Michele (and Hec, if he's reading this), I have a question for clarification: when you say identification is a shallow form of reading, do you mean shallow in the sense of surface? Because if so, while I disagree, I can see and respect where you're coming from. In earlier instances where it came up today, I read it as "people who read for the pleasure of identification are shallow," which pisses me off.

And for myself, I have no trouble identifying with a character and simultaneously seeing themes and metaphors and what have you. But I think the fact that you feel like Elizabeth Bennet could walk into the room at any time is what makes P&P sing. And I don't think appreciating that and finding joy in it is shallow in any sense of the word.

I don't mean the people are shallow, no -- that it's a shallow form of reading. So you find Elizabeth Bennett lifelike. So? Why do I care? How does that make the book more or less valuable than any other with a well-drawn protagonist?

It's not that enjoyment or identification is bad -- I thought I'd made that clear, and I thought it was clear that I'm saying the way of reading is shallow, not disparaging people, either (what was that about defensiveness in the Literary thread, again?). It's just that identification is a necessarily local and limited way of talking about any work of art.

I think identification, at best, provides a point of entry to start digging into the meat of a character. Though I can't think of an example other than Buffy herself where I've really been able to do that.

I love reading/hearing critical theory *if* it's presented in an enthusiastic, inclusive, and accessible fashion. Which is probably exceedingly lazy of me, but I find it easier to connect with it that way.

That said, somewhat like Fred Pete, I'm uncomfortable/feel weird about discussing literature or even the more literary aspects of comics because I keep expecting to hear "bitch, PLEASE!" in harmony from the more educated portions of the crowd, who in my head have some sort of position of authority that trumps whatever I'd have to say, because a BA is a weak hand so I fold, and I think I just mixed my card metaphors.

I see what you mean now, and really it's what I thought you meant in your first post--it's just that to me "shallow" is such a loaded term that it's hard for me to see it as being anything other than extremely disparaging.

Anyway, I feel like this is a difference of emphasis as much as anything else. To me, themes, metaphors, historical context, and the like are all there and worth exploring, but they're not the main point--I read for compelling characters in fascinating settings, and now that I'm aspiring to write fiction myself, to understand how my favorite authors use their craft to create them. The rest may be interesting, but to me it's incidental.

t xposted

This is a question that has bugged me for ages--What *is* literary criticism? Is it discussion of why an author chose one word over another? Is it fitting a work into a particular historical/cultural background? (I'm predicting the answer to those two questions will be "yes".)

"oh, this comes out of her bad relationship with her ex" or "he's working through his past with the church in this topic."

Michele, how do you know this is what's going on in those passages? I had a couple of film criticism classes where the teacher would say, "The colors of the scenery in this particular scene emphasize the warmth of the characters, which shows the inherent dichotomy of the story, because these characters are the villains." My main reaction to that was "OK, I guess you could read it that way. Or maybe that's just the color of walls in a building that age."

Anyway, the point is, without having access to the author's journals or something, how do we know what a particular scene/theme/motif stands for?

what was that about defensiveness in the Literary thread, again?

I'll take a whack at this:

First of all, the collective group of posters here on buffistas.org tends to believe that they are more educated and more intelligent than the general populace. Statistics provide support here, but I am not saying everyone here is Mensa-level (nor am I saying anyone's not. You get my point?)

Secondly, many posters here admit to feelings of social anxiety and inadequacy. Combine those two, and you have people who feel that they are intelligent, but often misunderstood or who have sort of a themselves against the world view. Note how many times people say, "I thought I was the only person who did that!", or "Thank g-d I'm not alone!"

(Lord, I'm sure I'm pissing someone off now.)

So, we have a prime combination for defensiveness, especially when talking about something that people are "supposed" to enjoy/know.

hayden, I'm going to address your post today and your previous post, because those are clearer in my mind. I'm not picking on you deliberately. I do respect your viewpoint, though I disagree with most of it.

hayden's post today read rather in the accusatory sense, much like his post two (or so) weeks ago. It felt very much like an academic looking at the general discussion and deeming it unworthy. Instead of helping nudge the discussion along, it threw a grenade into the middle of it. Defensiveness piled on defensiveness about being defensive. hayden himself apologized for the finger-wagging tone for the previous post, so I don't think I'm too far off in my interpretation of tone.

I kind of enjoy the fact that discussion here tends to revolve around to books that I may not have time to read, but that are in the general cultural eye. I do not have the time or energy to get into long and detailed discussions of each work, which, frankly, is why I mostly skip in the Music thread. Music is also easier to access, as a rule, than a book. You can hear fragments in passing, listen to music as you post, run, whathaveyou.

I stand with Plei and Fred Pete in the mostly self-educated crowd, and will further admit that most literary criticism confuddles me, because I never had more than a passing brush with its uses and dialectic.

I had a conclusion somewhere, but I lost it. Tends to happen a lot. Night, folks.

I can remember when we could have had a discussion like this without anybody being accused of being self-congratulatory, anti-intellectual, pretentious, or dishonest -- except by themselves.

I liked us a lot better then.

It felt very much like an academic looking at the general discussion and deeming it unworthy.

Yes, this.

I get deep discussion of books in other forums (my classics book club, other places on LJ and so forth). I don't see what's inherently unworthy about the level of discourse here.

Again, if you don't like the level of discourse, do something about it. And telling us we're anti-intellectuals and shallow isn't the way to do that, I'm afraid.

Betsy, believe me, I had conversations with Buffistas, both current and former, back in the day in which words like "self-congratulatory" and "pretentious" got used plenty to describe then-ongoing discussions and/or modes of discussion. I think it's healthier for the community that we're willing to lay our cards on the table.

I had a couple of film criticism classes where the teacher would say, "The colors of the scenery in this particular scene emphasize the warmth of the characters, which shows the inherent dichotomy of the story, because these characters are the villains." My main reaction to that was "OK, I guess you could read it that way. Or maybe that's just the color of walls in a building that age."

With stuff like that, my view is that it doesn't really matter whether it was "Let's go find some red buildings to shoot in front of" or "Huh. These red buildings will work for this scene," or even just, "Let's shoot here." It's that putting all those elements together will enhance the mood of the scene, if it's done well. Or, sometimes, you'll get movies where the scenery or the lighting just really don't work at all with the characters, and they just destroy the mood of the scene. Personally, I love going through and trying to figure out how a particular mood or tone was created -- noticing that a scene seems really tense, for instance, then going back and looking and seeing that, in addition to the characters fighting, there's a lot of tension in the shapes and colors of the sets, and harsh lighting with lots of contrast, and sound that emphasizes every movement. Maybe some of it was intensional, maybe some not, but I find it interesting to look and see what's going on, and think about how that same scene would play if some different choices were made.