<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: HOW TO TALK ABOUT BOOKS YOU HAVEN’T READ BY PIERRE BAYARD</title>
	<atom:link href="http://authwhore.com/2008/04/01/how-to-talk-about-books-you-haven%e2%80%99t-read-by-pierre-bayard/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://authwhore.com/2008/04/01/how-to-talk-about-books-you-haven%e2%80%99t-read-by-pierre-bayard/</link>
	<description>Reading is Sexy. Do it Like a Slut.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 04:03:23 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://authwhore.com/2008/04/01/how-to-talk-about-books-you-haven%e2%80%99t-read-by-pierre-bayard/comment-page-1/#comment-168</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:10:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://authwhore.com/2008/04/01/how-to-talk-about-books-you-haven%e2%80%99t-read-by-pierre-bayard/#comment-168</guid>
		<description>Wowsers.  A critical book about criticism of criticism... a book that validates its own existence by virtue of its own system.  Is his book an example of his own thesis?  I&#039;m not sure how I feel about criticism for its own sake... if a classical idea of art is related to expressing or representing beauty, is criticism then, as an art, somehow meditating on the beauty of criticism (or of being critical)?  I suppose that this is in part legitimate, for it is exactly our capacity for critical thinking that makes us humans so unique and interesting and, perhaps, beautiful.  But what about truth?  Beauty is truth, truth beauty... does criticism help us explore an objective truth or is it beautiful for its creative ability to generate new truth?  Or is it all a bunch of crap?  Crap that makes critics feel good about themselves?  I&#039;m reminded of the depiction of the Critics in Charles Stross&#039; science fiction masterpiece SINGULARITY SKY: a bunch of enormous, fugly, hairy elephant-like, slobbering and farting beasts who attempt to make order out of the chaos of futuristic society by talking about it.

Like you, I find certain parts of his argument intriguing (though I need to read the actual book to truly develop my own opinion... or... perhaps I don&#039;t?), but I have a hard time reconciling the full implication of his assertions when applied in a less intellectual (or dangerously slanted intellectual) context.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wowsers.  A critical book about criticism of criticism&#8230; a book that validates its own existence by virtue of its own system.  Is his book an example of his own thesis?  I&#8217;m not sure how I feel about criticism for its own sake&#8230; if a classical idea of art is related to expressing or representing beauty, is criticism then, as an art, somehow meditating on the beauty of criticism (or of being critical)?  I suppose that this is in part legitimate, for it is exactly our capacity for critical thinking that makes us humans so unique and interesting and, perhaps, beautiful.  But what about truth?  Beauty is truth, truth beauty&#8230; does criticism help us explore an objective truth or is it beautiful for its creative ability to generate new truth?  Or is it all a bunch of crap?  Crap that makes critics feel good about themselves?  I&#8217;m reminded of the depiction of the Critics in Charles Stross&#8217; science fiction masterpiece SINGULARITY SKY: a bunch of enormous, fugly, hairy elephant-like, slobbering and farting beasts who attempt to make order out of the chaos of futuristic society by talking about it.</p>
<p>Like you, I find certain parts of his argument intriguing (though I need to read the actual book to truly develop my own opinion&#8230; or&#8230; perhaps I don&#8217;t?), but I have a hard time reconciling the full implication of his assertions when applied in a less intellectual (or dangerously slanted intellectual) context.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://authwhore.com/2008/04/01/how-to-talk-about-books-you-haven%e2%80%99t-read-by-pierre-bayard/comment-page-1/#comment-167</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:28:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://authwhore.com/2008/04/01/how-to-talk-about-books-you-haven%e2%80%99t-read-by-pierre-bayard/#comment-167</guid>
		<description>Hey that is really quite a pithy review James.  I mean, I saw that there were some big words and it is kinda long.

I just skimmed through it, really.  Something about books and french-fries on Fox News, good stuff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey that is really quite a pithy review James.  I mean, I saw that there were some big words and it is kinda long.</p>
<p>I just skimmed through it, really.  Something about books and french-fries on Fox News, good stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

