|
I think that part of the problem here is that, like on any forum, the naunces get in the way. I say something meaning something, and someone sees it as a different way, unfortunately the way it is discerned creates a wrong impression. Did that make sense?
I know what I want to say and even hint at something else, but instead it is perceived differently. This happens on any forum, in any conversation.
And that can be th problem many of us are having of our perception of what the classic represent to us and in expressing it.
For me reading material has always represented food for the mind. And using that, I go with that the ego and superego want classics, something that has substance to it. The id wants what many see as drivel, pure pleasue that provide no substance, just an a a piece of candy has no use except to provide pleasure to the senses.
Many of the romance novels that I read would be considered drivel, and I would in all honestly agree with them, for the most part. But the difference is that just as in the classics I can find books that make me think, to stop and ponder and expand my horizon (a a college instuctor stated), but so can some of the drivel. But I will in no way state it should ever be considered in the same category as classic books are.
I guess what I am thinking is, I don't want to limit myself to one type, only classics, only romance, only non-fiction, and the list can go on.
And there can be this same attitude of what is well-written even within genres. Romance is a good example; some who read historical see those who read paranormal as if it is they are from the dredges of society.
I am rambling here, thinking of the how and whys of it all.
Or I could be going off the deep end and somone needs to throw me a rope.
nuance
|