Fun Stuff > ENJOY
Reading this summer
a pack of wolves:
It's an approach that is also a very old-fashioned way of looking at literature, since it ignores The Death of The Author. Nothing wrong with a bit of subtext though. Personally, I analyse everything I read to quite a large degree. Not doing that would suck all the fun out of it for me, and turn one of my favourite books into a series of dull but well-written accounts of some building work. I've never liked the idea that some culture is unworthy of analysis either, just because it's populist and not what was traditionally called high art.
Shit teaching of a text can really spoil it though. I never want to read Animal Farm again in my life after GCSE English.
As far as my summer reading goes, I'm currently kicking myself for going this long without reading The Revolution of Everyday Life. It's making me feel better about the world and my place in it. An incredible book.
Liz:
--- Quote from: Linds on 12 Jun 2008, 05:54 ---Analyzing any book that you may have at one point liked kills it. People think I'm crazy for hating Catcher in the Rye, but part of it was because we analyzed the crap out of. (I wouldn't have liked it anyways, maybe just tolerated it, but I loathe that book now.) So I see why and I too agree with point B.
--- End quote ---
It's okay, I hated that book so much when I read it. You are not the only one!
jimbunny:
--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 12 Jun 2008, 08:41 ---It's an approach that is also a very old-fashioned way of looking at literature, since it ignores The Death of The Author. Nothing wrong with a bit of subtext though.
--- End quote ---
Mrrr...close reading, intertextuality, and contextualisation are not going out of style anytime soon, bub. Not even necessarily talking about an author, yet. And not to slight anyone's knowledge of literary theory, but what is it with this board and "The Death of the Author" (it's the title of an essay by Roland Barthes, for those of you who haven't caught on yet)? Sure, it's figured heavily into a lot of post-structuralism, but that's not the only ballgame out there. Look around, you'll find essays purporting "The Death of the Reader" and even "The Death of the Text." Not much left after that. Personally, I can't help feeling that approaches that completely eliminate authorial intention, though I understand their merits and why they developed, always seem either a little arrogant, or too stuck up their own asses to state simply what should be obvious.
Jackie Blue:
I think that forced, academic analysation can definitely make a book less enjoyable.
But I certainly have a running background process by which I analyse any and everything I see, including books I read. At least half the time I'm wondering about things in the text that reveal an author's unconcious or unintentional subtext, such as the (ugh) Wheel of Time books and the rampant misogyny. Or, to be charitable, not technically misogyny so much as wildly delusional beliefs about women and their actions and motivations.
It seems to me that people who subscribe to the Death of the Author theory are perplexingly misguided, since with extremely few exceptions I find that every author I have ever read has an unique perspective and voice that unites all their work and causes themes to constantly recur.
ThePQ4:
Right now I am reading "Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal" by Christopher Moore. I may also try to re-read the HP novels in full again, since I skipped to the last three last summer (and I didn't really get through them over Spring Break. I am such a slacker). Otherwise, I'll probably pick up a few Manga and read those over the summer too, and I might re-read The Stephanie Plum books by Janet Evanovich. If I like Lamb, I'll probably pick up some more Moore books too.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version