Bleg: Quotation about Canon & Readers

[womzilla]

One of my NYRSF co-staffers asked this question:

I remember reading an essay (I think) in which the author roughly said: If you as a reader don't "get" a piece of canonical literature, then it's thought that the reader is too daft to understand the lofty ideas. Whereas with sf if the reader doesn't "get" it then it's not necessarily the fault of the reader.

I swear, I feel nuts because I remember this but cannot for the life of me find the reference. Does it ring a bell? I thought it was in Speculations on Speculation, but I can't find it.

I've made a different point in the past about reviews of classical music--that reviews of new recordings of canonical works discuss the performance but, too often, not the work, which gives the impression that the canonical works are simply beyond criticism. I'm also very fond of the sentiment, "No work can speak to every reader." But I've never encountered the thought expressed above.

Any ideas?

Comments

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

I've heard a few people say it, because I run with a crowd that can say such things on their own authority.

But I can't point to it written down anywhere.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

I swear, I feel nuts because I remember this but cannot for the life of me find the reference. Does it ring a bell? I thought it was in Speculations on Speculation, but I can't find it.

It is indeed, in Chapter 7, "Readers of Hard Science Fiction" by James Gunn, on page 81:

Another reason may be that most traditional criticism (there is, to be sure, "reader response" criticism) looks at the artist and science fiction looks at the reader. Traditional criticism holds that it is the reader's responsibility to understand, science fiction, by and large, that it is the author's responsibility to make the reader understand.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Thanks, smofbabe! You're the real bizness!

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I've made a different point in the past about reviews of classical music--that reviews of new recordings of canonical works discuss the performance but, too often, not the work, which gives the impression that the canonical works are simply beyond criticism.

I can see how it may give that impression, but that's not the intent. The problem is that review space is short, and the performance is new while the work is old: what there is to say about the work as such has likely been said before.

Nevertheless I usually try to discuss the works, as well as the performances, in my reviews whenever there is something relevant to say. You will also find, at least in the areas of reviews that I read, that if the reviewer has something negative to say about even the hoariest classic, they won't hesitate to say it.