Do you consider a book based on its popularity?

[higley]

If you knew little about a book other than that everyone is currently raving about it, does that make you want to read it, or do you dismiss it as some trendy work not worth the time? Or at least, does that make you more hesitant to read it?

I don't have an answer myself; I admit that there are books I've avoided simply because I'm sick of seeing it everywhere. It's stupid and unreasonable but I can't help it. Even more moronic, I practically dig my heels when I see the Oprah's Book Club sticker, not because it's a discredit to the book but because I don't want people thinking I'm buying it because of her. Like I said, it's silly, and also embarrassing to admit. ;) At the same time though, a book's popularity sometimes makes me curious enough to look up reviews so I can decide whether to read it.

How about you?

[JBI]

Often mass sales mean a work is mediocre, especially if the work is a paperback, and comes from the United States (since the bulk of our best-selling lists seem to be American popular novels and self-help books, and the bulk of the best-selling Canadian lists seem to be literary novels, strangely enough). Generally, before a really good book becomes a big seller, it usually gets somewhat accepted by the academies. The now best selling Book of Negroes for instance, enjoyed, upon its release, a great deal of academic, critical acclaim, and has prospered. Marquez was a Nobel Laureate, we must remember, before an Oprah star. The public, if they catch on, generally seem to after the fact.

That being said, some authors enjoy public appeal rather early. That is rarer though. No I don't particularly judge on sales, I get the bulk of my recommendations for Canadian literature at least, from the Canadian Literature Quarterly, which provides excellent reviews. For American books, I have more difficulty, as there are too many books, and too many periodicals to really choose good ones. I generally get my reading recomendations from professors, or from word-of-mouth however.

Sales don't particularly matter at any rate. They aren't a particularly good indicator of anything. There are plenty of best-selling novelists who are good, and many, many more mediocre ones. There are also mediocre poorly-selling novelists, as there are really good novelists, whose books don't even sell out a first printing.

[a_little_wisp]

My roommate and dear friend teases me about this all the time- if it's popular, 'trendy', then I become extremely suspicious of it. It makes me hesitant to read it yes - I too 'dig my heels in'. Then, even after something becomes popular that wasn't before, I get upset, because... well, I felt like I was special, one of the few people reading it (Graphic novels as of late, especially, since they're all being made into movies) - it's like having a secret friend discovered, and then wondering if they're still your friend (naturally, they are).

I will read classics, however, in a heartbeat. I'm just skeptical of best-seller's lists. I've been trying to keep more of an open mind as of late, and I will *not* speak rudely of a book until I have read it (See: Twilight rant). If a person has a bad opinion of a book, it should be well-founded. Similarly, I don't think a person should think a book is wonderful just because everyone else thinks it's wonderful, too afraid to think otherwise.

But we all know where pride and prejudice can lead a person, right? xD

Every book deserves a chance!

[Dark Muse]

If I hear a book mentioned frequently I might look into it out of curriousty but I will have to know a little something about the book before I will go out and read it. There are plently of books that are popular that I have no inclination to read. But some sound intriguing.

Usually with me I will gain an interest in a book before I am even aware of the fact that it is popular or before it becomes popular. I read and loved Middlesex before it was turned into an Oprah Book then I was annoyed that she put her stamp on a book I liked.

And Water For Elephant's I just saw on a bookshelf in a store and read the back of it and thought that sounds intriguing, but I had never heard of it untill that point. It was not until after I was finally able to buy it that all of the sudden it kept popping up everywhere.

[mono]

Personally, I try to do my homework on anything I read. Indeed, I raise an eyebrow at anything that seems to spread like a wildfire and sells like sweets on candyshelves. We can say a lot about the individuals reading a book; as pretentious as it sounds, I do get influenced whether to read a blockbuster book based upon its readers. I never wanted to read Twilight, but I have a negative connotation with it, due to the obsessed children and preteens with their soccer moms creating a fiasco out of my favorite bookstore; the same thing occurred with the Harry Potter series, anything by Dan Brown, and, as much as I hate to type this, Jane Austen. Austen lived from 1775 to 1817, and I felt as though crudely impaled by a dagger when I overheard two women talking at the bookstore, and one of them said "I wonder if Jane Austen will ever write any sequels." Ouch! Luckily, I have never cared a whole lot for J.R.R. Tolkein, so when the obsession of the Lord of the Rings trilogy re-emerged, I shrugged my shoulders; similarly with C.S. Lewis. When Bridge to Terabithia regained popularity with its film, however, a book that I cherished in childhood, that hurt a lot! I still have not seen the movie.
A few exceptions have existed; for example, I read many works by James Redfield (neither of which I would recommend), Joseph Campbell (very impressive work!), and even flipped through a bit of work by Ayn Rand (yuck!). Otherwise, I have read Jeffrey Eugenides, Gabriel García Márquez, Toni Morrison, John Steinbeck, and Leo Tolstoy regardless of Oprah Winfrey; I think it fantastic that she has started a revolution in reading classical literature in her immense population of fans, but I would not call myself a fan of her show.
To answer your question, higley, yes and no. Unfortunately the raving fans of certain books have ruined any minute desire to read that certain book, if applicable, but popularity itself does not influence my decision greatly. I have discovered a few writers that way, but even fewer that I ended up enjoying.

[Lokasenna]

I think its possible for books to appear on best-seller lists without being great literature, but still being an enjoyable read. The best selling author of all time is Agatha Christie, and I'll admit that I absolutely love her novels as a bit of light holiday reading.

That said, the Harry Potter books have been ridiculously popular; far too much relative to the skill of the writing. But then, I suppose the vast majority of the not-particularly-literary population want something that is easily accessible - Paradise Lost is never going to be the sort of thing that gets picked up in an airport bookshop!

[kiki1982]

It's not because everyone reads it that everyone understands it... That's a really arrogant thing to say isn't it? :D

No. At the time of The Da Vinci Code for example I was cautious and what I heard of it wasn't really in its favour. When my husband had it, I decided to read its first paragraph and I found it absolutely ghastly written and was satisfied that it was not worth reading. Not for the contents and not for the style.

Other than that mass sales indeed mostly mean something mediocre, bt sometimes something appealing that no-one seems to really grasp... Being an oldies fan I haven't read a lot of contemporary recently. But when I went to the big bookfair in Belgium I avoided popular books because there were just too many people around them and not enough time to do everything in an afternoon. It wasn't at all beause I didn't want to know about Wallander because he was popular (but maybe because I don't really like detective), but just not because I'd spend ages on getting to him. Going for the less popular was easier... :p

[amalia1985]

I admit that I'm very suspicious when it comes to popularity in any part of life, whether it's literature, music, or films. Therefore, mass popularity makes me think twice before I read a book, or before I watch a movie. I have noticed that 70% of the cases turn out to be completely mediocre pieces. I won't go into examples, but when my curiosity won and "persuaded" me to try "that" book, or "this" film, I was utterly disappointed. Waste of time and money.

[Hank Stamper]

Often mass sales mean a work is mediocre, especially if the work is a paperback, and comes from the United States

I agree that sales lists/charts etc are normally a good barometer to avoid a certain work, but I also think there is a certain amount of snobbery/elitism involved - in that serious bibliophiles like the fact that the works they favour do not have mass appeal/that it gives them a sense of superiority/that they are more 'in the know' etc (I include myself in that!)

I wonder, really, how pleased JBI would be if everybody was reading TS Eliot - wouldn't it, just a little bit, cheapen the pleasure?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes I would be highly suspicious of a book that is popular with the masses especially if fed by the media machine. There are exceptions granted, but that is what they are. I am even suspicious of books that are nominated by awards such as the Booker Prize, a nomination usually means that over night a book will gain something like ten times the readership because of this nomination which may not be due to the merits of the actual book.

It is not that I am uninterested in reading good contemporary novels, in fact, discovering new authors is very exciting, its just that listening to the buzz of popularity is not the way to find good and interesting authors. Also unfortunately during term time I have little time to invest in seeking out new writers, this is especially true when it looks like my dissertation and maybe my MA (if I get that far) will be seated in the nineteenth century. This means that it is much more profitable for me in the long term to be sticking around this period. This doesn't mean that I won't read contemporary stuff from time to time even during term time, I have Cormac McCarthy's The Road sitting around waiting to be read (which I am a little suspicious of) but I must focus elsewhere really for the present.

[MissScarlett]

I usually avoid books that are popular, not because they are popular, but because they generally aren't very well written. The Oprah sticker doesn't bother me a bit if the book is well done. I bought The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, primarily because it's based on Hamlet, but I haven't read it yet. I've looked through it, and it does seem well written.

I hated The Da Vinci Code and swore off Dan Brown.

I sometimes read the mysteries of Elizabeth George (Inspector Lynley) and the Michael Dibdin (Aurelio Zen) and they are well written, but lots of times they get boring.

In general, I greatly prefer the classics, and I haven't read all of them yet. Currently, I'm rereading The Return of the Native by Thomas Hardy.

[Drkshadow03]

Best-seller lists don't bother me at all. I won't necessarily go seeking out a best-seller, but I see no logical reason why the popularity of a book should bother me. Really, though, I don't pay much attention to best-seller lists. I do pay a bit more attention to word of mouth.

Instead of best-seller lists, I tend to consort the blogs and print articles of trusted reviewers. If I am looking for new Sci-fi, fantasy, or horror, I generally turn to those people whose tastes I have learned to trust. If I am looking for contemporary fiction the same. If I am purchasing older Classics; well, they are already older Classics, so in that regard I already know what to buy. I also love to browse. If something sounds interesting, I'll read a few pages, and then buy it or put it back. I also find the various literary awards and "Best of" lists produced by knowledgeable scholars and/or editors to be fairly useful to help me weed through the muck.

[JBI]

If I hear a book mentioned frequently I might look into it out of curriousty but I will have to know a little something about the book before I will go out and read it. There are plently of books that are popular that I have no inclination to read. But some sound intriguing.

Usually with me I will gain an interest in a book before I am even aware of the fact that it is popular or before it becomes popular. I read and loved Middlesex before it was turned into an Oprah Book then I was annoyed that she put her stamp on a book I liked.

And Water For Elephant's I just saw on a bookshelf in a store and read the back of it and thought that sounds intriguing, but I had never heard of it untill that point. It was not until after I was finally able to buy it that all of the sudden it kept popping up everywhere.

She's been on the Canadian non-fiction bestseller lists for a while now - I heard the text was pretty boring though, any thoughts?


