Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
. . . In the end though we're dealing with a work of fantasy & emotional response over-rides moral judgement - if the story is effective. If a reader can step back & 'analyse' the story in terms of what is 'moral' & 'immoral' the story cannot really be working in the way it should. The reader may feel happiness or sadness, fear, horror, shock, joy, anger etc. but if the reader is so 'detatched' from the events of the story that he/she can undertake a moral & ethical analysis of the story either the story is unengaging or the reader has no imagination. . . .
|
Stepping in here with an observation. This is your literary viewpoint about stories,
davem, but it is not the only literary viewpoint. Readers, critics, audience, storytellers themselves have argued for eons--probably since the first day after the first story was told to an audience--over whether the purpose of art is to instruct or to entertain. And then there is a sizable group who reject that either/or situation and argue for a synthesis of the two.
You really cannot tell a reader that his (or her) analysis of a story arises from his (or her) lack of imagination or the story's lack of entertainment, because you can't get into a person's head. Without knowing what prompts the analysis, you cannot substitute your own theory for its genesis and assume it pertains truly in all cases. After all, for all any of us know, a reader might simply be playing with the text, delighting himself (or herself) with how many ways he (or she) may find to engage his (etc.) mind with it.
Observation concluded. You may proceed.
(Likely this thread will come to rival the infamous "C" thread, at least for its head-knocking.)