tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2698703170181541645.post7879262579925997433..comments2024-01-11T07:39:08.718-05:00Comments on Differencing the Engine: Known Issues, part one.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2698703170181541645.post-45926688610868478532010-03-30T10:26:55.657-04:002010-03-30T10:26:55.657-04:00It's hardly overthinking. In publishing critic...It's hardly overthinking. In publishing criticism, there's a respect to yourself as far as trusting your own instincts, and a respect to your readers - acknowledging that you've got a limited space and have to pare down your ideas to fit that space, which means not every sentence can start with "It seems to me" or "It just may be my opinion" or "Given what little I know about the topic." I get angry when people insist that writing criticism has to involve portraying a person with ultimate authority and confidence - but this leads into Known Issues, part two. (But we've got unlimited space here and certainly enough energy to publish whatever thought comes across our minds, so I'm hoping these won't be a big deal. And we don't have any profit or manipulation in mind; we're just here to ramble as much as we can. That's honesty to me.)<br /><br />The question of respecting the author's work is another one - simply by paying them attention at all, especially with the sort of enthusiasm we seem to have, has to be a compliment of some sort. Only the most narcissistic authors would insist on their audience doing their readings in a particular way or with an ideal set of tools and experience. These things get really touchy with live artistic forms (the artist controls the environment and maybe even the audience, and you go in with a much stronger suspension of disbelief), but when it comes to books there's an implicit freedom. There's much greater chance involved, as to whether reading in the bathtub or on the bus will lead to a stronger attention span or a weaker one. I like to think that authors acknowledge this. (Think: Even the premise of this blog - "Couldn't finish it the first time" - is so rare in other arts. Couldn't watch all of a two-hour movie? Even a six-hour movie? Couldn't stare at the painting long enough? Couldn't listen to the whole album? The greater investment of time and motivation in books is universally known.)Allanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09413817196488282688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2698703170181541645.post-37771613132014702932010-03-30T02:21:34.681-04:002010-03-30T02:21:34.681-04:00It's interesting to me that you tread cautious...It's interesting to me that you tread cautiously around a perceived moral dimension to reading a book. That you seem to be saying there is a kind of ethics governing your mindset when you open yourself to something someone has written.<br /><br />That's certainly true if you are approaching the work as a reviewer, as the fact that you're about to make public your opinion of the book (or, more accurately, your impressions of the experience of reading the book... your perception of the effectiveness of the communication of the author's intent via the medium of the book...) obliges you to approach the exchange as free of preconceptions and with as much honesty as possible.<br /><br />But I guess it's even a valuable code of behavior when you are just reading for yourself. It's a constructive discipline of mind. Sort of like the part in the Boy Scout oath about swearing to stay "Mentally Awake". You want to avoid lazy presumption or inattention in your reading, not only out of respect for the author but out of respect for yourself. You're about to assign hours of your mentation to the words this person wrote, and you only have so many of those hours. It's kind of a self-destructive crime to be less than awake in your reading. <br /><br />That's almost certainly overthinking the whole thing, but the morality of creative engagement is something I worry about too!Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17538834011773567990noreply@blogger.com