Personally, I try to do my homework on anything I read. Indeed, I raise an eyebrow at anything that seems to spread like a wildfire and sells like sweets on candyshelves. We can say a lot about the individuals reading a book; as pretentious as it sounds, I do get influenced whether to read a blockbuster book based upon its readers. I never wanted to read Twilight, but I have a negative connotation with it, due to the obsessed children and preteens with their soccer moms creating a fiasco out of my favorite bookstore; the same thing occurred with the Harry Potter series, anything by Dan Brown, and, as much as I hate to type this, Jane Austen. Austen lived from 1775 to 1817, and I felt as though crudely impaled by a dagger when I overheard two women talking at the bookstore, and one of them said "I wonder if Jane Austen will ever write any sequels." Ouch! Luckily, I have never cared a whole lot for J.R.R. Tolkein, so when the obsession of the Lord of the Rings trilogy re-emerged, I shrugged my shoulders; similarly with C.S. Lewis. When Bridge to Terabithia regained popularity with its film, however, a book that I cherished in childhood, that hurt a lot! I still have not seen the movie.
A few exceptions have existed; for example, I read many works by James Redfield (neither of which I would recommend), Joseph Campbell (very impressive work!), and even flipped through a bit of work by Ayn Rand (yuck!). Otherwise, I have read Jeffrey Eugenides, Gabriel García Márquez, Toni Morrison, John Steinbeck, and Leo Tolstoy regardless of Oprah Winfrey; I think it fantastic that she has started a revolution in reading classical literature in her immense population of fans, but I would not call myself a fan of her show.
To answer your question, higley, yes and no. Unfortunately the raving fans of certain books have ruined any minute desire to read that certain book, if applicable, but popularity itself does not influence my decision greatly. I have discovered a few writers that way, but even fewer that I ended up enjoying.

Just think though of the stupidity. Does one really need an Oprah stamp on a Faulkner to see its worth? Is Oprah somehow a better judge of literature than the Nobel Academy? What kind of stupidity is that - especially since she has a long history of choosing mediocre works. It's an insult to Faulkner to be put up beside some of the other junk she has chosen. Morrison, Marquez, Faulkner, Steinbeck, they all won Nobels. I don't think Oprah's opinion counts as much.

[papayahed]

Even more moronic, I practically dig my heels when I see the Oprah's Book Club sticker, not because it's a discredit to the book but because I don't want people thinking I'm buying it because of her. Like I said, it's silly, and also embarrassing to admit. ;)

I avoid Oprah stickers like the plague. I also won't buy books that have the movie cover.



I wonder, really, how pleased JBI would be if everybody was reading TS Eliot - wouldn't it, just a little bit, cheapen the pleasure?

haha, reminds me of bands, sometimes if a band has a small amount of fame it's ok, they're cool but once they get really popular all the old fans call them sell outs.

[JBI]

Best-seller lists don't bother me at all. I won't necessarily go seeking out a best-seller, but I see no logical reason why the popularity of a book should bother me. Really, though, I don't pay much attention to best-seller lists. I do pay a bit more attention to word of mouth.

Instead of best-seller lists, I tend to consort the blogs and print articles of trusted reviewers. If I am looking for new Sci-fi, fantasy, or horror, I generally turn to those people whose tastes I have learned to trust. If I am looking for contemporary fiction the same. If I am purchasing older Classics; well, they are already older Classics, so in that regard I already know what to buy. I also love to browse. If something sounds interesting, I'll read a few pages, and then buy it or put it back. I also find the various literary awards and "Best of" lists produced by knowledgeable scholars and/or editors to be fairly useful to help me weed through the muck.

You must admit though, when half the front page of a novel is taken up with the words "New York Times Best Seller" then 99/100 times, the book seems to be pretty darn bad. You, for instance, would probably go read an Octavia Butler book over one of the new Dune novels that come out every year, despite the fact that Butler has been dead for a while, and her sales are rather minimal right now. Likewise, Terry Goodkind always shoots up to the top of the bestseller lists, but I doubt you would read him over someone like Guy Gavriel Kay (who actually enjoys quite a good success in Canadian markets).

In the same way, one could easily read The Kite Runner, but in contrast, one could go out and get a book written by someone from that part of the world (from what I understand, culturally music seems more central to Afghan) but there is a huge cultural out pour of Persian writing from that country, which goes ignored, and untranslated (probably a) because it won't sell, and b) it doesn't fit particularly well with the world's agenda right now).

One really needs to pay attention to how texts are sold, and what makes a bestseller. Certainly, one would wish a good book makes a bestseller, but if that was the case, no one would advertise. As it is, bestseller lists generally contain books that follow a contemporary fling - so you have a book written by, for instance, An Iraqi refugee, or an Afghan expat (who, by the way, hasn't been there since 1973).

The same way the New York Times is not likely to print a story that goes against their agenda, the review of books is unlikely to review a book that goes against their agenda too much. Beyond that though, marketers are not likely to shelve many, if any, literary novels, and rarely something that is tricky to read will ever be reviewed by a major periodical (The New Yorker fits into this category as well). The best chance, really, unless they are the luckiest people in the world, a literary author has of becoming a bestseller, is winning a prestigious award. But even that - well, you guys (Americans) don't particularly care who wins the GG or the Giller, or even the Nobel for that matter, but even so, if someone wins a Pulitzer, people buy them. If Oprah stamps them, people buy them, if they write good novels, generally they fall into obscurity.

[MissScarlett]

I think you're generalizing too much, JBI. Americans aren't necessarily readers of bad books and Canadians readers of highly literary books. There are readers of good and bad books in each country and good and bad authors from each country. For example, I read a book by Anne-Marie MacDonald, a Canadian, and it was terrible! She might be okay as a poet, but she's a terrible novelist. Yet Canadians read her.

I really don't know any American who runs out to buy a book just because it has an Oprah sticker. The Oprah sticker is transparent to me. If the book's bad, I'm not going to read it, period. If it's good, the Oprah sticker doesn't bother me in the slightest. And I never pay any attention to who wins the Pulitzer, but I do care who wins the Booker. Most American readers I know don't care a bit about the Pulitzer. We know it's given to something "popular" or "trendy" at the time rather than something truly good. I'm always curious about who wins the Nobel, but I don't put much stock in it. For example, there's no way Orhan Pamuk deserved to win. He won for political reasons.

Toni Morrison is an American who writes bestselling books and they are among the best written in the world. Some people may not like them, but they are masterpieces. If a book is a bestseller, naturally the publisher is going to proclaim it as such, bad book or good.

American writers are such a mixed bag or literary and commercial because there are so many more American writers than in any other country. We have some of the best, e.g., Morrison, and some of the worse, e.g., Dan Brown.

Now, if we want to talk about the truly elite readers of literary books, we have to talk about the French, the Germans, the Italians. Continental Europe. For my money, the most literary writers are the Irish - then and now - and some of the Eastern Europeans, the Czech and the Polish, especially.

P.S. I read "The Kite Runner" hoping for a good book, but I thought it was dreadful, just dreadful writing. However, in all fairness, Khaled Hosseini did return to Afghanistan in September 2007 as good will envoy for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. Probably a "publicity return," but I can't judge his motives. That would not be right. I'm no mind reader.

[JBI]

That isn't really my point. In general, Canadian popular fiction doesn't strive as well as American, simply because the bulk of publishers putting it out in Canada are American, and favor American authors. A Dan Brown would have a much harder time becoming a Dan Brown in Canada, because quite simply, there isn't the marketing power here. Originally actually, Canadians used to try desperately to get published by American firms, in order to actually see sales.

Canadian readers, for the most part, in the mainstream, are very similar to American readers. There are difference, but on the whole, quite similar. Canadian literary fiction readers however, are very different, and that is my point. Canadian literary fiction on the whole seems to be more accessible, in terms of difficulty of prose, but by no means simpler, in terms of content.

In terms of Oprah, it has been proven she gets books sold. It has been proven time and time again, with authors going from obscure to best-seller over night. There are even Oprah editions of books, which support this idea. There are clearly people who go out and buy the Oprah book, perhaps you don't know any, but there certainly are. There are sales figures to prove it.

In terms of most literary readers, when it comes to novels, I hear the Swedish read the most books. When it comes to poetry though, there are thriving oral poetry traditions at work in many places in the world, and that has to be taken into account.

When it comes down to it though, if we are speaking Canadian-American, if a Canadian wants to be a bestseller, chances are he has to get published by an American. If an American wants to be a bestseller, he needs to be published in America. See the problem? Why would a publisher go through the trouble of dealing with Canadians, or put forward a book that deals with Canadian issues, or Canadian context.

In that sense, the American literary perception of Canada has been forged. Generally, American publics like their Canadian books to show a sort of wilderness, and harshness. Americans don't particularly like Canadian books to deal with Canadian things, they want Canadian books to deal with American perceptions of Canadian things. It's a colonial perspective. The American public is attuned to American tastes, and the American tradition, if anything, makes sure that the notion of America is in the centre. How does a Canadian break through? The only way is to play into the colonial/orientalist fascinations of the hegemon.

Ironically though, Canadians own the largest Romance publishing firm in the world. But even so, what really distinguishes a Canadian romance from an American. Americans like them more, from what I've seen (though we read our fair share), and American writers are more organized in the way they write them. It is easier to print those, given that more than 11x as many are coming into publishers, than to print Canadian ones.

In itself, the soul of Canadian writing ultimately cannot be bestsellers, because the vast majority of the great books are put out by smaller presses, who simply have virtually no ground in the States, and very little internationally.

American bestsellers dominate Canadian bookstores more than Canadian bestsellers. You guys have 11x as many people, and much larger presses, who can get books out cheaper, and faster. You also have better advertisement, and larger sales figures because of your large home representation. That is why, as a general rule, American bestsellers tend to be worse than Canadian bestsellers, because Canadian bestsellers, according to American markets, aren't even bestsellers to begin with.

[higley]

Interesting fact about Oprah's Book Club:

"Oprah's book club's problems began in 2001 when Oprah selected Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections. This work of fiction, although a sound choice up front, turned into one of Oprah's first book club debacles. At first, Franzen was open to Oprah's selection. It brought fresh eyes to his work and undoubtedly provided a fresh and abundant stream of income into his wallet. However, when Franzen's publisher reissued his book with Oprah's book club's emblem on the cover, he began to have misgivings about the entire process. Upset that the work was no longer his own, he turned against the book club and started to criticize it. After a year on the club list, Oprah decided to suspend her recommendation of The Corrections."

Kinda makes me want to read The Corrections. It's an interesting point though--just how much control do authors have over how their work is presented? And if an author is picked by the club, or if they're number one on the bestseller list, are they obligated to be gracious in the face of cheesy promotion because of benefactors' expectations of gratitude?

The only Pulitzer awards I actually look up are for History, books that on the whole I've really enjoyed. Otherwise it's just happening to read something that was selected for the Fiction award. Historically I have liked the authors who have lost out on the Nobel Prize far, far better than the ones who have won it.

[PabloQ]

Best seller lists are barometers of mass appeal. A glance at one list usually provides the likes of Grisham, King, Steele, Clancy, Rowling, et. al. So what.

Oprah Winfrey is mass appeal. She has a staff who bring her lesser known, well-written works to put her stamp of approval on. Her stamp brings the work to the masses. The masses buy it. I about choked when I saw Oprah's stamp on East of Eden. Like she just discovered it. It's really quite comical.

The discussion here, predominantly JBI's, is about marketing. The publishing business is in the business of selling books and they aren't going to make a lot of money selling Paradise Lost or Moby-Dick or The Odyssey. The fans of this web forum are a minority in the book-buying marketplace. Some of the things I've read in the past year I've had to find in used book stores because they don't publish them at all anymore.

