>
>>> So how does the general average reader hook into the cultural scene of
the
>>> writer?
>>>
>>> Or do you consider that even necessary?
>
>>main sticking point is while you can compare the two, perhaps gain insight
>>from it... can you actually be said to be doing a critique on the actual
>>work at hand? In that case, wouldn't all you'd be able to do is say
"Over
>>here we have X, and in casting about for a point of reference I refer you
to
>>Y" and then only deal in generalities of similarities, and not
be able, at
>>all, to deal with what the Author is really -- or even subconciously --
>>saying?
>
>Reading science fiction can sometimes pose the same problem, if you get a
>really good writer who can create an alien culture that hands you the same
>effect.  You have to try to get into the heads of these alien creatures, as
>the author got into their heads to create them, to understand what's going
>on.  One reason why I get impatient with people who dismiss science
fiction.
>
>>Or does it really, as Karen asks -- not matter? Say this Writer puts a
story
>>out about flying... you could look at it absolutely literally and
thinkit's
>>about airplanes, or a fantasy about ppl being able to fly... but the
Writer
>>isn't even remotely cued on the same cultural idea, and is modeling
his/her
>>story on cultural visions of the afterlife. BUT, having the knowledge of
>>psychological insight into dream images, and a wealth of literature/global
>>history to choose from... we could start to infer it's about the afterlife
>>and then go on to talk about it that way... being right even knowing
>>absolutely nothing about the Writer's culture...
>>
>>things that make you go hmm....
>
>Indeed.
>
>>> when the critic  states that THIS IS
>>> THE WAY IT IS and whosoever disagrees with me is just not worth
bothering
>>> with.  We've seen that kind of attitude on both sides of the literary or
>>> artistic street.
>
>>
>>Yes, there you go -- you and I are looking at it the same way. The
endeavor
>>itself is deserving, but some of those endeavoring are a pox 
>
>Or just are clumsy about it.  
>
>>> I hope my comments haven't made you feel that you need to defend the
>>> endeavor.  I'm sincerely interested in the whole question, having done a
>>
>>AMEN!! I *like* impassioned conversation :)
>
>This has been stimulating, hasn't it.  Keeps the grey cells humming.
>
>>> criticism myself (albeit it was a television show, and who would argue
>>> that those are serious art?  ).
>>
>>I WOULD! Some aren't of course... there's trash in every field.
>>But oh yes, absolutely some are serious art! As in film,
"true" art,
>>literature, mathmatics... there's serious art in any skill/medium/realm of
>>endeavor.
>
>Certainly there is when it is done well.
>
>>Pop culture takes well deserved whacks, but it's not without items
>>to praise either. After all -- what were the Greeks and Romans, and all
>>those Mayans, Koreans, Chinese, Africans, Neanderthals etc indulging in
with
>>their art, pottery, myths, etc etc but expressing their culture?
>
>I suppose that's true.  It just seems that some of the "older
stuff" was
>done more intelligently and elegantly than a goodly bit of what comes out
>of the mill today.
>
>>Different
>>form and ages past doesn't make it more relevant than our current
>>fascination with boy bands and string cheese. Who knows -- a thousand
years
>>from now they may see some of it as Art and hinge a whole society on the
>>meaning of Mickey Mouse.
>
>That's frightening!  
>
>
>>> I'm tickled to have this discussion here, too!
>>
>>ME TOO! :))
>>I hope our elf has more time to spare 
>
>She's kinda busy . . . 
>
>>> And more people should do that.  In fact, on an admittedly less
>>> academically rarefied and most likely much less a disciplined level as
>>> well, this is what media fans do to the "texts" of
the shows they are
fans
>>> of.  And they find all kinds of meanings in them that one who was
distanced
>>> from them would sit and stare and say, "How in the hell
do they find ALL
>>> THAT in a TV show?"
>>
>>Which is *exactly* what ppl ask me when I tell them about the higher
themes
>>and meanings in Buffy the Vampire Slayer -- which is just an *awesome*
>>show... sure you can watch it as a campy vampire/horror show, but it's so
>>much *more* than that.
>
>Who'd have thought it?
>
>>> Could criticism be properly defined as "intelligent
examination?"  What
IS
>>> the accepted professional definition, anyway?  Isn't that a good place
to
>>> start understanding it?
>>
>>AAAAAAAHHHHH!!!! I *LOVE* that definition!!! ACK! "Intelligent
examination"
>>YES!!
>>*That* I can get behind  And that is precisely NOT what the sort of
>>criticism we were whinning about is.
>>Oh, well done. :)
>
>  I'm sure that's a tepid attempt at definition; I'd like to know
>what the "academic" definition is.
>
>>> FINDING it there on your own because of your
>>> own experience is one thing; saying that the author deliberately put it
>>> there when the critic has no such knowledge is quite another.
>>>
>>> Am I making any sense at all?
>>
>>Oh yup... we are actually on common ground with darkelf... though it may
>>have looked like *all* critical effort was dismissed, what we were
actually
>>dismissing (ridiculing even) was poorly done, unreasonable, criticism. The
>>bad apples as it were.
>
>I think you're right.  Or not so much the bad apples as the terribly less
>rigorous ones.
>
>Veloci--nice talking to ya--raptor
>

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha