@corlin

🤣 Do you enjoy arguing with bad literary analysis too?

I have to admit, I *do* find it fruitful to dive into a text that fails. This one is a clear fix-up jumble of a few conference papers, but the benefit of seeing its errors is that I came away with a better understanding of how a *good* theory of science fiction as a narrative form might be written.

Making lemonade from lemons, right? 🙃

@MLClark

yep..
I often read contrarian views.
It makes the personal choice of views, more clear.

Counterfactuals are useful !

@corlin

Splendid! Do let me know your thoughts. :)

@Armchaircouch

Great question. I discuss that in the review, by explaining what narrative studies is, & the kinds of insights we can gain by looking at the structure of storytelling.

In this case though, the authors tried to extend the work of an early 1900s literary philosopher without challenging his premises. And... they essentially cobbled together a book of loosely related conference papers.

This is common to academic writing that serves primarily to keep up a prof's publishing credits.

@Armchaircouch

I will add, though, that I think more everyday readers should know how much academic writing is junk - because when people like J Peterson rise to prominence, much is made over any "serious" writing credentials they have (like an academic publishing credit). Maps of Meaning is absolute crap - but a lot of folks don't have the background necessary to recognize how many flaws exist in the work *and* the flaws in academic publishing that allowed it to get through in the first place.