At the end of the day, as an individual reader, read what you like. If you enjoy the classic literature generally discussed on this forum, so be it. That doesn't mean you can't have a guilty pleasure that lacks literary merit if you enjoy it. Every concert doesn't have to be Beethoven. Every film doesn't have to Fellini. Sometimes, any time, it's okay to just read something for fun.

[JBI]

Interesting fact about Oprah's Book Club:

"Oprah's book club's problems began in 2001 when Oprah selected Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections. This work of fiction, although a sound choice up front, turned into one of Oprah's first book club debacles. At first, Franzen was open to Oprah's selection. It brought fresh eyes to his work and undoubtedly provided a fresh and abundant stream of income into his wallet. However, when Franzen's publisher reissued his book with Oprah's book club's emblem on the cover, he began to have misgivings about the entire process. Upset that the work was no longer his own, he turned against the book club and started to criticize it. After a year on the club list, Oprah decided to suspend her recommendation of The Corrections."

Kinda makes me want to read The Corrections. It's an interesting point though--just how much control do authors have over how their work is presented? And if an author is picked by the club, or if they're number one on the bestseller list, are they obligated to be gracious in the face of cheesy promotion because of benefactors' expectations of gratitude?

The only Pulitzer awards I actually look up are for History, books that on the whole I've really enjoyed. Otherwise it's just happening to read something that was selected for the Fiction award. Historically I have liked the authors who have lost out on the Nobel Prize far, far better than the ones who have won it.

Geez though, Montale, Quasimodo, Carducci, those happen to be three of the most central Italian poets of the modern era. On the whole, the selectors, after they got out of their funk of only choosing Scandinavian authors, generally pick good, if not great authors. They do, however, have the problem of selecting authors for their whole works, rather than one work. That makes things quite a bit more difficult, because a great many good novelists only write one good book, and put out 15 crappy ones.

Though, I am was hoping Darwish would get one - he probably would have, now that I think about it, had he lived a little longer.

[Drkshadow03]

The discussion here, predominantly JBI's, is about marketing. . . . The publishing business is in the business of selling books and they aren't going to make a lot of money selling Paradise Lost or Moby-Dick or The Odyssey. The fans of this web forum are a minority in the book-buying marketplace. Some of the things I've read in the past year I've had to find in used book stores because they don't publish them at all anymore.

Not true. These are one of those half-truths/myths that get spread around. Publishing companies love to get their hands on the likes of Paradise Lost or Mobdy-Dick or The Odyssey or other classics because they are steady sellers.

First, because a lot of this material is no longer protected by copyright you don't have to pay anybody royalties or advances; the Odyssey, of course, would be the exception as you'd have to pay translators for more recent translations. Secondly, classics have steady book sales. They make money. Maybe not millions each year, but they are a reliable product. Plus each time a movie version of a classic comes out sales skyrocket again and make a lot of money. But from what I have read Classics make a decent amount of money in sales. Part of this trend is related to the fact that we read these books in academia, so students across universities are the ones buying a lot of these classics, but nonetheless, the point is that the classics still sell fairly well.

I got the impression the discussion was really geared towards contemporary works that aren't necessarily considered classics quite yet.


At the end of the day, as an individual reader, read what you like. If you enjoy the classic literature generally discussed on this forum, so be it. That doesn't mean you can't have a guilty pleasure that lacks literary merit if you enjoy it. Every concert doesn't have to be Beethoven. Every film doesn't have to Fellini. Sometimes, any time, it's okay to just read something for fun.

Exactly!

[Hank Stamper]

haha, reminds me of bands, sometimes if a band has a small amount of fame it's ok, they're cool but once they get really popular all the old fans call them sell outs.

exactly like that!

[MissScarlett]

Thank you for the explanation, JBI. That clarifies things, and I do agree with you. Well, with what I know. Some of the things I was unaware of.

[JCamilo]

However there is a difference between a best-selling dude with longevity (Such as Christie or Tolkien) and the summer boom that sells because that given topic was the fashion of the season and the companies are going to seek for those scripts.
Anyways, the market today is very different from the market 50, 60 years ago (If I am not mistaken Faulkner was a best-selling dude, making the top 10 in USA a few times), because the size of the market, the mass communication is much more structured. Also the greater opening for different groups have kind of desintegrated the critical sense (the label of the Nobel had a bigger effect in the past, i am sure.), today people listen and have how to list to non-specialists, and while this is very nice and all if we think about freedom, it also make the public more easier to be classifcated and became a target of marketing strategies. But since there is no way we can randomizer the options, the popularity may be as wrong as anything else or as right as anything else because even the classics are living in age where the first edition of a book gets the label of "Instantly classic"...

[JBI]

I'm not so sure it did, I just think the way publishing has changed effects stuff more. Periodicals have changed their representation of books. There has always been mediocre popular fiction. I just think now, the text has come to dominate too much, with the shift from periodicals, and changed the way we see the novel, as a form.

Either way, I'm a poet, and a poetry reader. Name one living best-seller poet. I can only think of 3 poets who really lived off their royalties handsomely, they being Pope, Byron, and Longfellow. Everyone else just has other motifs.

As a thought though, perhaps the commercial obsession of American culture has led to a liking of only things that sell in mass amounts. That's an interesting notion, but I don't know if I have the proof to support it, or really get beyond that. I'm not a Bibliographer after all, and I am well aware that there always has been mediocre literature, just not in book form so often.

[JCamilo]

It is not about the quality of the text, of course there will be always the bad, the ugly and the good... The market is today more defined, you have the right formulas, the right market, the right marketing strategy,etc. The Mass Media sophistication is considerable and the chance of the change is not small, there is just a tendecy to not have wide-effect and belong to his own place. I think it is very hard to have some big movemment, a cultural shift because "underground" culture is already a place in the market with an underground group. Also, we never had as much readers, as much options, yet the educational-promotional tendecies are limiting.
I would agree that we have many readers of periodicals and the writers have been working to produce for the public used for this kind of reading. But in south-america there was never such obssession with novels, short stories are more important and they also do not fit in the moderm day periodical production. Once upon a time the writers of periodicals are the great writers, but the segmentation and definition of public target changed everything.
I would exclude Byron from this list, after all the guy have other sources than poetry to sustain himself. But that is a bit strange, of course lots of poets also got money teaching or even turned in Senator like Yeats, and yeah, I doubt we can say they got rich because of that. But then, there is really only sense to talk about a culture of best-sellers with the XIX century shift and poets and poetry are losing space there for the romances and all. Poetry, at least good Poetry, is not easily sold indeed.
I would say that an interesting point is that until the 50's people had not a great notion about mass communication and marketing strategies. Researches to determine the right product with the public target were only developed after that. Lets remember that Hollywood only discovered the Summer hit with the Copolla-Spielberg-Lucas generation and Hollywood is usually one step ahead of publishing houses when trying to nail a great audience. This (obviously related to american commercial obsession) certainly cause a great influence in "what is popular"...

[higley]

You made some great points, JCamilo.

Whatever the means of promotion, I'm not going to begrudge an author his success even if he publishes a bunch of popular rot that panders to the mindless fascinations of an apparently shallow public. I also don't really concern myself with those who read these books; each to their own, I figure. I know a lot of people who read trashy fiction because it helps them unwind after long and difficult days, and that's their right.

JBI, sure there's a lot of crap hedging the shelves with neon lettering, but at the same time the level of accessibility to good books here is remarkable if you only take a moment to look, and generally those interested in literature do take that time and don't take advertising at face value. I've never been so overwhelmed by crappy fiction that I felt like I couldn't find quality reads and it is absolutely easy to lay your hands on any novel you desire.

[bazarov]

No, never. Only advice from 50 members per book from this forum can make me read something else except my strange choices. Actually, book that need a commercial is no book at all.

P.S. Even mentioning Dan Brown on this forum is a blasphemy.

[JCamilo]

You made some great points, JCamilo.

Whatever the means of promotion, I'm not going to begrudge an author his success even if he publishes a bunch of popular rot that panders to the mindless fascinations of an apparently shallow public. I also don't really concern myself with those who read these books; each to their own, I figure. I know a lot of people who read trashy fiction because it helps them unwind after long and difficult days, and that's their right.

JBI, sure there's a lot of crap hedging the shelves with neon lettering, but at the same time the level of accessibility to good books here is remarkable if you only take a moment to look, and generally those interested in literature do take that time and don't take advertising at face value. I've never been so overwhelmed by crappy fiction that I felt like I couldn't find quality reads and it is absolutely easy to lay your hands on any novel you desire.

I must say that I do concern with others read for many reasons. Once I think the notion of freedom that is used to defend the personal choice must be analysed carefully. We are not that free when the Market is using also his power.
I am also concerned with the formation of the new writers, because this is related with what they are reading. History already showed that writers will adapt to market - as JBI pointed, prose domains the best-sellers lists and that was mostly an adaptation to the market. But Poetry (not the poem, the form, but the language) still what the literature have of best to offer. If it became more and more difficulty to a writer with great poetic powers to be reckonized, it is possible that he will either vanish or try to adapt himself. Plus, the critical sense of the mass culture is reduced by such process, so a poet does not have challenge enough to produce the great works.
I am not apocalypitic, I know Culture will find her way. I just wish to understand this way and see it.

[JBI]

It's strange too - I always wonder how G. G. Marquez made it huge in The U.S., while being one of the more challenging authors. Oprah's exposure surely helped, but what got people to read him? I don't know - the only real answer I can formulate for myself is a sense of colonial misreading of the text.

That is the most troubling, as it is such a great novel, but perhaps a hard one to understand, given its post-colonial content. I think I may look at some response theory and criticism some time, so I can get a better sense of how colonial readers interpret it.

On the whole though, people generally read crap, and will continue to read crap. The problem with art, is the reliance on copyright. If copyright is the way artists make income, it obviously will be abused by the publishers to turn a book from a work of art, into a commercial good. In that sense, the book becomes judged by how much it can sell, rather than how much it can say, and the publishing hegemony continues.

I think the only reason something like poetry is able to flourish in Canada is because of government intervention in the arts. In the past, before copyright, poets generally relied on government handouts to survive. Aristo did, Tasso did, and certainly Racine did. When you think of it, how many poets started off as courtiers, or were professional courtiers? Sydney, Wyatt, Chaucer, Spenser?

In terms of publishing, the way an author gets paid, he receives about 10% royalties for sales of his novels. If one writes romance novels, one probably will be paid much less, or have that amount ceilinged. Various romance authors don't even own their own pseudonyms, and essentially ghost-write all their novels. When you have a low income, and rather obvious projected sales, obviously you are going to churn out books quickly.

How many authors though, can make good pot boilers? Very few.

I doubt, however, that there are more bad texts written now than before. I think though, they certainly have more exposure, with posters, action figures, movie adaptations, costumes, and radio ads. That is the real difference - one is just overwhelmed by the presence of mediocre texts. In truth, when you look at it, I think books fall like this

95% a 0, rubbish
4.9% a 1, mediocre
.1% good-great.

