Everyone seems to have missed the part where I ended my Austen post asking people to explain to me how and why I was being wrongheaded.
No, I got that bit. It's just that you pretty much ignored or dismissed everything anyone said in reply to it :-p
I admitted I don't know the context of the book I was trying to read; Knight doesn't.
But in the entire review, he mentions once, mildly, that this dissociation between book and reader might be a negative. In fact, he spends most of the review praising the unusual and varied scope of the stories. In no way at all did he imply that, for example, he couldn't judge if the book was good or bad becuase he lacked the relevant referential framework.
Any book that requires a pre-reading list to be understood is going to gather mixed reviews (and I don't include Austen in that category, becuase I've always found her writing to be immendsly straightforward). Any book that requires you to "know the context" has failed in at least one regard. The only lack of context you have with Austen is historical - the book was written a long time ago. You can't actually blame Austen or her writing for that :-p If "Magic For Beginners" confuses someone, then it's perfectly reasonable for them to say so; and sitting in the ghetto, pointing and mocking them for "not getting it" because they haven't immersed themselves sufficiently in the genre isn't being funny, it's being snobbish.
Knight's review was positive and appreciative; I would have thought that that was a good thing...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-13 02:23 pm (UTC)No, I got that bit. It's just that you pretty much ignored or dismissed everything anyone said in reply to it :-p
I admitted I don't know the context of the book I was trying to read; Knight doesn't.
But in the entire review, he mentions once, mildly, that this dissociation between book and reader might be a negative. In fact, he spends most of the review praising the unusual and varied scope of the stories. In no way at all did he imply that, for example, he couldn't judge if the book was good or bad becuase he lacked the relevant referential framework.
Any book that requires a pre-reading list to be understood is going to gather mixed reviews (and I don't include Austen in that category, becuase I've always found her writing to be immendsly straightforward). Any book that requires you to "know the context" has failed in at least one regard. The only lack of context you have with Austen is historical - the book was written a long time ago. You can't actually blame Austen or her writing for that :-p If "Magic For Beginners" confuses someone, then it's perfectly reasonable for them to say so; and sitting in the ghetto, pointing and mocking them for "not getting it" because they haven't immersed themselves sufficiently in the genre isn't being funny, it's being snobbish.
Knight's review was positive and appreciative; I would have thought that that was a good thing...