Farah wrote:
>I am going to be very rude.....What appalling arrogance! Whilst I
>understand that
>critical analysis can be interesting and beneficial, most *good* fiction
>was written
>to be *fun* (using a very broad definition of that word) to read. One of
>the reasons I
>have little tolerance for much critical work in sf (I am a history
>lecturer) is the
>priviliging of boring but intellectually complex texts over fascinating
>and fun but not
>terribly well written ones. (This seriously skews sf syallabi away from any fan
>consensus of the *best*). I have heard English literature professors
>suggesting
>that critics should concetrate on the texts they do not like, rather than
>the one's that
>they do, and outside of sf, the most common assumption thrown at sf is that it
>cannot be good because it *is* fun.
well..hmmm. i guess you didn't finish reading my message. because this is
exactly how i do feel about it. it *is* fun. and i wish we could all read
for *only* fun. but we cannot... we need to have fun *while* we critique.
relax.
-lissa bloomer
if you're wearing pants, thank my great great great grandmother.
elisabeth bloomer
instructor, english
virginia tech
ebloomer@vt.edu
540.231.2445
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:03 PDT