Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cstvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!mcvax!ukc!cstvax!br
From: br@cstvax.UUCP (Brian Ritchie)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: WHY read Dhalgren?
Message-ID: <343@cstvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 11:27:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: cstvax.343
Posted: Wed Sep 18 11:27:04 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 03:17:23 EDT
References: <3512@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <395@rti-sel.UUCP>
Reply-To: br@cstvax.UUCP (Brian Ritchie)
Organization: Comp. Sc., Edinburgh Univ., Scotland
Lines: 40
Keywords: validation,chips (singular)

In article <395@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes:
>
>I didn't see anywhere where you were saying Dhalgren is twaddle for
>reasons A., B., and C., so your claim of 'valid reasons' seemed
>unsupported to me. The 'Defenders of Art' and 'Art snobs' at least
>offer reasons WHY they think Dhalgren is worth reading.

and jayembee said (ages ago):

>>>>If someone does not like DHALGREN, the Defenders of Art simply look
>>>>down their noses and say, "Well, you obviously were missing
>>>>something. If you set your mind to working, you'd certainly see why
>>>>it's an exemplary work." ...

In all of the discussion of DHALGREN that I have seen (and that I remember -
which may be the bigger fact filter :-), people have said things like "I got
a lot out of Dhalgren", but I don't recall anyone saying WHAT they got out of
it.  Now for all I know, that *could* just mean that they get off on spotting
obscure mythological references whose prescence depends less upon the `meaning'
of a work than on making it look good (and boosting the egos of folk who get
off on spotting them...).  PLEASE NOTE that this is highly hypothetical and 
I'm not really that cynical; the point I'm trying to make is that I haven't
seen any more concrete support of Dhalgren than "there's a lot in it".

    So far, I think the `No's have presented a better case, and have generally
explained *why* they didn't enjoy Dhalgren (I can't back this up with examples;
it's only an impression... if you want to see my idea of a `locally-justified'
viewpoint, re-read Harlan's review).

    So how about someone giving a bit more info on what Dhalgren has that makes
reading it worth the effort?  Where lies the (disputed) beauty? What points
does it make?  Is it just its style that makes it enjoyable, or is it trying
to *say* something besides just sitting pretty? And so on.  You may glean from
this that I have never read Dhalgren, and you would be correct.  Mayhaps I'm
asking too much, being too lazy to read the book and try and find out for
myself, but so many other people seem not to have succeeded that I wouldn't
mind a few hints to help me first.  If I did read it `blind' and got nowhere,
I'd never be certain whether it was lack of effort on my part or the book's.

-- Brian.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com