![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On critical and emotional responses
Sunday, January 18th, 2009 09:06 pmTrying to think logically about the uneasiness engendered in me whilst reading portions of the current racism / Other / privilege debate.
I think what I'm most uncomfortable with, here and more generally, is the mixture of reaction to an author's work with reaction to that author. ("I don't like you": "I hope I never meet you": "I don't believe your apology".) It works the other way, too, with comments to the effect of "I won't read X's novels because of X's comments on this subject".
Over the last few years I have been attempting to think critically (in literary terms) about everything I read. There are some books where my emotional response overwhelms my critical response. This can go both ways. "There is something in this book that triggered a response in me that makes it hard to think critically about it" describes a book that irritates or distresses me to the point of not finishing it, and it also describes a book that sings to me -- perhaps because of a single character, a single resonant image, an idea that chimes with something from another context and starts a creative process for me.
I am reacting to the book, not to the author*. (Yes, of course book is product of author. But, to coin a phrase, it does not necessarily reflect the views of the author. Writing fiction about murder does not make me a murderer.Writing fiction about mad people does not ... oh, wait.)
I will happily argue about the book, about my reading of the content, about my assumptions about the author's intent. (What I read is not always what the author intended: when I write, people don't always read into my writing what I intended to put there.) These are my opinions and observations, my emotional reactions, my analysis. With some exceptions (internal inconsistency, poor proof-reading, factual inaccuracy) they are not objective. The author is not wrong, and nor am I. Either one of us (or both) might be misguided, overambitious, forgetful of detail, derivative, biased.
I have an array of bias: race, class, gender, nationality, political leaning, religious habits, mental health, age. They affect whatever I read and whatever I write. I try to minimise their negative effect. I try to notice their effect. I expect I'll be striving to balance them out for the rest of my life.
*interestingly, and embarrassingly, I am influenced in the other direction: if someone upsets or annoys me in person, I am somewhat less likely to come to their books with an open mind!
I think what I'm most uncomfortable with, here and more generally, is the mixture of reaction to an author's work with reaction to that author. ("I don't like you": "I hope I never meet you": "I don't believe your apology".) It works the other way, too, with comments to the effect of "I won't read X's novels because of X's comments on this subject".
Over the last few years I have been attempting to think critically (in literary terms) about everything I read. There are some books where my emotional response overwhelms my critical response. This can go both ways. "There is something in this book that triggered a response in me that makes it hard to think critically about it" describes a book that irritates or distresses me to the point of not finishing it, and it also describes a book that sings to me -- perhaps because of a single character, a single resonant image, an idea that chimes with something from another context and starts a creative process for me.
I am reacting to the book, not to the author*. (Yes, of course book is product of author. But, to coin a phrase, it does not necessarily reflect the views of the author. Writing fiction about murder does not make me a murderer.
I will happily argue about the book, about my reading of the content, about my assumptions about the author's intent. (What I read is not always what the author intended: when I write, people don't always read into my writing what I intended to put there.) These are my opinions and observations, my emotional reactions, my analysis. With some exceptions (internal inconsistency, poor proof-reading, factual inaccuracy) they are not objective. The author is not wrong, and nor am I. Either one of us (or both) might be misguided, overambitious, forgetful of detail, derivative, biased.
I have an array of bias: race, class, gender, nationality, political leaning, religious habits, mental health, age. They affect whatever I read and whatever I write. I try to minimise their negative effect. I try to notice their effect. I expect I'll be striving to balance them out for the rest of my life.
*interestingly, and embarrassingly, I am influenced in the other direction: if someone upsets or annoys me in person, I am somewhat less likely to come to their books with an open mind!
