Literary Elitism

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW, where have you been? I have been missing you (in a non-stalker, strictly friendly way :)) on here!

Thanks -- been busy recently.

I don't pretend to be an intellectual, but I do value the opinions of those who are, if I sense that they are genuine (and this is totally subjective judgement) and not some poseur trying to impress me with some big words strung together. I actually want to learn, and enjoy enlarging my little brain, but if someone is a pretentious wienerhead, I am going to ignore them and their opinions. And if they tick me off enough, I may tell them where to stick it.

As sologdin said, it's just as wrong to dismiss "literature" as it it do dismiss the "genre" stuff. A good book is a good book. And I go off recommendations all the time as well, including for the classics. Some of them are great, and some suck. At least to me.

[Sci-2]

Um, Sci? are you feeling a bit...metaphorical today?

everyone else CHIME IN:

Sci being metaphorical is like _________

Not sure what you're getting at - is it about how awesome I am?

eta:

As sologdin said, it's just as wrong to dismiss "literature" as it it do dismiss the "genre" stuff. A good book is a good book. And I go off recommendations all the time as well, including for the classics. Some of them are great, and some suck. At least to me.

Yeah, I think there's this idea that reading lit-fic makes someone a better person, though sadly the people who come up with this idea seem to rarely have the mathematical acumen necessary to test their data...

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

To an extent, I believe that having some sort of philosophical message, greater point, or profundity is part and parcel of good storytelling. See e.g. how Hollywood builds stories, as explained here.

I think that is true to the extent you need some thematic consistency. My objective is to the assumption by some that reading a particular work is a necessity, because of the alleged important of the message, point, or profundity, as if that is the only way we could truly understand that point.

The distinction, I suppose, isn't whether there is a message, but whether that message is intended to edify and enlighten the reader, or merely have them smile and nod in vindication as the characters learn what the reader already knew. And when you look at it that way, it's hard to see it as objectively measurable in any respect, being entirely dependent on context.

I think that's a very good point. But I'd say that perhaps rather than being entirely dependent on context, it perhaps is more dependant upon the individual reader who picks up that book. And the problem I've got with "message" books is that how quickly each of us picks up on that message, whether we agree or disagree with the substance of it, etc.., is a very individualized inquiry. I've read Catcher in the Rye. I get why it was supposedly so important a work. Still think it sucked, and still wanted to punch Holden Caufield in the head. I wish I could have those couple hours of my life back.

Why shouldn't, say, Miles Vorkosigan's examinations of the power of personal momentum be far more transformative to my life and way of thought than 'classics' that mostly restate things I learned in kindergarten, like 1984, Frankenstein, and Fahrenheit 451?

Exactly. One size fits all is simply not true when it comes to a book.

[A Song of Hound and Wolves]

Not sure what you're getting at - is it about how awesome I am?

er yes, um, that is what I was getting at.

've read Catcher in the Rye. I get why it was supposedly so important a work. Still think it sucked, and still wanted to punch Holden Caufield in the head. I wish I could have those couple hours of my life back.

Thank you, FLoW! As I've gotten older, I've been gratified to find that many people share my opinion of this book.

I read Dickens, which I understand is not much liked around here. Still, I personally love his writing and find that once I am in the cadence of the writing and speech, it is hard for me to "come back to the real world." Dickens if full of social commentary. One of my favorite novels ever is Vanity Fair. Again, it is chockful of social commentary.

I was forced to read The Scarlett Letter in high school. Hated it. Had to re-read it 4 years later in college and was surprised how much more layered it seemed to me. I re-read it during graduate school (3-4 years later) and it was like reading another novel. As we were talking about in the Adultery in Movies thread, my understanding of life had really matured during those 8-10 years and gave me a greater appreciation for this novel.

I am not against stories raising consciences. But when I'm reading a fictional novel of any sort, the story is primary, the writing is secondary and the "message" is either merely a bonus, or sometimes the element that takes a work and raises it from a 'good' book to a 'great book.'

[Noroldis]

There can be elitism even among fans of genre literature, which is sadly ironic given the sneering elitism genre literature often faces. On this very board, I have seen people dismiss tie-in fiction as objectively inferior to original fiction.

[Serious Callers Only]

Because it IS!

[Noroldis]

Because it IS!

Then prove it. And keep in mind that your proof must show that Terry Goodkind's novels are objectively superior to all works of tie-in fiction.

[Errant Bard]

There can be elitism even among fans of genre literature, which is sadly ironic given the sneering elitism genre literature often faces. On this very board, I have seen people dismiss tie-in fiction as objectively inferior to original fiction.

Which tie-in fiction and which original fiction? Was it in percentage of subjective masterpieces out of the ones written in that genre?

It's not like such things are not quantifiable on a subjective basis, how many masterpiece in tie-in fiction rank up to ASOIAF, in you idea, for example? Up to Dubliners? Alice in Wonderland?

[Reposado]

Then prove it. And keep in mind that your proof must show that Terry Goodkind's novels are objectively superior to all works of tie-in fiction.

or he could show that goodkind is tie in fiction.

[Errant Bard]

Then prove it. And keep in mind that your proof must show that Terry Goodkind's novels are objectively superior to all works of tie-in fiction.

he merely has to prove that distribution of quality is the same, that the worst of one genre is better than the worst of the second genre and that the best of the first genre is better than the best of the second genre.

The idea that a group can be superior to another only when its worst is better than the best of the other one is inherently bizarre. There wouldn't be many medals being given in team sports, for one thing.

[Billy Quizboy]

Good lord. I only read the OP, but 4chan is bad for you. Bad. I refuse to click on any link from 4chan, ever, becasue I don't want to go to jail. Get out of there, dude.

Then prove it. And keep in mind that your proof must show that Terry Goodkind's novels are objectively superior to all works of tie-in fiction.

Haha! I almost squirted my soda out my nose.

[Elder Sister]

er yes, um, that is what I was getting at.

Thank you, FLoW! As I've gotten older, I've been gratified to find that many people share my opinion of this book.

I read Dickens, which I understand is not much liked around here. Still, I personally love his writing and find that once I am in the cadence of the writing and speech, it is hard for me to "come back to the real world." Dickens if full of social commentary. One of my favorite novels ever is Vanity Fair. Again, it is chockful of social commentary.

I was forced to read The Scarlett Letter in high school. Hated it. Had to re-read it 4 years later in college and was surprised how much more layered it seemed to me. I re-read it during graduate school (3-4 years later) and it was like reading another novel. As we were talking about in the Adultery in Movies thread, my understanding of life had really matured during those 8-10 years and gave me a greater appreciation for this novel.

I am not against stories raising consciences. But when I'm reading a fictional novel of any sort, the story is primary, the writing is secondary and the "message" is either merely a bonus, or sometimes the element that takes a work and raises it from a 'good' book to a 'great book.'

I loved Vanity Fair as well - Becky Sharp was so, so bad. Bad, bad. :D And so much fun.

[Whitestripe]

Speak of the devil, I just started Vanity Fair today. Downloaded it for free off Project Gutenberg.

(and I happen to love Dickens, too)

[Billy Quizboy]

You're all snobs! *reads Dragonlance*

[A Song of Hound and Wolves]

I loved Vanity Fair as well - Becky Sharp was so, so bad. Bad, bad. :D And so much fun.

Speak of the devil, I just started Vanity Fair today. Downloaded it for free off Project Gutenberg.

(and I happen to love Dickens, too)

You're all snobs! *reads Dragonlance*

Well, true snobbery would have been a mention of Proust, I suppose, while true "frowned upon lit" would be...um...The Hunger Games?

[Billy Quizboy]

Probably Fifty Shades. I'm frowning just thinking about it.