That being said, when it comes to the actual bookstore, it's more like this

90% rubbish
6% mediocre
4% good-great.

That is for your standard Barnes and Nobel / Indigo/chapters, etc.

There are some bookstores which stock 20-30% good-great books, but those are specialty bookstores, and cater mostly to academic readers anyway.

[JCamilo]

I think the reason (which may have something to do also with the latino culture) is that guys like Marquez and the rest of SA magic realism is that their text is actually simple. The problem lies in the symbolism, but I think people can read it without considering the other levels of interpretation, just the superficial.
After all... Marquez is like fantasy, right. And Fantasy is for kids, right? It cannt be serious. It does not harm anyone...
(I suppose Kafka is also well accepted because of that. And it makes sense, since Marquez is a son of Kafka.)

[JBI]

I think the reason (which may have something to do also with the latino culture) is that guys like Marquez and the rest of SA magic realism is that their text is actually simple. The problem lies in the symbolism, but I think people can read it without considering the other levels of interpretation, just the superficial.
After all... Marquez is like fantasy, right. And Fantasy is for kids, right? It cannt be serious. It does not harm anyone...
(I suppose Kafka is also well accepted because of that. And it makes sense, since Marquez is a son of Kafka.)

So you mean, in a sense, they treat it as an interesting fairytalesque tale, without looking at its implications about Colombian/Latin American/ post-colonial people? In that sense, it would make sense. It seems people read Faulkner without really reading him. I would also point out that Eco is read, or I guess, was read without any real understanding of his works (though he took that into account, and purposely wrote his books with two books within one)

The Colony of Unrequited Dreams by Wayne Johnston went through a similar funk. It was selected by the CBC for the Canada Reads contest, which it won (a public contest where a bunch of pop-celebrity panelists nominate, discuss, and eliminate Canadian works in a Survivor-like contest), and was virtually completely misinterpreted, enforcing the opposite agenda the book put forward. It was read as celebrating the coming together of Canada as a nation, and other such matters, rather than a lament for the lost opportunity Newfoundland had at being an independent nation. It was held up as a great example of federalism in Canada, rather than an anti-colonial attack on Britain, and Canada alike.

Reader response criticism of this sort is actually interesting. It shows us how one can appropriate a book to suit their own agenda, by manipulating the artistic elements of a text into fitting their interpretation. This can be done, and has been done, by academics. We do though, like to think, that if anyone can read, it is academic readers. Because, after all, if someone finds gaps in their reading, they can make them look like total idiots, the way, for instance, in the 80s, a 4th year undergraduate student totally debased the Canadian Literature critic Donald Goellnicht (rather brutally I must add) for his misinterpretation of Joy Kogawa's Obasan, in a rather well read periodical, Canadian Literature Quarterly. I don't think anyone is going to go to some random person's house and yell at them for appropriating a text to suit their own agenda, so there is that.

Or, an even better example, the critic John Metcalf's war against the Penguin Anthology of Canadian short stories, which he has carried out through various editions already.

In that sense, we know there is a check on academic opinion, in fact, a rather strong check on their opinions. But for the opinion of the masses? Certainly not. The number of non-peer edited history books that make the best seller lists certainly attest to this. There have been a large string of bestselling Islamophobic and anti-religious texts in the past few years, which have sold handsomely, but none of them are verified for anything. None of them are actual critiques at all - merely mass-market creations by pseudo-intellectuals.

In that sense, there are clearly publishing problems. The opinion of the masses, by means of mass-media can be manipulated. There are no real checks, on mass news media, outside of academic circles (Chomsky tries, but he, like everyone else, merely reads the news, and therefore isn't in a position either to really check anything). If we apply that same theory to book publishing, we can say that the opinions of the New York Times, for instance, can manipulate, and do manipulate what people read, the same way bad reviews hurt movie sales. In other words, the fact that the press has been very supportive of Harry Potter has led to its great sales. I doubt that a newspaper editor will print an article criticizing Twilight, for instance, on the same page advertising the book. In truth, book advertisements in the paper are there to make the paper money, and if those books don't sell, chances are, the ad revenue will decrease.



So no, when it comes down to it, I really can't possibly accept the opinion of mass-sales as anything but a signifier of appeal to the masses, through possibly good writing, or more likely, good advertisement.

[electricpenguin]

Best-seller lists don't bother me at all. I won't necessarily go seeking out a best-seller, but I see no logical reason why the popularity of a book should bother me. Really, though, I don't pay much attention to best-seller lists. I do pay a bit more attention to word of mouth.


Well said, Drkshadow03!

Word of mouth is my most important consideration when I'm browsing the bookshelves, and I'll not turn my nose up at an Opera-stickered book if I've heard good things about it. If popular fiction is good enough for academica, it's good enough for me :p

Having said that, I'll chew my own arm off before I read another Dan Brown book.

EP

[andave_ya]

If it's popular here on this site, I'll keep it in mind or put it on my to-read list. I read 1984 because of all the people here who kept raving about it, but I couldn't fathom why they loved it so much.

[JCamilo]

So you mean, in a sense, they treat it as an interesting fairytalesque tale, without looking at its implications about Colombian/Latin American/ post-colonial people? In that sense, it would make sense. It seems people read Faulkner without really reading him. I would also point out that Eco is read, or I guess, was read without any real understanding of his works (though he took that into account, and purposely wrote his books with two books within one)

Yes, just think that when the XIX century re-organized the genres, fantasy was pushed to child's faery tale, despite guys like Hans Christian Andersen and Lewis Caroll, so it was dimissed as a minor genre (Serious genres were Science FIction or Horror) and today is either for kids or geeks of the tolkien style (altough Tolkien style have nothing to do with the general formula of best sellers). It is easy, until some guys started to bring back the metaphysical to the stories and you have guys like Marquez.
But in the end, Isabel Allende and Paulo Coelho - who are simple minded writers, able to build up just the first lawyer of possible meanings of work - who are the the true best-sellers.
Not that is something new. The complexity of greek dramas and mythology also had popular appeal and when the academy started to study the faery tales, which were considered simple minded stuff as well, they are surprised to see the roots and depth of some of those tales. Or Dante. People is reading Dante for centuries without passing by Inferno. His figure is always serious like judging everyone. Dantesque is something close to the grotesque and not the beauty and harmony of Paradise.



The Colony of Unrequited Dreams by Wayne Johnston went through a similar funk. It was selected by the CBC for the Canada Reads contest, which it won (a public contest where a bunch of pop-celebrity panelists nominate, discuss, and eliminate Canadian works in a Survivor-like contest), and was virtually completely misinterpreted, enforcing the opposite agenda the book put forward. It was read as celebrating the coming together of Canada as a nation, and other such matters, rather than a lament for the lost opportunity Newfoundland had at being an independent nation. It was held up as a great example of federalism in Canada, rather than an anti-colonial attack on Britain, and Canada alike.

Didnt the Dark Ages Catholic Church transform Virgil in a pagan prophet of Christ birth? Or how now Mark Twain is a racist and even the whole controvery about Heart of Darkness? Or even Freud, who took over several stories and gave the interpretation that suited to him? Sometimes it is good, does not matter if the interpretation is righ, but if enhances the work, allow it to be re-read, etc. But there is a limit, the day I saw a guy saying to me Candide was a form to defend ignorance was one of those days.


Reader response criticism of this sort is actually interesting. It shows us how one can appropriate a book to suit their own agenda, by manipulating the artistic elements of a text into fitting their interpretation. This can be done, and has been done, by academics. We do though, like to think, that if anyone can read, it is academic readers. Because, after all, if someone finds gaps in their reading, they can make them look like total idiots, the way, for instance, in the 80s, a 4th year undergraduate student totally debased the Canadian Literature critic Donald Goellnicht (rather brutally I must add) for his misinterpretation of Joy Kogawa's Obasan, in a rather well read periodical, Canadian Literature Quarterly. I don't think anyone is going to go to some random person's house and yell at them for appropriating a text to suit their own agenda, so there is that.

Yeah, critical reading is important but not the only form of reading. Like Umberto Eco that you mentions. Since he understands this (basead on his academic study), he tries to serve both masters. I say he fails, Eco still too complex for masses and somehow not where he would like to be (Which is more close to Italo Calvino - who probally had the best combo, because he used popular forms and not pop forms)... I know some writers who are upset with any appropriation of their text. Even to different media, and that was dumb. It is like Homer hunting down Virgil for turning Ulisses in bad example and Aneas in the good guy.
But things go to far when someone starst to dismiss the critical reading at all (some say it is not funny, but I wonder if they understand to some people it is funny to make a critical reading and that is why they do it) like paulo coelho did, saying writers are the dogs and critics the lightposts, the dog pees on the lightposts and go one, the lightposts can do what? Of course, some critic could say: the pee will be clean, and the light will still show what the dog did.


Or, an even better example, the critic John Metcalf's war against the Penguin Anthology of Canadian short stories, which he has carried out through various editions already.

In that sense, we know there is a check on academic opinion, in fact, a rather strong check on their opinions. But for the opinion of the masses? Certainly not. The number of non-peer edited history books that make the best seller lists certainly attest to this. There have been a large string of bestselling Islamophobic and anti-religious texts in the past few years, which have sold handsomely, but none of them are verified for anything. None of them are actual critiques at all - merely mass-market creations by pseudo-intellectuals.


In that sense, there are clearly publishing problems. The opinion of the masses, by means of mass-media can be manipulated. There are no real checks, on mass news media, outside of academic circles (Chomsky tries, but he, like everyone else, merely reads the news, and therefore isn't in a position either to really check anything). If we apply that same theory to book publishing, we can say that the opinions of the New York Times, for instance, can manipulate, and do manipulate what people read, the same way bad reviews hurt movie sales. In other words, the fact that the press has been very supportive of Harry Potter has led to its great sales. I doubt that a newspaper editor will print an article criticizing Twilight, for instance, on the same page advertising the book. In truth, book advertisements in the paper are there to make the paper money, and if those books don't sell, chances are, the ad revenue will decrease.

Academics cannt do much but keep teaching, after all the control of mass communication is with the industry and the industry will pay the bills after all. They will always be outside (altough you do not need to be inside to see the effects of the mass communication), Coleridge was rather critical against all Novels and Romances, probally already guessing that they are an answer to the appeal of masses, but the masses also showed good taste and Dickens, Tolstoi, Victor Hugo, etc became their favorites at one point or another.
Somehow, I feel like the best-seller industry is rather dying, the novel/romance format almost finished. In one century they may be the things of the past...




So no, when it comes down to it, I really can't possibly accept the opinion of mass-sales as anything but a signifier of appeal to the masses, through possibly good writing, or more likely, good advertisement.

I would say accepting the appeal of masses or the appeal of one authority makes no sense at all. The authority is usually good for a critical dialogue or critical study. But if you are not seeking it - it will be useless.
Once I considered about writing a story where one character would be some short of psychoreadinganalist of shorts. He would analyse you and then give you a list of books basead on your psychological perfil - when and where you should read those books, with or without music, at home or taking a bus, after eating, before sleeping, etc. Then I considered that turning this in fiction would make a possible form to get money if I get too old unusable. So I gave up...

