Yuku free message boards

Laymon fan wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[...]

I say you mis-labelled me because, despite your quoting of my post in the Joshi on Koontz thread, I was not saying I have anything against literary criticism in general. The opinion I was attempting to express, in that specific post, was that *to me* it seems like a pointless exercise which takes the fun (and I use that word deliberately) out of reading. If other people want to spend their time in that way that's their choice. I'm sorry if you felt the words "elitist" and "anal" were intended as pejoratives.

You don't "have anything against literary criticism in general" but it's "a pointless exercise." I'd be wary of reading what you would say about something you had something against.

I suppose by this you could mean you don't feel there is anything to be gained by discussing what you read -- an odd position to take in a forum like this -- or you mean to insult people who feel fiction, even horror fiction, has some value worth discussing in depth, in the context of their lives, of how they view the world, and/or of literary history, has a value beyond that of the average TV sitcom, say.

[You paraphrase Jack:] Having said that, in the thread on TODP it also states that one of the "skills" of literary criticism is identifying themes in the book of which even the author was unaware. So, perhaps you aren't best placed to assess the suitability of potential readers. To be safe, I think you should check with Jackula. I'm sure he will have a vetting process to check their worthiness.

[Jack responded:] Again, no such statement was made.

[Back to you:] I beg to differ. Here from one of your own posts at TODP.

"Yeah, that's the part that most students, but few good writers, have trouble getting their head around: that the author is not the final authority on his/her own work. An author may well have included themes and ideas (and prejudices) he or she is unaware of."

Two very different claims. One simply states that authors are not in complete, total control of their work and, by extension I think, may not recognize all that their writing is and does, not consciously note the contributions their subconscious lent until an attentive reader points it out. Since critics are, by trade, attentive readers and, more important in this context, mouthy enough to state what they find in what they read, they occasionally have the unenviable task of pointing out that the writer is human afterall. (Do I have to include a disclaimer that critics being writers, though of a different sort, are apt to have petards hoist them on occasion, too? And do I further have to add that any argument about the content and themes of a book needs a solidly written argument backed up with instances from the text, or is that obvious enough it can be assumed?)

Your not-really-paraphrase is a misrepresentation of Jack's statement designed to make critics in general -- who, one assumes from your earlier statement, you have nothing against ... in general -- look like self-deluded jackasses. I won't disagree that that may on occasion be true of the individual critic just as I would never presume to disagree it may occasionally be true of the individual author or, for that matter, the individual reader, but the critic will let you know that soon enough because, as I noted, the critic is mouthy about their views, willing to put them out in public and test them against the readings of others. Arrogance and hubris are hard to disguise over time.

What's more interesting to me is that your paraphrase also seems to imply a power-struggle over who 'owns' the meaning of a piece of fiction. That's an interesting issue and one worth discussing. Well, unless you have a belief in the author as a sort of mini-god. My view is, writers have no more control than the rest of us over all aspects of their lives, why would you assume they have complete control over their fiction?

The original point I was making in the Joshi thread - which is why I posted there in the first place, despite some people's assertion that I had no business to - is that Mr Joshi seems to have a general dislike of "popular" horror fiction, presumably because he feels it doesn't meet his own literary standards. (Before you ask, no, I haven't got/can't be bothered to find any quotes to back this up. Let's just say this is the impression I have of him from reading extensively within the horror genre for the past 25 years. Given your association with him, Jack, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong if you can demonstrate otherwise.) Given this apparent dislike, what is the point of him repeating his disparaging opinion other than, as some have suggested, to draw attention to himself when he wants some publicity, and, of course, to attempt to belittle the author and those readers who do enjoy the author's work.

It is possible of course that he just wanted to provoke discussion. Or that he felt he had a short, quick way of getting across what he meant without having to go on about it. Or maybe he just wanted to stir the pot. It's usually hard to divine an author's intention. Even for the author.

It is also possible of course that you just wanted to stir the pot a bit, yourself.


Randy M.