I was not going to answer, but, but, this conversation.
Just two things:
- - Think about this: we have 4,000 years of literature. It is not until the last 100 or 150 years that womens voice is expressed in the cultural media, included writing, singing, dancing, painting, and just in the las 60 or 70 years, doing journalism or politics. Then, don t you think that our “taste”, our “likes”, “agreements”, and aesthetical and philosophic points of view are extremely determinated by the a) man b) educated in c) wealthy e) eurocentristic way of thinking? If you can agree a little with this, now we can ask to ourselves: “entertained”, “good”, “bad”, “emotive”, “sublime” and any other subjective tool we use to qualify an artistic object, are not predetermined and are not “ours”? I think that in our time there are a lot of expressions, sensibilities, points of view and ways of thinking, feeling and writing to discover: the aesthetics of some kind of women, of some kind of black people, of some kind of redhead people, of some kind of native(anywhere) people; that will teach us taste is subjective and has been determinated. Is time to unchain us from that. Of course, I think literature world is a Toby Club, and i hate that not only because they depreciate women, but because they depreciate everything that look different from they.
- For point six, no one can think in other time than their time, that is an illussion, a beautiful but wrong point of view. One work can make us cry and laugh now, but that s not on the work but in the reader. We can take a look to the classics, they were made to tell all the people about their time, and they did it with hard work and good reflections of the experiences of that time. To prove my point: we haven t consider the same classics in every time, it s a cycle, change, because the reader change. For the point 7, we can bet.