Dave,

It’s hard to know where to start in answering this post, but it seems to me so wrong- headed I have to try. First, what has where it was meant to be read to do with anything? You can read at home, at school, on a mossy bank beside a plashing stream, and is isn’t going to change the book itself. The problem is the book, not where it is “meant” to be read.

Second: he says “better works.” I’ll skip this one for the time being. See below.

Third. You state: “He seems to think that everyone should like the same books because they are based on some sort of standardised structural equation.” This is the worst calumny and is based on a total misunderstanding of formalist criticism. Very simply put, the whole point is not to posit or require any standard form for works, but to see whether the form a particular work takes is the best form it could have to accomplish what the writer wants to accomplish. I have aready given example of how this can be done: propering ordering of events, consistent point of view for narrators or characters, language appropriate to character.

Examples:

(1) ordering: the narrator should usually not know something that hasn’t happened yet, unless we’re in a work of fantasy or science fiction.
(2) pov: a non-omniscient narrator should not be able to describe things such a narrator could not see (e.g., the buckle on the back of the dress of a girl standing in front of him ) – bad novels are full of blunders like this.
(3) language: an uneducated working class laborer does not have a vocabulary replete with words such as “luminary or “ebullient” (or “replete” for that matter). This is probably one of the most common faults. It’s often called purple prose for a reason.

And then there are books full of events that supposedly add atmosphere, but do nothing to advance plot, clarify or develop character, etc. These are signs of bad writing, and a book full of bad writing is a bad book. Once again, one does not start with any preconceived notion of structure. One looks at a particular book for the structure present and asks how well that structure meets the goals of the author. Another way to think of it is that faults of literary structure are faults of literary logic.

Yes, not only can you judge the relative merits of works of art, you should. I have already pointed out that the method I’m discussing can be used with any work of literature and with works of literature from all periods. I apply it to modern lyrics I read in the TLS and to ancient Greek plays with equal pleasure and vigor. It does not ask me to dislike The Hobbit because it isn’t Hamlet or isn’t structured like this work or that.

As for analyzing The Hobbit properly and whose problem that is, I have already said that if the book were being used for analysis of literary quality and it’s faults were being discussed, I would have no problem. That’s how one learns. The fact that “lots of others” think the book is great children's literature is, for me at least, entirely immaterial. The book will not be helped by the fact, even if true.

A last point, I guess. You seem to think that all works of literature have the same value. Thus you write “He says 'better works'. This is entirely subjective. I can't believe he even considers that word "better" applicable.” I say, you bet he says it, and you can bet he means it, because there are objective standards for these things, and not just in literature or in art. I think if you can’t understand that, you have a problem, and it’s not a small one.

Consider, however: a piece of supposed counterpoint that uses exposed fifths and direct octaves, for example, shows the composer doesn’t understand his craft. A painting intended to be realistic that makes errors in perspective can be rightly faulted. The same goes for a journal article that relies on poor or outdated sources, fails to consider them carefully, makes leaps and errors of logic, etc. It’s poor scholarship, and should not be allowed in the same library as its betters.

Lee

P.S. I hope you will take none of these remarks personally. They are not meant that way.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2005 01:40PM by Lee.