hallieod at indigo.ie
Mon Nov 10 04:56:15 EST 2003
>Though the Pooh Perplex is troubling in other ways. The implication of
>PP and its recent sequel is that trying to find deep meanings in
>children's lit is silly. Which we all agree, it isn't.
Er, do you really think that's the implication? I've only read the
sequel, _Postmodern Pooh_, but wouldn't have thought that was the
point at all. If pushed, I'd have said it was to explain, while
lampooning (or perhaps to lampoon, while explaining!), major figures
in recent literary criticism. None of the ones I recognised had gone
near children's lit, but were being sent up for their own style of
writing or behaviour in their own fields. If anything, many of them
might think children's lit was 'beneath' them, which makes them all
the more worthy of parody! ;-) (Stephen Greenblatt is one of these
figures, and he's my new lit crit hero, so I'm not dismissing
literary critics or anything.)
>On a similar note, I got very irritated but the recent DWJ article in
>SFX (which I had my sister send to me: "you can buy it, and read the
>David Boreanaz / Joss Whedon article, and tell everyone it's for your
>sister so you're not a dork"). She rather rips on Exciting and Exacting
> I was flattered initially and then I read it ... all this stuff
> about post-modernism and deconstruction -- some of it seems to
> be somebody running beside and simply not noticing what I was
> doing. I wish I could have supressed the lot, actually.
>Now, I know that there's an unwritten rule that authors
>have to pretend/feel scholarly criticism misses the boat. But DWJ has
>written scholarly criticism herself. "The Heroic Ideal" about her own
>work, and "Shape of the Narrative" about Tolkein. So it stings more
>than it would from a different author. She's putting on a face for the
>magazine, and it's aggravating.
>Yes, there are some very obscure pieces in the volume, but unless she's
>quoted way out of context, she's dissing the entire concept of analysis
>of literature. And I didn't get into this business because I care what
>authors think (or I'd be in the wrong business!) but it is aggravating,
>as I said, coming from someone who's *written* crit.
'Suppressed' is surprising, as well as aggravating, I'd have thought.
>-deborah, commiting the cardinal sin by being snarky about She We All
>Adore on the list
We don't *all* 'adore' her! Not in the way I define the word,
anyway. And the list would be a lot less interesting if we could
only voice completely approving opinions in a worshipful way, as if
she were infallible, instead of amazing.
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj