good vs. bad

I'm pretty sure I blogged about Stephen Johnson when I first read his text-- I think because it's such a great reminder of what has to be considered when evaluating literature.

I think it is striking me so profoundly again because of my dislike of Pullman.

Johnson challenges his readers to not think of good and bad literature as a moral evaluation-- he wants people to consider if it is cognitively stimulating. While the degree of cognitive stimulation might be subjective, it is much less subjective than morals.

I think I've been careful to deem my dislike of Pullman to be based on my morals-- not his ability to cognitively challenge his readers. But, I need to remember not to say his books are bad-- they are not poorly written--

Readers always want to say if a book is good or bad, so Johnson is a good reminder to define terminology before evaluating a text.