From: Dr. Ruth I. Gordon <druthgo>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:58:06 -0800

K.T.: Humor--what about Seidler's "Mean Margaret"--and Agee's art is sprightly, too.

Colleagues--and fellow puppy lovers:

I believe the time has come to rain on the love fest of "Books we JUST love." Is there no way to eliminate the tender feelings we have for books because they have finessed (as in the game of contract bridge) our emotions? Can't we just examine books for what they are: physical and aesthetic objects? Can't we just discuss books without our emotions being involved? Once someone says, "I just love....", it means contrary discussion may be taken for attack. Third person disputation and exhumation of texts may be "a good thing" because it becomes as objective as a critic can be about a novel. Then, perhaps, we can see that the diction is not consistent for the character portrayed; that the setting has not been well developed; that the author's voice is everywhere apparent, not the voice of the characters; that the author is working out his/her past emotional problems and thrusting them on his/her characters, etc., etc.

O.K. fire back but please--let us not "love" books when we discuss them. As I have said in the past, "For------sake, it's a book not a puppy."

Ever thine (with love, of course),

Big Grandma

================="You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty." Jessica Mitford (191796)
Received on Tue 09 Dec 1997 11:58:06 AM CST