Bleg: Quotation about Canon & Readers
Aug. 11th, 2009 02:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
womzillaOne of my NYRSF co-staffers asked this question:
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?
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?
