Joel VanLaven wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Hope Cascio wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 97-04-09 18:55:18 EDT, you write:
> >
> > << People a book is to be enjoyed, have fun. When I read a book buy
> > Margerat Weis I don't sit there thinking about why she wrote about
> > something. >>
> >
> > I don't completely agree. I used to just read for pure pleasure and escapism,
> > until I came to college and "learned how to interpret what I'm reading." At
> > first it felt so artificial, but now I feel like I can get so much more out
> > of something. I never could have attempted most poetry, for instance, before
> > I learned to interpret, and now I can actually get something from Adrienne
> > Rich. So it's a construct, but so's the literature. I can still read
> > ocassionally for the escape, but I much prefer to read something I can think
> > about later, like while I'm driving or doing the dishes. And I'll reread
> > things I've enjoyed to see if there's more to it than the lovely escape.
>
> For me, I see the change from non-critical to critical thinking to be a
> gradual one that sort of mirrors my evolutionary maturity. I think that
> when I was younger I had so little experience and my mind was so empty
> that I was ecstatic to fill it. I internalized what I read with an
> astounding level of naivete and trust. Now it seems like I have a
> respectable amount of stuff in my mind. So, simple ravenous
> internalization is not adequate. My body of experience, ideas, and values
> protects itself from being replaced. I still read to expand my thoughts,
> self-image, and body of experience (one reason I love sci-fi and books
> with main characters different than me e.g. a female protagonist) but in
> order to keep in some semblance of unity of thought and being and to keep
> from being cluttered, I must think longer and with more wariness than I
> once did. I see the process as an ongoing continuous one. I just hope
> that I never become anywhere close to "full". One thing I think I have
> also noticed is that I must always weigh everything with that same
> wariness, what I am reading and what I believe. So, reading can do
> another thing for me. It can help me to examine myself. When I read a
> book where "I" am a woman in a world populated completely by women that
> really sings to me and "fits," in order to internalize it I must in some
> ways reduce my self-image from a male to a human and I must somehow reduce
> my image of humanity from a bipolar, hetero-sexist one to a more
> gender-less one. (or do some other sort of hacking and/or rationalization)
>
> So, I read feminist science fiction for pleasure and in a sort of
> spiritual search for self-actualization and enlightenment (they are
> related). I do agree that often I don't think about why the author wrote
> what they did. I often don't consider it that important to what something
> means to me. To assume that all or even most meaning in a written work is
> completely intended by the author is put the author at super-human levels.
> I do greatly admire many authors (especially my favorites) but not that
> much.
>
> -- Joel VanLaven
I must say I like your anwser Joel. Interesting and well thought out but
my statement was for the point that sometimes people just read too much
into a book. So I'm saying think but don't go too deep as one then tends
to go into a complete realm of speculation of which an author might not
have intended.
Jay
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:01 PDT