tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post7983444999138914841..comments2023-08-16T02:59:07.053-07:00Comments on Writer's Daily Grind: How to define a classic?Anne Gilberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03045500116098233731noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post-48528762196212168562010-01-10T14:15:57.849-08:002010-01-10T14:15:57.849-08:00Radhika:
Thank you for enlightening me further on...Radhika:<br /><br />Thank you for enlightening me further on this subject. Some people who wrote here about my remarks, kind of took umbrage at them, which I felt was unnecessary. The thing about blogs in general is they tend to be the opinions of the blogger. I was not, or so I thought, being disrespectful of Maud Hart Lovelace or her writing when I made the remarks I did, but merely expressing my own wonderment, in a way. I hadn't thought about these books for years, though I remember reading them and loving them. So I was rather surprised at the reactions of some people who wrote. BTW, I never heard of MAUD-L, either, but that's another story. There are a great many things I've never heard of, yet they exist.<br /><br />As I said, thanks once again for enlightening me, and I hope you're having a happy New Year so far.<br />Anne GAnne Gilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03045500116098233731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post-31595234988720898602010-01-09T22:41:01.634-08:002010-01-09T22:41:01.634-08:00Just as a follow-up (I am the Asian Indian physici...Just as a follow-up (I am the Asian Indian physician who posted on your previous post), on our Betsy-Tacy email book list (called MAUD-L) which has been in existence since 1997, most of the members are NOT Betsy-Tacy Society members. The BTS is a Mankato organization dedicated to local BT house preservation, which is not the sole or primary goal of many people who like the works of Maud Hart Lovelace. Many of the people remarking on your posts (including me) are simply kidlit lovers who are NOT members of the BTS, nor does anything we say therefore represent the views of the Betsy-Tacy Society.Radhika Breadennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post-73525220782663903902010-01-03T19:47:52.060-08:002010-01-03T19:47:52.060-08:00Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your ol...Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post-51897091396108953282010-01-02T19:38:58.387-08:002010-01-02T19:38:58.387-08:00I invite you to look back at your post: "In t...I invite you to look back at your post: "In this case, it turned out that there is a Betsy-Tacy society, dedicated to preserving Ms. Lovelace's books for posterity. These are people(I imagine mostly middle-class, white women of a certain age), who in some way see "themselves" in a much more "innocent" time and are fond, as many people nowadays claim to be, of "innocent" books. I don't have any quarrel with this per se, but on the other hand, I don't exactly consider the Betsy-Tacy series, nor Maude Hart Lovelace, to be "classic" books, nor is she a "classic" writer, again in my opinion."<br /><br />So you stated that the Betsy-Tacy Society is made up of people who are interested in these books because they're innocent, although they aren't "classic". (The only part you "imagined" was that they are middle class white women of a certain age. I'm curious about what the point of saying that was.) I'm not sure how that ISN'T dismissive of either the people who read these books or the books themselves (and their author). Yes, you mention your confusion at finding them in the adult section. Lots of people, including fans, have been confused by that, and I see that others explained in the comments. <br /><br />I'm interested in your internal debate about what constitutes a classic; it's something we can all think about. But I think you're continuing to be dismissive of an author whose work you apparently haven't read since you were a child. Don't you see how it's demeaning to say that Maud Hart Lovelace's work was insightful "for her time"? Especially when you haven't reread the books?<br /><br />I have no issue with you not considering these books "classic", but I think most people who commented rolled their eyes at the idea that we would only enjoy these books and want them republished because they're "innocent", and not because the writing is excellent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com