reading with the protocols
matociquala: You have to read a story within its own protocols for it to make sense.
truepenny: Yes. Otherwise you spend the whole of Alice in Wonderland complaining that rabbits can't talk.
matociquala: Well, no. But any fool knows March Hares can....
Discuss?
(I can see ways where these are problematic statements, because of course one of the joys of feminist (and certain other politically-motivated schools of) criticism is questioning assumptions, genre and otherwise. And critical reading is all about picking stuff apart. However, I am minded of a comment in my blog recently regarding my reading of naominovik's book, wherein the other reader opined that he had a hard time with suspension of disbelief because history hadn't been changed more by the existence of domesticated dragons. And of course, there's a certain kind of book that's all about logical extrapolation of historical changes. But this is not that book, nor is it trying to be.
So I think on one level it's necessary to read a book in accordance with the rules of the game its playing, because on one level, any book is merely a logical construct being used to play a beautiful and self-referential game of chess, which may have application to the wider world or not. And so, and so... at what point do you stop complaining that it's chess, because you would rather have gone to a soccer game? Collect a refund on your ticket and drive over to the soccer game.
(lousy chess is a different issue.) )
truepenny: Yes. Otherwise you spend the whole of Alice in Wonderland complaining that rabbits can't talk.
matociquala: Well, no. But any fool knows March Hares can....
Discuss?
(I can see ways where these are problematic statements, because of course one of the joys of feminist (and certain other politically-motivated schools of) criticism is questioning assumptions, genre and otherwise. And critical reading is all about picking stuff apart. However, I am minded of a comment in my blog recently regarding my reading of naominovik's book, wherein the other reader opined that he had a hard time with suspension of disbelief because history hadn't been changed more by the existence of domesticated dragons. And of course, there's a certain kind of book that's all about logical extrapolation of historical changes. But this is not that book, nor is it trying to be.
So I think on one level it's necessary to read a book in accordance with the rules of the game its playing, because on one level, any book is merely a logical construct being used to play a beautiful and self-referential game of chess, which may have application to the wider world or not. And so, and so... at what point do you stop complaining that it's chess, because you would rather have gone to a soccer game? Collect a refund on your ticket and drive over to the soccer game.
(lousy chess is a different issue.) )