Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsstat!laura From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Classics Message-ID: <1303@utcsstat.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Oct-83 08:32:38 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1303 Posted: Thu Oct 20 08:32:38 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Oct-83 09:37:35 EDT References: <12407@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <1274@utcsstat.UUCP>, <1623@gatech.UUCP> Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada Lines: 35 This is probably a silly place to argue, but I really resent: I'd say that books to awful TO READ but good to HAVE READ belong in the trash. Reading them anyway means you're letting someone else dictate you tastes. This is nonsense. I had to plough through a lot of Hardy to get out of high school. I can't say that my reading tastes were dictated to; if I wanted to get a good mark I had to get through The Mayor of Casterbridge. More recently, I have read more Hardy in order that I might discuss (read rip the morality to shreds, as it worked out) it with other people. Does this mean that my reading tastes are being dictated to? The alternative is to attack something without reading on the subject, or avoiding the issue. To attack things without approriate background is a very good way to repeatedly make a fool of yourself, and to continually avoid issues is a very good way to describe apathy. If the author had something to say but could not say it well then (s)he obviously needed a collaborator. What makes you think that they could say it well to the collaborator? In addition, how easy do you think today's fiction will seem to people in the 22nd century? That Shakespear wrote well does not make him an easy author for today's readers. Remember: Freedom is not given, we have to take it. I get very thoroughly annoyed when people use the wonderful word "freedom" to justify apathy and ignorance. Personal limitations infringe upon one's freedom as well. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura