norm’s own autobiography is a collection of fictional stories auntie joked about literature, I see no evidence he gets particularly outraged over every novel following this standards and rigors of classic lit and this is the single offender he chooses to attack repeatedly?
I don’t see how you can label the premise as even somewhat juvenile.
The premise is about women losing their civil rights in a society run by religious extremism.
gendered oppression based on religious extremism was part of the founding of a lot of countries, never stopped happening and now is happening even more, globally.
there are also books far less subtle with far more ridiculous premises that he has never commented on, although he chose this book and this author specifically to consistently sincerely lambast and insult.
The only way that makes sense as the only literary object of his unhumorous ire is that it offended something deeply personal to him, like his newly strengthened Christian sensibilities, which apparently he took seriously, even when talking to people in interviews.
If that’s the case, there’s any number of more overtly anti-Christian books out there that he could have criticised. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it seems unlikely.
I don’t see how you can label the premise as even somewhat juvenile.
It’s basically YA, and one of those books that people cite so much that it gets obnoxious (“1984 waSn’T suPpoSeD tO be aN inStrucTioN mAnuaL”)
Norm took belief pretty seriously and didn’t seem interested in the criticism of religion in general, and frequently stated he didn’t like wasting time, so I doubt he would have read many books he didn’t find interesting, while we know he read atwoods the handmaid’s tale.
“…it seems unlikely”
that someone who took religions seriously openly talking about Christian faith and his respect for Christianity around the same time he began vocally persecuting an author and their work that criticized the Christian faith specifically?
seems pretty likely.
“It’s basically YA…”
that describes accessibility to readership, not the nature of the premise.
The premise of religious extremism infecting and overthrowing government, leading to the gendered elimination of civil rights and bodily autonomy.
that the book is accessible to young adults does not make its premise juvenile.
those are exclusive characteristics.
maybe you didn’t read this book? or you don’t understand the difference between a literary premise and a reading level.
Yeah I’m out, I’m not getting pulled into a r/books tier argument about what is and is not written for teenagers. I’ve already had my fill of those on the other site.
norm’s own autobiography is a collection of fictional stories auntie joked about literature, I see no evidence he gets particularly outraged over every novel following this standards and rigors of classic lit and this is the single offender he chooses to attack repeatedly?
I don’t see how you can label the premise as even somewhat juvenile.
The premise is about women losing their civil rights in a society run by religious extremism.
gendered oppression based on religious extremism was part of the founding of a lot of countries, never stopped happening and now is happening even more, globally.
there are also books far less subtle with far more ridiculous premises that he has never commented on, although he chose this book and this author specifically to consistently sincerely lambast and insult.
The only way that makes sense as the only literary object of his unhumorous ire is that it offended something deeply personal to him, like his newly strengthened Christian sensibilities, which apparently he took seriously, even when talking to people in interviews.
If that’s the case, there’s any number of more overtly anti-Christian books out there that he could have criticised. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it seems unlikely.
It’s basically YA, and one of those books that people cite so much that it gets obnoxious (“1984 waSn’T suPpoSeD tO be aN inStrucTioN mAnuaL”)
“…that he could have criticised”
Norm took belief pretty seriously and didn’t seem interested in the criticism of religion in general, and frequently stated he didn’t like wasting time, so I doubt he would have read many books he didn’t find interesting, while we know he read atwoods the handmaid’s tale.
“…it seems unlikely”
that someone who took religions seriously openly talking about Christian faith and his respect for Christianity around the same time he began vocally persecuting an author and their work that criticized the Christian faith specifically?
seems pretty likely.
“It’s basically YA…”
that describes accessibility to readership, not the nature of the premise.
The premise of religious extremism infecting and overthrowing government, leading to the gendered elimination of civil rights and bodily autonomy.
that the book is accessible to young adults does not make its premise juvenile.
those are exclusive characteristics.
maybe you didn’t read this book? or you don’t understand the difference between a literary premise and a reading level.
Yeah I’m out, I’m not getting pulled into a r/books tier argument about what is and is not written for teenagers. I’ve already had my fill of those on the other site.
“…argument about what is and is not written for teenagers.”
still not at all the point.
you’re mistaking premise complexity for reading accessibility, neither of which make any sense in context.
“if i were to guess…”
your foundation is assumptions based on the opposite of what Norm said and wrote.
you can read the article I posted above so you don’t have to keep guessing outside of the thread’s context.