[grotto]

I’m avid used book store browser and I am always amazed at the piles of trendy novels sitting in the $1.00 rack that haven’t even had their spines broke. Maybe a lot of these books are given as subtle advice gifts from a watcher of Oprah to someone who they want to, ah, how should I say, help along?

I avoid the masses because, well, there isn’t original thought in the masses. The masses like to all agree on what they think is good or what it is they are supposed to feel. While true, there are some gems out there, I avoid lists and as far as I’m concerned, Oprah is the anti Christ, along with Rosie O’Donnell. The peons follow them around looking for reasons to live. Just when you think it can’t get any shallower, someone lets a few more inches out of the pool.

If one wants to breathe fresh air, one should avoid public meetings and churches. (Nietzsche)

[Drkshadow03]

I am afraid I have to disagree, JBI. The problem with your statement about One Hundred Years of Solitude and reading literature in general is that it reifies interpretation and meaning to a single correct answer. We're back to literature as the unraveling of a puzzle. Put the pieces in the correct place and you have your meaning. Literature is far more organic, a give-and-take between artist and reader. If done correctly the text and the author's intentions will guide you, but they do not chain you down, and your own experiences come into play in making interpretation and thinking about why a text is significant and meaningful to you. As long as you can support your interpretation with a text, then a reading is valid regardless of an author's intentions. There is far more going, I think, in One Hundred Years of Solitude than just a comment of Colonialism, although that clearly is one of the major themes.

There is no such thing as the correct reading, but there is such a thing as incorrect readings. ;)

[thomas212]

There is different levels of popularity.
The first and obvious is commercial,with Dan Brown,Rowling and such.And as i read the first because i happen to be stuck with it at some stage,i didn't the segond(i hate the nerd looking magician).
The segond are the literary fashion that grabes the readers circles at times,like with Philipe Roth,Mc carthy,and this years Roberto Bolano or Richard Yates.I must say that i can't help being interest and don't pretend having exclusive original taste.No one is immune to influance and the popularity of certain authors or books tickles our curiosity.Denying it would be inverted snobery.
On the other hand i read last summer The girl with a dragon tattoo and it was frightening to find so many poeple reading it at the same time.(In France)

[JBI]

I am afraid I have to disagree, JBI. The problem with your statement about One Hundred Years of Solitude and reading literature in general is that it reifies interpretation and meaning to a single correct answer. We're back to literature as the unraveling of a puzzle. Put the pieces in the correct place and you have your meaning. Literature is far more organic, a give-and-take between artist and reader. If done correctly the text and the author's intentions will guide you, but they do not chain you down, and your own experiences come into play in making interpretation and thinking about why a text is significant and meaningful to you. As long as you can support your interpretation with a text, then a reading is valid regardless of an author's intentions. There is far more going, I think, in One Hundred Years of Solitude than just a comment of Colonialism, although that clearly is one of the major themes.

There is no such thing as the correct reading, but there is such a thing as incorrect readings. ;)


The meaning of the text was not really what I was criticizing, but the appropriation of the text to serve a colonial aesthetic. The way I generally view the Latin-American - U.S. relationship, is similar to that of colony, or post-colony to colonist. In one sense, the solitude of the novel, the perpetual repetition and the slowing down of time, can ultimately be read as a justification for U.S. intervention within the continent. Such a reading is dangerous, but when Milton Friedman and friends go down to Argentina to give economic advice to Pinochet's economists, a certain perpetuated stereotype of Latin-America, derived from the novel justifies this sort of dangerous intervention to the minds of Americans. A book that is rather progressive in the way it thinks, eventually becomes, I would argue, to many readers, a justification of the regressive colonial viewpoints of the past.

Of course, I'm probably saying some dangerous things. In order to really delve into this, I'd probably need to go view the Oprah discussions online, and such, but to me at least, it makes a little sense. One must also remember, the perceived stereotyping of magical realist novels by American readerships because of Marquez's influence. In many ways, the novel's affect abroad went against what I would deem the mission of the text itself.


edit: http://www.oprah.com/article/oprahsbookclub/oyos_novel_synopsis/1

There's what I would call the mass-market interpretation - Oprah's own. Quite simply, it perpetuates the stereotypes I mentioned early, and decries that this book was the book to put Latin America on the literary forefront - as if Machado de Assis had never been born, or people in Latin America had just learned how to read and write (it is also interesting to note, that Latin America isn't a country).

I think, in many ways, there are right and wrong readings. I admit there is no one right reading, but there certainly are wrong, or bad, or counter-intuitive readings. If we accept that the book has a message - implanted by the author, or a theme, manipulated by the author, or ideas, developed by the author (all of which can be conscious or subconscious or incidental) than if someone goes directly against those ideas in appropriation, things can get messy.


People still think Robert Frost's Road Not Taken is about individuality, and how he took the road not taken, stating his individuality, and ended up better for it. No one realizes that the poem is rather dark and negative, yet clearly, biographically, and poetically speaking, the individuality reading is rather loose. Certainly the road not taken led to many things - his wife's death, his kids' deaths, his sons insanity, his bitterness.

Likewise, Frost's Stopping By Woods is considered by many readers a poem written as he was nearing death. They miss the whole pastoral point, notably that it was written in middle-age, not at the end of his life, and it really is imbued with a dark sense of pastoral, rather than with dying (though the pastoral vision has death in it).

There are misreadings, especially where there is irony, or a subtext. For instance, in one of my lectures last week, a person presenting on a poem, which was a parody of Smart's Jubilate Agno, missed the whole entire intertext, and, from the look my professor shot him, and her interjection of the more accurate reading, failed the presentation.

I'm sure you are aware of Richards' Practical Criticism? Well anyway, that just shows you the level of misreading that can occur from readers. Those are all students, lower that down to people who are even less experienced, and one has no idea what can come out of readings.

There is no one right answer, but there certainly are better and worse answers.

[mortalterror]

I am afraid I have to disagree, JBI. The problem with your statement about One Hundred Years of Solitude and reading literature in general is that it reifies interpretation and meaning to a single correct answer. We're back to literature as the unraveling of a puzzle. Put the pieces in the correct place and you have your meaning. Literature is far more organic, a give-and-take between artist and reader. If done correctly the text and the author's intentions will guide you, but they do not chain you down, and your own experiences come into play in making interpretation and thinking about why a text is significant and meaningful to you. As long as you can support your interpretation with a text, then a reading is valid regardless of an author's intentions. There is far more going, I think, in One Hundred Years of Solitude than just a comment of Colonialism, although that clearly is one of the major themes.

There is no such thing as the correct reading, but there is such a thing as incorrect readings. ;)

What you say is true. There is probably no such thing as a correct reading, but there are such things as incorrect readings. That is valid and well put, but let us not stop there. I think there is still room in that maxim to imply that there are such things as privileged positions, and polyphony is no sure road to truth. A statement may be right but not necessarily informative or insightful. For instance, a lot of your reviews on Aristophanes emphasize the incidental while omitting what is primary to the text, and your technique while appropriate to a modern novel isn't so well suited to a fourth century play. I think that JBI has the right of it when he says that there are better ways to do anything, and each task deserves it's special tools.

[Quark]

As long as you can support your interpretation with a text, then a reading is valid regardless of an author's intentions. There is far more going, I think, in One Hundred Years of Solitude than just a comment of Colonialism, although that clearly is one of the major themes.

There is no such thing as the correct reading, but there is such a thing as incorrect readings. ;)

True, and I would add to this that the issue here isn't even one of interpretation, but evaluation. It isn't a matter of what's there, but what's important and enjoyable. If I understand JCamillo, Oprah readers were reading the work for its "fantasy", and not for its post-colonial attitudes. I can't see why this is less accurate--or in JBI's words "manipulating the artistic elements of a text into fitting their interpretation"--than a post-colonialist reading. By claiming those readers fail to get it, really all you would be doing is privileging an empire-conscious reading over a genre reading. Academics routinely rank colonial perspectives as more relevant than genre concerns, but it's a matter of preference. It doesn't have anything to do with literature.


In many ways, the novel's affect abroad went against what I would deem the mission of the text itself.


edit: http://www.oprah.com/article/oprahsbookclub/oyos_novel_synopsis/1

There's what I would call the mass-market interpretation - Oprah's own. Quite simply, it perpetuates the stereotypes I mentioned early, and decries that this book was the book to put Latin America on the literary forefront - as if Machado de Assis had never been born, or people in Latin America had just learned how to read and write (it is also interesting to note, that Latin America isn't a country).

Oh, if you're arguing that the Oprah reading (OR, for short) misinterprets the post-colonial attitude of the work than I take back what I said. I thought you were saying that the concerns of academics are superior to the interests of common readers--that post-colonial readings are better than enjoyable fantasies, or that post-colonialism gets to the heart of a story better than responses to genre.

[JBI]

True, and I would add to this that the issue here isn't even one of interpretation, but evaluation. It isn't a matter of what's there, but what's important and enjoyable. If I understand JCamillo, Oprah readers were reading the work for its "fantasy", and not for its post-colonial attitudes. I can't see why this is less accurate--or in JBI's words "manipulating the artistic elements of a text into fitting their interpretation"--than a post-colonialist reading. By claiming those readers fail to get it, really all you would be doing is privileging an empire-conscious reading over a genre reading. Academics routinely rank colonial perspectives as more relevant than genre concerns, but it's a matter of preference. It doesn't have anything to do with literature.

Now we hit the hard part - the discussion of aesthetic judgment in critical theory. Personally, I think Oprah's readers read the text because Oprah said they should, but that isn't the point. What is the aesthetic? What is the significance? What does magical realism really mean? Is magical realism an aspect of fantasy, or of realism? Is it metaphorical, symbolic?

How much more potent does Borges' library become when you realize that it isn't just some make believe place. There really is no point to the make believe, unless it carries some sort of punch.

Fairytales did that by blending moral and cultural strands within their works. Magical Realists do that in many different ways, in this case, by using fantastical elements as symbols for other things.

The sort of aesthetic reading in those terms, ultimately equates to something like this: "Isn't it cool that the city isn't real that Eliot is talking about?" "It's unreal, isn't that neat?", or even better "Isn't it funny that he is planting corpses in the garden. Have you ever heard of something so ridiculous?"

There is more to literature than surface value.



Oh, if you're arguing that the Oprah reading (OR, for short) misinterprets the post-colonial attitude of the work than I take back what I said. I thought you were saying that the concerns of academics are superior to the interests of common readers--that post-colonial readings are better than enjoyable fantasies, or that post-colonialism gets to the heart of a story better than responses to genre.


Post-colonialism is a genre, as is magical realism. It is also important to note, that America is not Marquez's original audience, and the book is not an English text. Magical realism is not fantasy, in this form at least, and has more in common with realism (again in Marquez's handling) than it does with fantasy.

