--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Michael Robison
<miker_zspider@...> wrote:
>
> Mario wrote:
>
> If you say "I'm reading this book, a noir book in
the
> tradition of...", there's another you, the
analytical
> you, reading alongside. You gain comfort, but you
lose
> transparency in the reception of what you're
reading.
>
> *********************
> One brings a thousand expectations and
preconceived
> notions to the reading of a book. Strip those
away
> and you've got a newborn incapable of much more
than
> chewing the book cover. A person is a sum
total,
> contradictions, ambiguities, doubts and all. If
you
> want to allude to some deconstructed
transcendental
> self reading transparently, you go there without
me.
My point is that those expectations and preconceived notions
are not necessarily a good thing; on the one hand, they can
condition you to stay within a "safe" zone, the comfort zone,
let´s say; and on the other, they may obstruct your reading
of certain things that could be of interest. That said, there
are probably billions of different ways of reading, so nobody
can really theorize credible on what "the reader" does, why,
how, etc. We don't understand the human mind, so any "theory"
is little more than castles in the air. It can be interesting
to read... as fiction.
Genre loyalty depends a lot on conditioning and on the
comfort zone, don't you think? Sort of like being a member of
the Club!
Best,
mrt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 24 Aug 2007 EDT