[sologdin]

snobbery should be evidenced by a showing greater than simply listing consumer products. maybe something like literary snobbery exists when:

a ) any person

b ) adjudicates the value of other persons as persons

c ) on the basis of those other persons' respective tastes in literary consumer products.

it's a conjunctive standard, going to the merits of persons, not products. it need not involve adverse adjudication--but allows for the literary snob to recognize fellow Approved Persons.

so, it's not snobby under this definition to dismiss tie-ins as trash or hold up shakespeare and pynchon as Highly Goodified Literary Consumer Products. snobbery is the suggestion that readers of tie-in trash are themselves trash, and that readers of HGLCP are Highly Goodified Persons. snobbery, under the definition, also arises, i think, in the objection to the dismissal of genre tie-ins as trash if the objection goes to the person making the dismissal, rather than the dismissal itself: you dismissed my favorite book as trash, and i think you're wrong vs. you dismissed my favorite books which means you're an asshole literary snob.

QED/EAMD.

[Arthmail]

snobbery should be evidenced by a showing greater than simply listing consumer products. maybe something like literary snobbery exists when:

a ) any person

b ) adjudicates the value of other persons as persons

c ) on the basis of those other persons' respective tastes in literary consumer products.

it's a conjunctive standard, going to the merits of persons, not products. it need not involve adverse adjudication--but allows for the literary snob to recognize fellow Approved Persons.

so, it's not snobby under this definition to dismiss tie-ins as trash or hold up shakespeare and pynchon as Highly Goodified Literary Consumer Products. snobbery is the suggestion that readers of tie-in trash are themselves trash, and that readers of HGLCP are Highly Goodified Persons. snobbery, under the definition, also arises, i think, in the objection to the dismissal of genre tie-ins as trash if the objection goes to the person making the dismissal, rather than the dismissal itself: you dismissed my favorite book as trash, and i think you're wrong vs. you dismissed my favorite books which means you're an asshole literary snob.

QED/EAMD.

If the EAMD is referring to Bakker, if i ever chance to meet you i am going to punch you in your commie loving balls.

Is it snobbery to think of followers and admirers of Ayn Rand not as trash, but intellectually and morally stunted?

[A Song of Hound and Wolves]

QED/EAMD.

please to tell me : what does this mean?

If the EAMD is referring to Bakker, if i ever chance to meet you i am going to punch you in your commie loving balls.

Is it snobbery to think of followers and admirers of Ayn Rand not as trash, but intellectually and morally stunted?

do all threads on this Board have to eventually make a snide comment about Libertalism or Conservatism? just wondering.

[Fiddler]

I see this elitism all the time. Whether its the people who are sneering at you for reading those books, or even the people on a forum such as this that can't see any reason why someone would enjoy certain books.

Personally though, I read for enjoyment. If I enjoy a book, I will read whether everyone else is reading it, not reading it or putting me down for reading it. Here are some examples:

Eddings-a lot of people put his books down as horrible, his first four series are some of my favorite books of all time and I reread them at least once a year.(not talking about athalus or elder gods).

Twighlight-I actually really enjoyed reading these(hated the main character though)

Goodkind-Yes I enjoy the first 4-5 books in the sword of truth series(I've read them all but the last ones are really really bad)

i don't care who knows it or what they say about it.

A funny story about my love for fantasy. I am a bathroom reader. I like having a book in the bathroom with me. One day I acidently left my book in the bathroom at work(it was a recluse book with a guy on the front with a sword). The next day one of the work stations had a badly drawn dragon on the table top that was shooting fire at a stick figure with a sword and shield. My name was writen on the table with an arrow pointing at the stick figure.

The guys who drew it were poking some fun and asked if I could kill a dragon like that. Instead of getting mad or indignant, I went with the joke and went into a 10 minute long lecture on how and more important, what to use to kill the various kinds of dragons, lol. We all got a big laugh out of it.

In the end, read what you like and fuck everyone else.