In terms of readings, academics are generally better readers - it's their profession after all. There are many great public readers, and many readers with interest who benefit from academic readings, but on the whole, the mass reading is generally worse. When Oprah sets herself up as an authority (well, I guess her marketers or whomever at any rate) she usurps the role of academic, or credible reader, and in doing so, provides a misreading as truth. That's what I'm against. I'm against the results of the reviewers at the New York Times, or any periodical for that matter, who abuse their role as critics to suit the agenda of publishers and their paper. They merely perpetuate this system to get books sold.

When it comes to it, I'm of the mind that good books should be read, and reviewers should support good books, and criticize bad ones (whatever that can do). And on the whole, they do somewhat of a good job and cutting down the number of bad ones significantly. But their roles are abused. In truth, I know the supercritic Linda Hutcheon is currently working on some critical work examining the uses and abuses of reviewing and reviewers, but that is still in its beta stages. On the whole though, I'm just trying to address the power mass-sales and mass-opinion have in shaping the way people buy, and see novels, and, from that, cultures.

[Quark]

First, I re-responded to your previous post. I think your argument was a little different than what I originally took it for.

Now this:


Now we hit the hard part - the discussion of aesthetic judgment in critical theory.

I don't know if it's aesthetics necessarily. I think it's simply a matter of what readers give their attention to. Scholars--I suppose that includes you and I--frequently discuss issues of empire, power, and colonization. We probably do this because academic discussions of literature often center around the societal role of a text. But, I don't see how this preoccupation really has any more truth behind it than a reading of a book as an enjoyable fantasy. Both make observations about the text. One is more relevant than another depending on what kind of reader you are, but to pretend like one is "closer" to the text would be a mistake. I got the sense that when you said people often "read Faulkner without really reading him" that you were saying that the academic reading of literature is somehow closer. I would point out, though, that many casual readers would argue the same thing of scholars. There are some famous post-colonial reading which seem to completely miss the point of the work, but are widely applauded in academia because they reflect the current preoccupations of scholars. The best known is probably Edward Said taking one sentence from Mansfield Park about a Caribbean property and turning the entire novel into a statement about colonizers. Many Oprah readers would most likely attack this on the grounds that Said isn't "really reading" Austen.


There is more to literature than surface value.

I completely agree, and I wish more would study literature seriously. I just don't think that all novels, poems, and plays should be evaluated solely on the basis of whether they're good for study.

Added:


Post-colonialism is a genre, as is magical realism.

True enough, but I'm referring to the post-colonial/subaltern philosophy that gives credit to works that approach certain ideas.


In terms of readings, academics are generally better readers - it's their profession after all.

This is right in a sense. Scholars are profession readers, but what they learn is a certain science of reading. You're a big fan of Northrop Frye, right? Remember the part in the Anatomy when he's talking about how the science of literature isn't the same as the experience of literature. I don't have the book in front of me, but I think he compares it to the study of physics with the actual natural world. What students learn from these disciplines are certain models and a certain vocabulary with which to talk about these things, but their actual existence always remains outside of the discipline. Similarly, scholarly reading reflects certain models and descriptions of reading, but it isn't the same as actual reading. I suppose a physicist would know more about what is happening on a roller-coaster--it is his profession to talk about energy and motion--but is his account of the ride really the best? He would give you a list of numbers and equations. It really wouldn't capture the thrill of the ride. An average person's account of the ride would probably help me decide if I wanted to go on the ride more than a physicist's.

[JCamilo]

I would like to point that Magic Realism is a aesthetic take, they are interessed to work with stylized concepts rather than language in the Joycean style, and most of them are quick to adhere to some idealism and doubt they can see the difference between reality and fantasy. The name was not given by Marquez or Borges.
Marquez is talking about reality, but he is doing using aesthetic elements, just like Shakespeare was doing. Obviously, it is better to see Marquez being read in America, even if it was because Oprah said so or because Isabel Allende said so, or because Americans can not just get South America as much as Europeans never got Africa...
Funny enough, I once read that Gogol told to Chekhov that he would end making people believe reality is fantasy, because his writing was so good that no one would believe it was real, and it was magical.

[mortalterror]

I think, in many ways, there are right and wrong readings. I admit there is no one right reading, but there certainly are wrong, or bad, or counter-intuitive readings. If we accept that the book has a message - implanted by the author, or a theme, manipulated by the author, or ideas, developed by the author (all of which can be conscious or subconscious or incidental) than if someone goes directly against those ideas in appropriation, things can get messy.

Agreed. A text is not a blank slate open to any interpretation. But my point is that there is another type of misreading less sinister than the the counter-intuitive and that is the junk information reading. That's where the reviewer doesn't say anything necessarily wrong, but fills up a critique with trivia, excess, and secondary issues until the main point of a text is lost in the background noise. I think that there are more important things than just not being wrong. We have to be strongly right and focused on primary concerns. Thesmophoriazusae is not about feminism any more than Huckleberry Finn is about racist homosexuals. Nowadays we have a tendency to read politics and agendas into everything. You get that post-colonialism stuff you were talking about and all that goes with it, whereas that might not be the intent of the text at all. It's not wrong but it's somewhat beside the point.

It is right that we consider a piece of literature from the point of view of it's author, just as it is right that we should consider the piece's intended audience. Furthermore, one needs to acknowledge the history and conventions a piece of work comes out of, or risk misconstruing the innate values of a text. Reading politics into a work of fiction is only wrong if that work was not meant as a political tool. The Yellow Wallpaper should be read with an agenda in mind, but creatures like Aristophanes, South Park, and the Daily Show are only marginally political. The politics are there but their primary goal is humor, and an accurate engagement with the text cannot be complete without an assessment of how they succeed or fail at their goal.

A review of Huckleberry Finn is not complete without a mention of the incident where the hucksters paint Jim blue and whether the reviewer thought it was funny or not. I think that we can remain objective while still holding personal opinions. Here and there we should punctuate our criticisms with our honest responses to a text; so long as we follow up our responses with credible explanations for why we have them. Let us not hide ourselves, by clothing our authorial voice in numerous points of view. Let us not give way to speaking in terms of agendas and other people's opinions. Let us be frank and to the point.


This is right in a sense. Scholars are profession readers, but what they learn is a certain science of reading. You're a big fan of Northrop Frye, right? Remember the part in the Anatomy when he's talking about how the science of literature isn't the same as the experience of literature. I don't have the book in front of me, but I think he compares it to the study of physics with the actual natural world. What students learn from these disciplines are certain models and a certain vocabulary with which to talk about these things, but their actual existence always remains outside of the discipline. Similarly, scholarly reading reflects certain models and descriptions of reading, but it isn't the same as actual reading. I suppose a physicist would know more about what is happening on a roller-coaster--it is his profession to talk about energy and motion--but is his account of the ride really the best? He would give you a list of numbers and equations. It really wouldn't capture the thrill of the ride. An average person's account of the ride would probably help me decide if I wanted to go on the ride more than a physicist's.

That's a good point. We should not loose track of criticism as a literary text in it's own right with it's own authorial intent and target audience. There are different types of criticisms by different types of critics directed at various audiences for diverse goals. Instead of thinking of a book from the metaphorical point of view of a rollercoaster, I like to use my own metaphor of an automobile. Interpretations of my automobile may come from drivers, engineers, mechanics, and outside observers each with different analytical tools and purposes in mind.

If I want to know how it handles, what the seats are like, or if it gets good gas mileage I can ask a driver. If I want to know how it's put together, how it runs, I can ask the mechanic. Details like color and the paintjob are tangential to one, leather seats, air conditioning, and cd player are incidental to the other. When we seek knowledge it is best to frame the purpose to which we would put that knowledge in mind beforehand.

[Drkshadow03]

What you say is true. There is probably no such thing as a correct reading, but there are such things as incorrect readings. That is valid and well put, but let us not stop there. I think there is still room in that maxim to imply that there are such things as privileged positions, and polyphony is no sure road to truth. A statement may be right but not necessarily informative or insightful. For instance, a lot of your reviews on Aristophanes emphasize the incidental while omitting what is primary to the text, and your technique while appropriate to a modern novel isn't so well suited to a fourth century play. I think that JBI has the right of it when he says that there are better ways to do anything, and each task deserves it's special tools.


I honestly don't understand what you mean. In what way was I not focusing on what was primary thematically in most of my entries about Aristophanes?

-------------------------------------------------------

Nevermind, I think I get what you were complaining about now. In response, I simply updated both Lysistra and Thesmophoriazusae entires on the blog to add some of my original thoughts that for whatever reason didn't make it into the post and to address what I think was bothering you about those posts.

[stlukesguild]

I think the only reason something like poetry is able to flourish in Canada is because of government intervention in the arts. In the past, before copyright, poets generally relied on government handouts to survive. Aristo did, Tasso did, and certainly Racine did. When you think of it, how many poets started off as courtiers, or were professional courtiers? Sydney, Wyatt, Chaucer, Spenser?

This argues for an enlightened... "elite"... audience as opposed to that of the disinterested masses. Often an unpopular position to take... but one I find myself leaning toward. Perhaps I am quick to take this position because of the fact that my own field... the traditional visual arts (painting, print, etc...)... have never been the least indebted to the tastes of the masses. Whether a huge audience trudges their way to the latest art exhibition or not is completely irrelevant. The audience who supports the visual arts... the audience who buys is unquestionably an "elite" audience... both in terms of disposable wealth and in terms of knowledge and experience of the filed. Certainly there are the rich collectors who know little of art or who buy purely for investment or status and thus rely upon the opinions of others... and certainly there are artists who have attained star status thanks to the opinions of the "experts/elite" who will rapidly fade into oblivion... but the opinions of the masses have never had the leas impact upon the market. Thomas Kinkade sells endless prints to millions, yet no self-respecting critic or museum would dare to even consider him a real artist. Because of the access wrought by the technology of printing... and later by the technology of sound recording... both literature and music have been deeply impacted by public taste... not for the better in many/most instances, one might argue.

[JBI]

Well, the novel itself is a popular form, similar in many ways to its successor, the cartoon, or the pop-magazine. The rise of the novel created the copyright obsessed form of literature, rather at the costs of poetry. Poetry in itself was more a spoken art than written art in the past, in the sense that the way we see a Shakespeare sonnet, for instance, is in a text, whereas before, through memory, it was a portable, shared text, which transferred perhaps more through word of mouth.

An oral form most certainly would rely on a rich sponsor, or the artist's day job, but a written form comes with the ability to turn art, from an experience, and perhaps a shared one, into a product, a commodity. The tyranny of print culture, one could say, is copyright, as it shackles art into something that can be bought and sold, rather than live between people, and through its sharing of experience.

At least they can't stop people from lending books - as it is though, the library, as an institution is perhaps the greatest supporter of literature, and the greatest service governments do for authors and poets. But now, I think people have become obsessed with buying books, rather than borrowing books.

I'll admit, I'm an advocate of borrowing books, and that being the centre of print culture. It certainly allows for one to get their hands on much better texts, and much better reference material.

