Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS
I'd just like to point out that my original contribution was a defence of stylistic experimentation and variance from the norm in certain kinds of fiction, against a kind of dismissive rubbishing - or attack - that was characterised by catlady's post - which was by no means the only example of the phenomenon, just the one I responded to. It was not an attack on anyone, so it confuses me why discussions about the aesthetics of literature have to descend into slagging people off. Perhaps I am being a bit disingenuous when I say it confuses me - my suspicion is that it comes from a strong anti-intellectual streak in British and American culture, but that's another topic. Basically, if you don't like work that is challenging, don't read it, and if you do read it don't blame it for pissing you off, would be as brief a summary of my own position as I can manage.
|
(
BOLD emphasis added)
res ipsa loquitur.
Now you and Spellbanisher can debate whether the substance of what I just said was more important than the style, or whether the style was of more import than the substance.
The irony of
this sentence...
Quote:
|
It was not an attack on anyone, so it confuses me why discussions about the aesthetics of literature have to descend into slagging people off.
|
in the same 4-sentence long paragraph as...
"...against a kind of dismissive rubbishing - or attack - that was characterised by catlady's post..."
along with,
"...my suspicion is that it comes from
a strong anti-intellectual streak in British and American culture, but that's another topic..."
AND, topping it off with this gem
"...if
you don't like work that is challenging, don't read it, and if you do read it don't blame
it for pissing you off..."
...is
priceless.
And now, out of deference to Catlady's wishes, I'm going to disengage from this thread. I don't want her dragged into it any further--as she shouldn't have been in the
first place.
Hitch