I try to be literary. Really, I do. That’s what Smart People do.
I read Racy Romance Reviews and Read For Pleasure and Teach Me Tonight and I think, “Gee, these women are Smart. ” I am not that Smart. So I don’t comment much.
I read the in-depth reviews at Dear Author when they talk about worldbuilding and layering symbolism and use all sorts of literary techniques I learned but didn’t absorb for whatever reason. I read Mrs. Giggles reviews, wherein she’s snarkalicious but not (IMO) unkind–and I think, “Gee, these people are Smart.”
I read A Motley Vision and occasionally, Segullah. I read Theric and Tyler and Trevor. I think, “Gee, these people are Smart.” I am not that Smart. So I don’t comment much, except at AMV, where I probably drive the regular inhabitants insane with my less-than-suave sensitivities. Every time I post there I think, “That was a stupid thing to say.” But I let it lie because that’s who I am, even if I don’t like it sometimes.
And this is why I didn’t study English lit. I can’t analyze worth a damn and half the time, I don’t even know what the existing analyses are saying. I suppose there’s something to be said against a writer who doesn’t think about Great Works beyond “thumbs up” and “thumbs down,” but really, I’ve just come to the point where I have to admit that I like what I like and a good portion of it is crass and commercial.
Then again, sometimes the labels are deceiving. Perhaps I do like crass and commercial, but most times when I pick up a romance novel that intrigues me (mostly historicals), they’re rich and complex, layered and moving so that I’m still thinking about them long after. Sometimes they depend more heavily on characterization or on plot, leaning to one side or the other, but I really don’t care. When they strike a balance–well, that’s a lagniappe.
All I want is a good book to curl up with and a story that sticks with me a while.
But hey–I liked “I’m Too Sexy,”
Um, dumb women don’t use words like “lagniappe”, at least not correctly.
I am sure I speak for every blogger you visit when I say I appreciate your comments!
And define smart: I need a GPS to get around my own home town, cannot balance my checkbook, and still cannot figure out how to create playlists on my ipod.
The problem with suave sensitivities is that they often get too far removed from story and/or character. I try (and need to try harder) to strike a balance at AMV. I’m very happy that you help with that balance.
🙂
Thank you for including me on the Smarties list, but didn’t you recently say “I wouldn’t be a member of any club… that would have me as a member”? Heh. I’m not sure whether I’ve been complimented or mooned.
I might break down my list of feeds more finely: Smart Dresser, Smart Ass, Smarts So Good…. Seriously, you may not feel you can out-wrestle someone in her particular area of Smart, but you can claim your own flavor. Smarter Than Jello? That’s a nice, low-maintenance one 😛 (Sorry, I’m not doing Serious well today.)
But seriously (Take 2), Smart =/= Great Littrachure. I love smart readings of “crass and commercial” stuff. Also, Smart =/= Verbal. Some like to poke and prod their reading; others prefer to be wordlessly delighted.
But really seriously (Take 3), I hope you don’t feel excluded at those sites. I’m not omni-smart; I’m wowed by others all the time. ‘Sokay. Teh Smrt people can enjoy conversing at multiple levels.
Thanks, William. 🙂
SEE?!?!? It’s all that layering of things! Can’t even pick it out in my own stuff.
Hey! I don’t live in the Jell-O Belt!
I don’t feel excluded, so much as I know I should understand what you’re saying (’cause, I did take those classes), but sometimes don’t.
As for directions and checkbooks, well, I’ll cop to having a map in my head and being a closet bookkeeper. 😀
Thanks, y’all!
I can’t analyze worth a damn
Hmm. I very, very briefly skimmed through your archives, and came across this bit of analysis:
This isn’t a vampire story. It’s a character study of the things we, as Latter-day Saints, might do when pushed into a corner with no apparent way out. It also asks if we have faith in what we say we believe.
That looks to me like clear, concise analysis. And how about this:
they’re rich and complex, layered and moving so that I’m still thinking about them long after. Sometimes they depend more heavily on characterization or on plot, leaning to one side or the other, but I really don’t care. When they strike a balance–well, that’s a lagniappe.
It seems to me that you’re analysing pretty effectively if you’re thinking about these books long after you finished reading them, and you’re working out that they’re rich, layered etc.
half the time, I don’t even know what the existing analyses are saying
If you don’t understand what I’ve written, that could very well be because I’ve not explained it clearly enough. I’m always really pleased when people comment, because it helps me clarify my ideas and express them better. At least, I hope I end up expressing them better! 😉
I’ve just come to the point where I have to admit that I like what I like and a good portion of it is crass and commercial
I’m not sure I’d describe anything I like as “crass” but given that when I read fiction I’m pretty much only reading romances, and most of those are published by Harlequin, almost all the novels I read must be “commercial.” I don’t think this makes me any more, or less, smart. As you say, it mostly means that “I like what I like.”
I’ll also echo RfP: “I’m not omni-smart; I’m wowed by others all the time. ‘Sokay.” There are many, many skills that I don’t have and areas that I don’t know a lot about. For example, I haven’t studied English literature beyond high school level (I took Spanish at university), I’ve read very few of the “big” feminist works and I’m only very slowly working my way through some of them, I have very little grasp of statistics, I’ve never visited the US. I could go on, but I’d rather not reveal the true depth of my ignorance 😉 I’ve learned a lot from comments that other people have made in response to my posts, and I’ve learned a lot from reading other people’s blogs.
Again, ‘sokay. Let the Girls in the Basement do their thing.
Ha! I’d never heard of the Jell-O Belt. Unintentional Smart Assery there.
Laura, welcome!
LOL, no it’s probably me but I’ll start commenting!
Well, you know I’m trying to break ground with the Mormon-sex thing, so it’s best to start the cultural education right off the bat!
And yes, the Girls in the Basement. I have to confess I don’t get the Jenny Crusie love–for her novels. But crap, I love to read her essays and blog posts. I can spend all day and then some reading her blog archives. I bet she’s a hoot when she speaks.
.
If it makes you feel better, I had to look up lagniappe.
Good word.
And, for what it’s worth, I don’t feel dumber for coming here.
(Which reminds me, I still haven’t sent you that letter….it’s sitting in my drafts folder….polished….waiting…..)
You’ve been sitting on that so long now I’m wondering if I’m going to get sent to the principal’s office. 😐
.
Actually, I’m having a technical difficulty. I’ll send it to you now with a long and disappointing postscript…..
I’ve been saying for 6 years I’ve got a smart HunniBunni.
So did I. I agree, Theric. Good word.
And here I was thinking you’re the smart one, MoJo. I distinctly remember you talking me into a corner here with your very smart comments. I especially enjoy tongue-in-cheek smartness. Not everyone can pull that off…especially in writing.
Thanks, Tyler. Tongue-in-cheek? My dad called that being a smart aleck. 😉
Smart something, anyway… 😉