But alas, even that is undermined - now the libraries stock more Nora Roberts than anything else. The library becomes abused as an outlet for people to borrow pop-culture, I.E. bypass pop-culture's royalties, rather than as a place where great texts and thought is accumulated. The internet, in many ways, is similar. So much potential, but, because of the way it is accessed, so much rubbish. Google is virtually unable to turn up anything extremely great, unless manipulated severely.

[Tsuyoiko]

But alas, even that is undermined - now the libraries stock more Nora Roberts than anything else. The library becomes abused as an outlet for people to borrow pop-culture, I.E. bypass pop-culture's royalties, rather than as a place where great texts and thought is accumulated.

That's so true. Fortunately I work at a university, so I use the academic library as my source of literature, rather than my local public library.

To be honest, I don't really know if something's popular or not, and if I liked the look of a book, the "Richard and Judy" sticker (our version of Oprah) wouldn't put me off. However, since my two main sources of books are the Russian lit section of the university library and an esoteric bookshop in Glastonbury, I doubt I encounter popular books all that often.

[Quark]

The rise of the novel created the copyright obsessed form of literature, rather at the costs of poetry. Poetry in itself was more a spoken art than written art in the past, in the sense that the way we see a Shakespeare sonnet, for instance, is in a text, whereas before, through memory, it was a portable, shared text, which transferred perhaps more through word of mouth.

I'm not sure if this is entirely true. In fact, it seems wildly ahistorical. Poetry's decline didn't start until the nineteenth century--long after copyright, and long long after publishing. The poets of the eighteenth century were used to a written culture and the commodification of literature, but poetry was still considered to be the main literary form. Paradise Lost, widely considered to be the best poem of the seventeenth century, was written for readers, and not for a listening audience. No doubt publishing changed literature, but it didn't eliminate poetry. What changed in the nineteenth century were readers. Since more were educated and more had time to read, readership widened. The small group who preferred poetry were driven from the field by masses of people who preferred prose narratives. The dispersion of leisure and education lead to the end of the "elite" that we're talking about, not publishing and copyright which had happened long before without ill effects.

I understand why this is an unattractive prospect, though. It would say that the problem is basically incurable. It's much more encouraging to believe that the vulgarization of taste is merely a result of top-down decisions from governments, marketers, and false-prophets like Oprah. All we'd have to do, then, is execute their leaders (not literally), take power, and everything would be alright. But, if the problem is one of readership, leisure, and education then there isn't such an easy solution. You could proselytize to people about how great "high" literature is through every institution, but it wouldn't make much of a difference because those readers don't have the time or education to appreciate whatever art work you're pushing them toward. They would give you a nod perhaps, but then would go right back to reading Nora Roberts or whoever. This is the problem the late Victorians struggled with so mightily: how does a society have culture and democracy at the same time? I don't know if a good solution to this problem has been given yet.

[JBI]

I'm not sure if this is entirely true. In fact, it seems wildly ahistorical. Poetry's decline didn't start until the nineteenth century--long after copyright, and long long after publishing. The poets of the eighteenth century were used to a written culture and the commodification of literature, but poetry was still considered to be the main literary form. Paradise Lost, widely considered to be the best poem of the seventeenth century, was written for readers, and not for a listening audience. No doubt publishing changed literature, but it didn't eliminate poetry. What changed in the nineteenth century were readers. Since more were educated and more had time to read, readership widened. The small group who preferred poetry were driven from the field by masses of people who preferred prose narratives. The dispersion of leisure and education lead to the end of the "elite" that we're talking about, not publishing and copyright which had happened long before without ill effects.

I understand why this is an unattractive prospect, though. It would say that the problem is basically incurable. It's much more encouraging to believe that the vulgarization of taste is merely a result of top-down decisions from governments, marketers, and false-prophets like Oprah. All we'd have to do, then, is execute their leaders (not literally), take power, and everything would be alright. But, if the problem is one of readership, leisure, and education then there isn't such an easy solution. You could proselytize to people about how great "high" literature is through every institution, but it wouldn't make much of a difference because those readers don't have the time or education to appreciate whatever art work you're pushing them toward. They would give you a nod perhaps, but then would go right back to reading Nora Roberts or whoever. This is the problem the late Victorians struggled with so mightily: how does a society have culture and democracy at the same time? I don't know if a good solution to this problem has been given yet.

Do you have any idea how much a book cost back then? I know it 1800, a thin one volume book (Walter Scott popularized the 3 volume novel) which was more margins than text, came to somewhere around the equivalent of 300$ today.

This is 1600, roughly. Text wasn't that major, yet somehow things got around. If Shakespeare was a text, more than an oral form, naturally, he either would have been unheard of, except for a select few, or, have had more volumes floating around.

There aren't many first editions of sonnets, and there is historical evidence to suggest that some of them were circulating amongst friends before their initial publication. But that's just Shakespeare at the basic level - look at, for instance, Shakespeare as Drama, an oral form, an oral poetry, rather than text, or better yet, an oral poetry like Sir Patrick Spens.

Certainly we know the middle-ages featured literature as more oral than written. That idea somehow carried over for a while, until really the 20th century.

I'm not making all this up, Harold Innis wrote a book about the differences and changes from Oral to Written culture, which takes in a large amount of history from the European world. It's called The Bias of Communication, and I recommend you look into it.

[mortalterror]

I think the only reason something like poetry is able to flourish in Canada is because of government intervention in the arts. In the past, before copyright, poets generally relied on government handouts to survive. Aristo did, Tasso did, and certainly Racine did. When you think of it, how many poets started off as courtiers, or were professional courtiers? Sydney, Wyatt, Chaucer, Spenser?

I saw StLukes quote you with this and I had to go back and check the source. You aren't really arguing for a return to patronage are you? If you are, you could definitely use better examples.

Ariosto should be the go to example for the absolute failure of patronage. He works thirty years on Orlando Furioso and gets jack all for his trouble because his patron doesn't like his poetry. Meanwhile, he's running around on diplomatic errands and can't devote his time to his chosen profession.

Tasso might have benefited from the patronage system if he hadn't been completely insane for most of his productive years. He was confined to a madhouse for what, eight years? Then he wanders from province to province a charity case and a broken man. He achieves success relatively early on in life and then implodes. You could hardly say that he had a rich and rewarding relationship with the nobility which allowed him to nurture his talent. After Jerusalem Delivered he doesn't do anything of note.

Racine goes into the employ of the court and that's when he stops writing. Aside from two brief religious plays, Esther and Athalie, written at the request of the queen he was in retirement for like twenty years. The only time he was really productive was when he had to earn a living in the theater competing against Moliere and Corneille.

Wyatt spends much of his time under lock and key in the Tower of London for various political scandals and doesn't even publish anything during his lifetime. But at least he fairs better than Raleigh. Chaucer writes The Complaint to his Purse, which shows how well he was paid, and Spenser fairly blasts courtly life in Colin Clout. Being a courtier could be a pretty rough life.

Let's not forget the case of Ferdowsi who toiled on the Shahnameh for thirty years and when he returned to his patron was offered less than a hundredth of the sum he was promised.

I don't know that you could properly call the arrangements most of these guys had patronage so much as they were day jobs. If you want an example of good patronage you might try Maecenas who gave Horace and Virgil farms to make them self-sufficient.

[Scheherazade]

If you knew little about a book other than that everyone is currently raving about it, does that make you want to read it, or do you dismiss it as some trendy work not worth the time? Or at least, does that make you more hesitant to read it? I still read it... Actually, in some cases, the popularity makes me want to read it just to see what the fuss is about. If I am going to trash a book, I would like to be able to do it based on good authority (ie, my own) rather than "said so".

The only read I am refusing to read at the moment is Lord of the Rings due to both its popularity and I can't take thousands of pages of fantasy.

[prendrelemick]

There are some sources I trust, the Booker prize short list, or my Mother, for instance. Richard and Judy stickers or the position on the best seller list means nothing. BUT it doesn't mean a book is bad, just because its popular. A million satisfied readers must mean something. (OK apart from Dan Brown)

[Quark]

Certainly we know the middle-ages featured literature as more oral than written. That idea somehow carried over for a while, until really the 20th century.

I'm not disputing your facts. I'm just pointing out that your timeline may be a little skewed. There was much oral transmission of literature in the middle-ages and renaissance: sure. There isn't really that much in the twentieth-century: also good. It's what in between that I call into question. Are you really trying to say that literature in eighteenth and nineteenth-centuries was transmitted through the spoken word? Or, that copyright wasn't customary in these years? Those would be some really radical suggestions. We know that poets sold their works to magazines and booksellers. These magazines had pretty wide circulation, and books were no rare commodities. By the 1780's book circulation had exceeded 10,000,000! The commerce of written literature was so successful that the government levied rather harsh taxes against, and sales continued to increase despite rising prices. Writing seemed to be doing pretty well by the second half of the eighteenth-century.

I bring this up because I think it conflicts with your diagnosis of poetry's (and high culture's) problem. You said before:


Well, the novel itself is a popular form, similar in many ways to its successor, the cartoon, or the pop-magazine. The rise of the novel created the copyright obsessed form of literature, rather at the costs of poetry. Poetry in itself was more a spoken art than written art in the past, in the sense that the way we see a Shakespeare sonnet, for instance, is in a text, whereas before, through memory, it was a portable, shared text, which transferred perhaps more through word of mouth.

The novel here takes part in the decline of "high" culture. It's a step toward cartoons and pop-magazines. It seems like you're saying copyright and writing hurt good literature (typified by poetry) and gave rise to mediocre literature (the novel and its descendants). I think it's important to note that poetry's place in society began to decline in the second half of the nineteenth-century, and that written language and copyright became predominant one-hundred years earlier. In the eighteenth-century the break from patronage, enactment of copyright, and the growth of written culture all occurred. Yet, poetry was still the main literary form. I don't think you can say that copyright and written culture stopped poetry because poetry's popularity persisted well after the printed word became the norm. You have to look at changes in the nineteenth-century to explain the fall of poetry. The change that immediately comes to mind is the change in readership. More were literate and had time to read in the nineteenth century. The educated elite who ruled the literary scene in the eighteenth-century were then overcome by a larger group of less-educated, but nonetheless book-hungry, crowd. This is also why there's so much anxiety about the vulgarization of culture amongst the late Victorians. This explanation makes more sense because it aligns better with the historical record. No doubt, printing and copyright changed literature, but you're overstating it's role if you try to assert that it killed poetry.


I'm not making all this up, Harold Innis wrote a book about the differences and changes from Oral to Written culture, which takes in a large amount of history from the European world. It's called The Bias of Communication, and I recommend you look into it.

I'm not familiar with the work, so, if you think there's something in the book which helps you, you might want to quote it--or at least say what it is.


now the libraries stock more Nora Roberts than anything else. The library becomes abused as an outlet for people to borrow pop-culture, I.E. bypass pop-culture's royalties, rather than as a place where great texts and thought is accumulated. The internet, in many ways, is similar. So much potential, but, because of the way it is accessed, so much rubbish. Google is virtually unable to turn up anything extremely great, unless manipulated severely.

