reenka

They were! I def. agree that negative response can be just as emotive as positive response, though I still think that criticism can be done rationally and that a rational response to dislike wouldn't necessarily be "let's go find something we like." Because then nobody would criticise or deconstruct anything. The problem I think is in the way "rational" is constructed -- for example I see it often conflated with objectivism and it's not. In this sense rationalism can fully embrace the reader response and value emotional response and keep critique of the text perfectly separated from say, analysis of its reception. Another question I have is: does an emotional motivation to deconstruct something imply that the criticism per se will be irrational? And thinking about the enjoyment of fantasy separated from its literary merit, isn't it important to know what kind of truth the work is meant to represent, how does it name itself? These are just some of the questions that immediately pop to mind.