From: le01167@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel)
Subject: Re: Literature Students/Small World
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. - Rye Canyon
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 22:43:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.153200.25801@grebyn.com>, fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster) writes...

>Huh.... Ron and I don't seem to have the same style of thinking about
>this topic here, so I'm not sure how to proceed with the discussion.  He
>says he agrees with my description of the reading experience as
>consisting in a continuous field of interaction between reader and book,
>but he wants to make a distinction between two different types of
>intellectual valuation of a book:
> 
>>And so this gets back to my question of the
>>benedictions placed on works only AFTER some intellectualizing, instead
>>of WITH some additional intellectual reflection.
> 
>This is what I don't understand: how is the process of continuing to
>think about, and interact with, one's own internal "map" of a book,
>different in the two time frames of *during* the reading, vs. *after*
>the reading?  

Well, this is the equivalent of trying to find something to like about
the work - after first reading it and not enjoying it (ala our "Lord
Jim" student).  You described this as being too passive for you, and I
agreed.  I make no distinction between interacting with our "internal
map" during our reading and/or after.  I make the distinction at the 
point where an isolated intellectualization (ie w/out our own internal
map) occurs, without the enjoyment.

>Like a relationship with a human being, a relationship
>with a book starts when you first meet, and never ceases, then, for the
>rest of your life, to undergo some sort of change--if only the change of
>attrition of memory.  So this temporal dividing line doesn't make sense
>to me.

I overemphasized the temporal aspect because it allowed me to show that
the person did not enjoy it at first, but later.  And that would have
to mean an enjoyment of the work for something OTHER than its initial
experience.  This is what allowed me to distinguish between the
intellectual pleasure and the experiencial one.  And so I wondered, if 
the book was not enjoyed for its reading experience, but did have some 
intellectual qualities, does that qualify that book (for that person)
as Great?  If so, I think it is overvaluing the intellectual part...
for some reason...

>He also says:
>>And from here I go on to my question of the motives behind the
>>overvaluation of the intellectual content above all else, the tendency
>>to denegrate a work UNLESS it has intellectual content, or praise a
>>work we otherwise wouldn't like solely because of the intellectual
>>content.
>[...]
>>We are somehow not free to enjoy them unless there is
>>some intellectual reason d'etre to justify our indulgence.
> 
>Again, I am puzzled by the either-or dichotomies you set up.  How can
>you differentiate the intellectual pleasures of a book--which arise in
>the reader's mind within that free-flowing field of interaction between
>"self" and "text"--from other pleasures?

See above, with my use of the temporal evidence.

>I understand what your point
>is, about how there's what I might call a puritanical part of ourselves
>(the analogy to sex is telling indeed) that overvalues intellectual vs.
>other forms of enjoyment, but I don't see how that dichotomy works.
>Maybe it's one of those things that some people see, others don't.
>
Well, this is, in part the reason for my posting; to try to show that
there is this dichotomy.

>But if I try your hat on for size here, and lean way out here into what
>I perceive of as your way of thinking, Ron, 

Oh, thanks a lot! 8^}

I sense that you're thinking
>of books as falling into not two, but three, categories:
>     
>     --those which have little intellectual content but are enjoyable
>       in some other way;
> 
>     --those in which we invest an effort of intellectual valuation,
>       and thus can enjoy the "intellectual trophies" gained thereby
>       (what a bizarre concept, I must say--"trophy" having the
>        connotation of a prize gained in conquest!);
> 
>     --those which we may or may not like, but for which we clearly
>       acknowledge an intellectual content that didn't require all that
>       much effort on our part.

I'll be less cyptic then, and put it out in the open in decreasinc order 
of quality:

1. Works that are very enjoyable reading experience, and have a high
   intellectual content that rewards further exploration.  These are
   Great books.

2. Works that are a very enjoyable read, but do not contain, or were not
   meant to have, more depth that rewards further exploration

3. Works that are not an enjoyable reading experience, but do contain
   more depth and reward further intellectual effort

4. Books that are neither enjoyable reads, and are intellectually vacant.

And there must be a spectrum here, but I have been simplifying.

> I see a Stephen King novel into which I invest a lot of "mutually
>congratulatory" (I think was Ron's phrase) intellectual effort,

What I mean by mutually congratulatory is the "reader" DID NOT enjoy
the book, but after expending intellectual time and energy finds
something to appreciate, and so in gratitude (for the ego boost - not
necessarily the pleasure) rewards the book with a higher rating than
perhaps it deserves (over-values the intellectual part).

>Maybe this is as far as we can go, because of how differently we
>approach the discussion of mental contents.  

Now that I have explained more, are our approaches still different
in your estimation?

>For what it's worth in the
>way of additional comment, I know I am *utterly* incapable of making the
>physical vs. intellectual pleasure distinction Ron adduces, for love
>relationships.  I can't imagine the activity of sex, without its accom-
>panying intellectual, emotional, cultural, spiritual, etc., parameters.
>  
>					Fiona --

Well, this is kind of one of my points above.  Lots of sex takes place 
without ANY additional parameters (enjoyed for its experiencial pleasure
only).  I hope you're not saying that it doesn't (it just doesn't for
YOU).  But I don't think that consenting sex takes place based solely on
the intellectual parameters you mention.  Although you may prefer your
sex and books to have both componants, I think the distinction between
the two does exist.

Ron