Thread: Standards
View Single Post
  #11  
Old 05-18-2016, 02:19 PM
Quandy (Offline)
Scribbler
Official Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 38
Thanks: 7
Thanks 3
Default

Originally Posted by Binx B View Post
I've read authors because of the various connections I've made on my own. Who hasn't? For example, I might not have read Chekhov if I hadn't read Carver, who cited him as an important influence. The list goes on.

And I've read authors because of articles I've read. I first read Philip Roth because of an article I read about him in Vanity Fair. Naturally, we're all drawn to different authors based on a variety of sources, influences, references and recommendations.

But it wouldn't occur to me to recommend or hold up an author as any kind of example without having read that author, or made some attempt to understand how and why he was influential—outside of assessments made by so-called "bona fide authorities."

So sorry, what this thread lacks is anything that suggest you have an understanding of how this author sets a standard beyond what you've read in Encyclopedia Britannica. Therefore, to me this seems like a pointless and hollow exercise, not altogether different than someone who puts weighty tomes on his coffee table to impress his friends—if he has any.
You asked me why I chose Balzac from all of the authors in Britannica. I took the question literally and answered literally. Why do I assume anyone here might actually not be looking to pick a fight? Why bother. The truth of the matter is if people here were actually interested in serious writing, they'd be reading it and serious criticism of it. My mistake. Everyone kept telling me that you were only interested in each other. I guess on some level I couldn't really accept that. But now I understand. Thanks for that.
Reply With Quote