Boy, that Christis...what a pain in the ass and BOOOORRRING!!!!!

snerk.

Err... I'd have to bring you up to speed on Pre and Post-Christis canon, wouldn't I?

Yes, yes you would. If it will be as entertaining as the "Hand wave-y hand wave-y! Hypertime hypertime!" discussion, then I'm all for it.

If you're going to make a statement like this, for the love of Mike, separate your two points. Inline comments about specific works, which happens anytime there's a focused discussion about anything from cars to grammar to cheese (like: swiss; hate: brie, which is raunch) != a dislike of critical discussion, so while both may have been stated, conflating them just makes you seem like you're lecturing people about the wrongness of personal tastes, be that your intent or no.

If the only response to a larger, running detailed conversation is a series of snipes then it has a killing effect. Swiss hate and brie love don't pop up in a conversation of the cheese-making techniques of Switzerland and France. It pops up in what to have for lunch conversations. Which I suppose is one of the things that has come up here - this thread is more about what to read next.

A point made upthread is worth remaking: literary fiction as a whole, as a "genre" gets slammed in this thread in a way that would not be tolerated if somebody waltzed in and said Romance readers are idiots. (Not to pick on her, particularly since she's been very honest and self-reflective in this discussion, but Susan did this a lot.)

I don't need or want to hash it out any longer. But while I've changed my mind about some things, I certainly haven't been convinced by the umpteen posts here that people aren't defensive or feel insecure about literary criticism (several people have copped to that). Similarly, I'm still sure that there's an overriding distrust of academic criticism, that it kills appreciation or the joy of reading; that very little in-depth discussion of literature happens here (nobody has disputed that); and that the thread has a populist slant and a bias against academics.

I have changed my mind about a few things though. I do think the lack of a focused subject dissuades longer, active discussions. And I do think that's an argument for some kind of reading club.

Wow, that was a lot of posts.

I'm really just posting to say

To narrow things down, as I expand my pushing from comics to books, how do you feel about plays? Translated works? Short stories?

Also, would you be interested in some books on lit crit? Because I've got those, too! And a huge section on religious studies! You could borrow my copy of Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period!

Can I go to Plei's house and just wallow in the books? Or Ginger's. Or any Buffistas with massive bookcases (huge ... tracts of books?). I really love books. I haven't read anywhere near enough. Depending on mood, I can go into a bookstore and almost cry, just because there are all the books, and I know I'll never read them all, and I'll probably just go home and watch tv anyway, and there are all these worlds that I just won't get to know! I then I switch to happy, because, books!

I find some of my favourite books are books about books.

Um, so, yay books!

Similarly, I'm still sure that there's an overriding distrust of academic criticism, that it kills appreciation or the joy of reading; that very little in-depth discussion of literature happens here (nobody has disputed that); and that the thread has a populist slant and a bias against academics.

I'd agree with all that. I'd prefer saying a dislike of academic criticism rather than a distrust.

All that does not bug me at all. Anything that suggests I am a bad reader or a lesser one based on my participation in a thread that operates on those facts makes me want to claw at things.

Just as an aside, I think one problem is that "the canon" and "literary fiction" aren't the most clearly defined of terms. I've been reading over today's posts, and I keep encountering books/authors where I'm all, "You mean that's part of the canon? To Kill a Mockingbird is beautiful! I've read Dracula! I went through a Stevenson phase, and has anyone else read his poetry beyond the children's stuff?"

And as for litfic, I don't think I've dissed it in many, many a moon. (Mind you, I don't think loathing Lolita with all the loathing that's in me or not being able to get through The Great Gatsby counts, because I'm only talking about my reaction to those two specific works.) I realized after many discussions here that I was operating from way too narrow a definition of litfic, though I reserve the right to dislike individual books whose style or theme repels me, and some of the styles and themes I find most repellant are more prevalent in contemporary literary fiction than in other eras or genres.

That fairminded and evenhanded enough?

That fairminded and evenhanded enough?

Absolutely.

Recommondations? Oscar Wilde's play, The Importance of Being Earnest is a wonderfully funny sendup of late Victorian society and literary conventions.

Saki (H. H. Monroe, early 20th C.) is one of my favorite short story writers. While they aren't all perfect, many of his stories are witty, occasionally fierce gems. I'd recommend the stories "Tobermory" and "Sredni Vashtar." Both are in the collection The Chronicals of Clovis.

Song of Solomon, by Toni Morrison is well, nigh lyrically written. It's about the life of an African-American man in the early 20th century, but it's also about his entire family.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, A Study in Scarlotte. There are lots of places to get your original Holmes fix, but here you get a fair bit of Watson backstory and his first impressions of Holmes.

Mark Twain, Innocents Abroad. I found this all kinds of funny. American tourists wander about Europe, driving their tour guides to distraction enroute. "Tell me, is he dead?"

Alexander Pope, The Rape of the Lock. A social kerfluffle elevated to epic stature. I love Pope's use of language, and it doesn't get much tighter and well displayed than here.

I have to say, I may find myself changing my mind about Moby Dick. Many people whose opinions I respect -- here and in my f2f life -- really get a lot out of it. I think I'm still too resistant to it after my last shot (while I'll read something I dislike all the way through once, subsequent tries only go on for a chapter or so), but it's going to stay on my shelves for another try.

Is Innocents Abroad the one with the European tour? I started that, but the smug assumption that the tour group was the moral superior of everyone they met and that European culture was barely worth bothering with--never mind the culture of countries that were suffering declines in modern times, like Greece--disgusted me to the point I couldn't finish. I think it's supposed to be satirical, but I didn't see the funny.

The expressed opinions about Napolean III were enlightening, and it is fun for being a look at fashionable American culture in the mid 1800s.

cereal.

Holmes. Mmm, Holmes. Baring-Gould's Annotated Sherlock Holmes is an immense joy for anyone with interest in the Holmes canon. The people obsessed with establishing where Holmes went to college and how many wives Watson really had are the ancestors of Buffistas.