the sunlit hill...." For me, at about that point, I would want something to explode.

Note two things. This is in response to a genre snobs - so the rage is justified. But she is putting down not individual works, but an entire genre - literary fiction. If someone put down science fiction in that way theyd get one hell of a smackdown - even if it was in response to someone putting down romance.

OK two more recent examples: from June 16

June 16

Susan W

This is where it helps to not give a damn about classifying them ... why does that matter?

not just one work.

Connie

I've never read Ulysses. It's one of those things, like eggplant, that people say you're supposed to appreciate, but which I've never been tempted to try.

Just one work - but unread, and a bit casually dismissive.

I think it is two things here. Certain types of books get (certain parts of 'canon') get piled on here more than any other genre. And you get away with dimissing the entire "literary fiction" genre in a way you cannot get away with any other genre in this thread. So those things combined do contribute to a little bit hostile atmosphere.

Oh and hec - was the bowlderized shakespear the version most people would read? I thought it was mainly professional performances. There was Lamb of course, but I always thought of Lamb as more late 19th century than mid or early. OK really big area of fuzzy memory here, so I'm preparing to be corrected.