Reply to comment

In class and discussion we keep coming back to the critique of Smith using a 400 plus page novel as a means by which to get across her anti-academia message, but personally I don’t see any hypocrisy in doing so.  In my view Smith is not arguing that we should not read novels, she is instead arguing against the way in which academics tend to over analyze things to the point of removing any real life from them.  Through his intense lectures on beauty Howard is draining the enjoyment out of works of art that were meant to inspire.  Smith gives no indication that she disapproves of the works of arts and bodies of literature that the academics are destroying with their analysis.  Furthermore if she has any issue with novels themselves then why would she make her living by writing them? 

            Also I have been thinking about how limiting I feel it is that we have begun classifying everything as narrative or non-narrative and assigning words like lyric, static, or evolving into either of the two categories. Whenever people start to classify life into just two categories it always reminds me of the scene in Donnie Darko when the teacher asks the students to classify the moviations of actions as being rooted in either fear or love. 

Donnie: Life isn't that simple. I mean who cares if Ling Ling returns the wallet and keeps the money? It has nothing to do with either fear or love.

Kitty Farmer: Fear and love are the deepest of human emotions.

Donnie: Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here. Like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else!