Thursday, July 11, 2002

Is analysis a good thing?

I read a good book, I love it, I bathe in it. And make meaning out of it in my own limited sphere of experience.
And then comes the Mr. Phonetics/Semantics/ Semiotics/ Anthropological Ph.D analysis...

And my first reactions are like,"Huh? Huh? Double duh!"
Further down into the long-winded, convoluted paper meant to double up as Esperanto, some semblance of a pattern. Head nods in slow, difficult, resistant mode and eyes glaze into a non-cynical, 'maybe this makes sense'.
And then I make another pattern out of the former black and white 'I like it' viewpoint and walk on.

Sure that is over-simplification. But the point here is that I don't know what is better.
To just soak it up and let it be, see it like a child and be amazed or look through a microscope, watch for underlying patterns and love it for its architecture and symbolism.
Does knowing add to the tapestry or just buffer the 'let's make meaningless conversation about something equally uselsss' lounge?

Analysing Rushdie makes sense. He asks, literally begs to be. So do most post-modernists, magic realists, blah, blah, blah.
But some I don't want to touch. Kundera, Hemingway, surprisingly even Tokien (allthough LOTR analyses make for complete readings in themselves, and pretty interesting ones at that, ).
Words that are, because they couldn't have not been. Stories to live, lives to be, worlds to conquer.

Sometimes, all I want is a good bedtime story.