RARA-AVIS: Re: willie or not

From: Jacques Debierue ( matrxtech@yahoo.com)
Date: 15 Dec 2006

--- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Patrick King <abrasax93@...> wrote:
> Well, Jacques, we're different types of people. I only
> enjoy reading while I'm assessing the work I read. I
> don't find it difficult at all. There's no 'test,' and
> I enjoy using my mind this way. I'm not sure I could
> behave any other way. I agree with you that most books
> suck, however. I do find it funny that you started out
> calling me an elitist and now you dismiss academics,
> who have actually taken the time to try to comprehend
> in depth the work in which they're interests lie, as
> not having the foggiest idea of how a good book comes
> to be written.

I did not dismiss academics (actually, I am one). I said that they don't have any idea of how a good book gets written... do you know of any that know or claim to know that? I did not say that academics (or others) cannot produce interesting analyses of literary works. They can. When the analysis is good, I enjoy it, even though I may disagree. A tale well spun is always worth reading, even if it is a tale about a tale.

>I'm guessing you're of the
> good-books-by-accident school of thought.

No. I don't think good books happen by accident, though some are considered good (or bad) by hasty consideration, fashion, favors owed, etc., which are accidents of a sort. Some books even become best-sellers by accident, though in these days of manufacturing the consumer, that happens less often.

>If that's
> the case, though, how can Ruth Rendell and Frederick
> Forsyth be so consistently good?

I don't think those guys are very good. Good, yes, but not very good. Probably what you mean is that they're pros, that they know how to write. With that, I agree.

>Different strokes for
> different folks, Jacques. You may be right for you,
> but you're not universally correct. Believe me on
> this!

Alas, I know...



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Dec 2006 EST