Re: le style, c'est l'homme

First, thanks Scottie and John for your quick responses. Again, I
agree with you both! Scottie is write to know that authors must
seduce readers with all the rhetoric, ideas and feelings they
possess. John is also right to note that some authors require a
strong and wide reading effort that some won't aspire to, but for
those that do, there seems to be quite a bit that's worthwhile. I
know I felt that way when I studied Lit crit and theory.

So it seems to me that we come to my favorite word--"polysemy." We
make "many meanings" in our small existences. Scottie and John seem
to be arguing about what is readable and what should be ignored (and
why). These days I'm thinking that different authors attract
different readers and there are fewer and fewer ways to assert which
of those authors is truly necessary. Maybe this problem exists
because there is a flowering of ideas (on and offline) and readers
reach more widely into our literary canons for answers. Sure, one can
express a distaste for any one of a number of writers others enjoy,
so maybe Scottie is arguing for the "I know it when I read it well"
position, while John is arguing for the I know it more and more as I
read more deeply and widely" position. I use both positions in my own
reading life and see validity for putting down a book that doesn't
keep me interested while also seeing validity in plowing through
difficult texts to find new ideas or to understand my own thinking
more clearly.

Still fence sitting and enjoying your responses, will

-- 
	Will Hochman
Associate Professor of English
Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent St, New Haven, CT 06515
203 392 5024
http://www.southernct.edu/~hochman/willz.html
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH