![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jun. 3rd, 2010 09:52 amI am still under the influence of the Tooth of Evil (no infection, no tooth but still high pain) and this means I'm grumpy even when I shouldn't be. I pulled myself up a moment ago for being grumpy when I shouldn't be, however, and then realised that maybe I had cause for discontent.
At every meeting these last three weeks and in every class and twice in articles I've read a person has criticised a comment I have made or someone else has made. They preface those comment with "I haven't read this book" "I only read a book a month" "I don't read at all" "I feel very strongly that you're wrong, but I've never looked it up." In each and every case the person in question has been talking to or about someone who has read the book, who reads the genre or sub-genre extensively, or, in one case, has a degree in the subject in question.
I have no objection to people arguing with me, I've discovered. I have a very real objection, however, to people criticising without backup, evidence, knowing the subject. "This is wrong because of such and such. Let me show you what I mean" isn't irritating at all. "I don't know this subject, really, but you're wrong" is very irritating indeed.
In class, I sent my student away for evidence and she came back and we had a good discussion. We didn't agree, at the end of the day, but we talked it through with knowledge on both sides. I don't have that same power elsewhere.
Anyhow, my new resolution is to watch for someone saying "I haven't read the book/know the subject, but.." and then check to see the basis of their argument. If their argument holds water anyway, I'll still respect them. If it doesn't or if there is no argument at all (in two cases there were just general unsubstantiated whinges), I shall bite my tongue, but respect them less. I also am less likely to read their fiction (if they're writers - not all of them are) because I really like writers who think. All this comes down to the historian in me: she's inordinately fond of evidence.
None of us have read every single book we ought or want to. Not having read given books means that our opinions on that writer or subject are less developed. If people I encounter would just stop claiming otherwise, I would be less grumbly.
Speaking of reading, I've only averaged a book a day this week, but I should be caught up on all my reading-for-articles by the end of today. I shall have finished the articles by COB tomorrow (wheee!). After that I have 2 books a day to read for the doctorate so I can catch up on my journalling. And then it's my review books. All going well, I shall be back to normal reading (3-5 books a week) by the end of next week or maybe the week after. By that time (according to teh intarweebs) my tooth pain will have sorted itself and I shall be terrifyingly happy.
At every meeting these last three weeks and in every class and twice in articles I've read a person has criticised a comment I have made or someone else has made. They preface those comment with "I haven't read this book" "I only read a book a month" "I don't read at all" "I feel very strongly that you're wrong, but I've never looked it up." In each and every case the person in question has been talking to or about someone who has read the book, who reads the genre or sub-genre extensively, or, in one case, has a degree in the subject in question.
I have no objection to people arguing with me, I've discovered. I have a very real objection, however, to people criticising without backup, evidence, knowing the subject. "This is wrong because of such and such. Let me show you what I mean" isn't irritating at all. "I don't know this subject, really, but you're wrong" is very irritating indeed.
In class, I sent my student away for evidence and she came back and we had a good discussion. We didn't agree, at the end of the day, but we talked it through with knowledge on both sides. I don't have that same power elsewhere.
Anyhow, my new resolution is to watch for someone saying "I haven't read the book/know the subject, but.." and then check to see the basis of their argument. If their argument holds water anyway, I'll still respect them. If it doesn't or if there is no argument at all (in two cases there were just general unsubstantiated whinges), I shall bite my tongue, but respect them less. I also am less likely to read their fiction (if they're writers - not all of them are) because I really like writers who think. All this comes down to the historian in me: she's inordinately fond of evidence.
None of us have read every single book we ought or want to. Not having read given books means that our opinions on that writer or subject are less developed. If people I encounter would just stop claiming otherwise, I would be less grumbly.
Speaking of reading, I've only averaged a book a day this week, but I should be caught up on all my reading-for-articles by the end of today. I shall have finished the articles by COB tomorrow (wheee!). After that I have 2 books a day to read for the doctorate so I can catch up on my journalling. And then it's my review books. All going well, I shall be back to normal reading (3-5 books a week) by the end of next week or maybe the week after. By that time (according to teh intarweebs) my tooth pain will have sorted itself and I shall be terrifyingly happy.