Now this we agree on, and I suppose we probably agree on the question posed by the thread, too: "Do you consider a book based on its popularity?". I think we would both say "no", and probably for similar reasons. Many of the readers who contribute to a book's popularity are swayed by things which I would not be swayed by--like marketing or whatever.

[stlukesguild]

I saw StLukes quote you with this and I had to go back and check the source. You aren't really arguing for a return to patronage are you? If you are, you could definitely use better examples.

Mortal... I agree that one cannot easily argue for patronage or the free-market as a better model for creation and the creators. Johnson declares that "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money," but then William Blake proves the opposite to be equally true (although even Blake had illusions of making a great deal of wealth from his projects). In either instance it seems as if there is no guarantee that merit will result in fame and fortune. The artist must either please the single wealthy patron or the masses. I'm not certain that one is easier to achieve than the other. We may dismiss Dan Brown and the Harry Potter novels and Thomas Kinkade paintings as aesthetically and artistically stunted... but for some reason they are able to achieve a level of success with a large audience that endless other equally bad and far better works of art do not. If such success were easy to achieve why wouldn't the intelligent artist simply churn out the product, make his or her millions, and then retire to focus full time upon achieving something of true artistic merit? Again... because of the unique situation of the traditional arts being at once an image and a unique luxury craft-object, the impact of the tastes of the masses has never played much of a role. When a new painting by a leading contemporary artist can easily command 6 or 7 figures, and even a good work by a locally known artist can demand a price range in the thousands... even the tens of thousands... then it is highly unlikely that the artist is going to give the least concern to what the masses think. Considering that there is almost certainly an audience for anything and everything, perhaps the best strategy is to create what you believe in for yourself.

[JBI]

I saw StLukes quote you with this and I had to go back and check the source. You aren't really arguing for a return to patronage are you? If you are, you could definitely use better examples.

Ariosto should be the go to example for the absolute failure of patronage. He works thirty years on Orlando Furioso and gets jack all for his trouble because his patron doesn't like his poetry. Meanwhile, he's running around on diplomatic errands and can't devote his time to his chosen profession.

Tasso might have benefited from the patronage system if he hadn't been completely insane for most of his productive years. He was confined to a madhouse for what, eight years? Then he wanders from province to province a charity case and a broken man. He achieves success relatively early on in life and then implodes. You could hardly say that he had a rich and rewarding relationship with the nobility which allowed him to nurture his talent. After Jerusalem Delivered he doesn't do anything of note.

Racine goes into the employ of the court and that's when he stops writing. Aside from two brief religious plays, Esther and Athalie, written at the request of the queen he was in retirement for like twenty years. The only time he was really productive was when he had to earn a living in the theater competing against Moliere and Corneille.

Wyatt spends much of his time under lock and key in the Tower of London for various political scandals and doesn't even publish anything during his lifetime. But at least he fairs better than Raleigh. Chaucer writes The Complaint to his Purse, which shows how well he was paid, and Spenser fairly blasts courtly life in Colin Clout. Being a courtier could be a pretty rough life.

Let's not forget the case of Ferdowsi who toiled on the Shahnameh for thirty years and when he returned to his patron was offered less than a hundredth of the sum he was promised.

I don't know that you could properly call the arrangements most of these guys had patronage so much as they were day jobs. If you want an example of good patronage you might try Maecenas who gave Horace and Virgil farms to make them self-sufficient.

Sorry, I realize now that I perhaps wasn't clear. I wasn't advocating patronage, in the sense that I was advocating the poet's role within the superstructure of a cultural. By making poetry a program of interest, recognized and funded by the government, the Canadian system has enabled poets to be a part of the discourse of the country, without having to starve themselves to do so. The discourse of poetry, then, becomes a part of the discourse of national/anti-national experience and identity. The mass market doesn't brand people heroes, in this sense, but the tradition itself.

It's an interesting concept, that perhaps needs further exploration. Within the frame of Canadian discourse, the government's (this is, the art department of the government) and the national heritage boards here seek to define Canada's culture as multicultural, in order to fix elisions made in representations in the past. The mainstream, however, and many members of government, representing more reactionary right groups, are somewhat resistant, and ultimately unsupportive. Up until the mid-90s, to an extent the publishers too had somewhat racist fixations, disallowing Chinese-Canadian poets, for instance, the same opportunities as Anglo-Saxon-Canadian poets.

The national support then, acts as a balance, allowing for unheard people to get money to support themselves, and for their voices to have the opportunities to be developed. After all, a good poet usually writes rather slowly. Yeats wrote at a rate of about 2 lines a day. When one's projected sales are 10,000 or less, and one comes as an immigrant, with all the disadvantages that implies (there are still major human rights issues within labor and communities within Canada) these sorts of programs allow for a poet to be able to actually practice their craft.

Pure capitalism cannot allow for this. Canadian publishers are always going to be at a disadvantage, in comparison to our neighbors. But through support of its poets, the Canadian system allows for greater opportunities.

So, in a sense, I'm not looking to reestablish the pay once form of patronage, where the noble would buy the manuscript, but what I am looking at is the importance placed by the governing power's interest and endorsement of poetry. I'm no Wyatt expert, but from what I know, the court life created the backdrop completely for his poetry. His job as a courtier certainly gave him, at least in his early career, the opportunities to receive the exposure he did, which enabled him to write his poetry. If we bring that into a contemporary setting, government endorsement of creative projects is the same thing. It is certainly central to the survival of Canadian art, especially cinema.

[Wilde woman]

I read a study a few years ago that said the average American adult's literacy level is around that of 8th grade children. (I think I'm being generous here; some claim American literacy is closer to 5th-grade level.) That means the average Joe you meet on the street has the reading comprehension of a 13-year-old. :rolleyes:

I think that's pretty indicative of the quality of best-seller lists.

Admittedly, I don't know how America's literacy compares to the rest of the world's, but it's been getting worse in the past few years. I remember that during the Harry Potter craze, I read about lots of schoolteachers who embraced the series, simply because it got their kids to read....rather than play on the wii. It's no wonder so many students hate their English classes. If most of them can't even handle Harry Potter, how can their teachers really expect them to digest Heart of Darkness or Moby Dick?

I think you'll see the quality of best-seller lists go up if and only if there are some radical changes to the way reading is taught at the grade school level.

Sorry, I got a little off-topic.

[stlukesguild]

JBI... what you are describing... government support for the arts... by whatever name... is still a form of patronage. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the endeavor. Certainly I am for continued support of the larger institutions: orchestras, ballets, theaters, art museums, etc... On the other hand I question governmental support of individual artists. Certainly, I understand that some artists struggle to survive within the context of the free market system. I haven't been raking in the vast piles of money myself. On the other hand, it seems justified to question just how successful governmental support of individual artists has been. It would seem that on this side of the border many of the arts councils and endowments entrusted with allocating governmental money (taxpayer money) are nothing more than mutual admiration societies dominated by academic poets/artists/writers/composers unable to survive within the free market system and convinced that they and their ilk are somehow "entitled" to governmental support... in spite of the fact that the art quite often is offensive or inaccessible to the very taxpayers who are footing the bill... and not often proven to be of a great lasting merit worthy of the support in spite of its current unpopularity. The artists employed by the WPA in the 1930s and 1940s made a concerted effort to reach the public who were essentially employing them. Why should an obscure minimalist composer teaching at some liberal arts college in Vermont, an experimental poet teaching creative writing in Kansas, or an installation artist using blood and feces to explore issues of race and gender identity while employed as a gallery director in Omaha be entitled to the support of the taxpayers when it is more than doubtful that such art represents anything truly essential to the culture as a whole? I'm somehow unconvinced that the government makes a better patron than either the masses or the wealthy "elite" under a free market system.

[JBI]

Well, you hit the problem. On this side of the border, the notion of the "culture as a whole" is considered by many writers to be offensive. There is no coherent Canadian tradition, and the fact that the bulk of our writers are immigrants, or from immigrant families, many of which with racial/linguistic separators from the mainstream, makes any sense of "support the culture" quite difficult.

In a sense, I see it as a way in which the government, well, their arts system at any rate, tries to distort the perceived cultural identity of Canada, because, after all, even the whole "cultural mosaic" has been exposed as flawed, harmful, and segratory.

The only way for a poet to really make money, is to enter into the big anthologies. In this sense, that means, a) American/English anthologies, like the Norton (of which, I think, I counted around half a dozen Canadians, with about 2 poems each - less than the selection of Ezra Pound alone), or somehow get giant sales. Most associate themselves with academic institutions (another government funded program, as all universities (the ones that actually are credited at any rate) are government funded), or to get a day job.

But the question then comes, with the rise of the anthology as a sort of form, and the intense research and effort needed to really put together a good anthology, how are these people going to manage? And even when they do, how are they going to manage? It's OK if they are from rich, established families, but from poor, or newly arrived families, who face racial/cultural prejudices in workplaces and society, and even in the publishing world?

No, the government system is essential. Not only does it protect artists from publishing tyranny, but also from imperialist tyranny.


It's not that they just hand them salaries. It's that they give them specific grants, to go traveling to do research, or to be able to put together a specific program. All of them must have at least 1 book published, or 4 stories, or 10 poems within major periodicals.

The most anyone can really get towards a project, is something like 25,000, which is helpful, but it isn't exactly a million dollars, and probably more than the book will make in publication anyway.

I think that is a somewhat responsible system. In truth, if these artists were living at home off of welfare, they would make similar amounts of money.

[JCamilo]

I must say that in Brazil it is very hard to produce culture without the help of governament (some laws that allow private donations, them allow taxes reducation - keep in mind the taxes here are a bit too high) - either for for large events or even for the recording of a single album or edition of a single book.
There is some damage (Circo di Solei (dunno the proper spelling right now) an international circo got the incentive - the responsable for bringing them here of course - and them charged the tickets with vallues that would be something like half of the minimum salary here, thus turning it in a elite event and obviously, that would not need such incentive) but it is pretty much a salvation for popular art and cultural preservation.

[mono]

Whew! This thread really went a long way - a lot of catching up to do. :eek2:

Scholars are profession readers, but what they learn is a certain science of reading. You're a big fan of Northrop Frye, right? Remember the part in the Anatomy when he's talking about how the science of literature isn't the same as the experience of literature. I don't have the book in front of me, but I think he compares it to the study of physics with the actual natural world. What students learn from these disciplines are certain models and a certain vocabulary with which to talk about these things, but their actual existence always remains outside of the discipline. Similarly, scholarly reading reflects certain models and descriptions of reading, but it isn't the same as actual reading. I suppose a physicist would know more about what is happening on a roller-coaster--it is his profession to talk about energy and motion--but is his account of the ride really the best? He would give you a list of numbers and equations. It really wouldn't capture the thrill of the ride. An average person's account of the ride would probably help me decide if I wanted to go on the ride more than a physicist's.
Wow, this really hit home for me! In this sense, we could create a bit of a dichotomy. I will firstly admit myself, not proudly, as a literary snob, and I recognize others amid me - whether they proclaim themselves as well or not, I will leave it to them. The dichotomy splits itself as scholarly readers and uneducated readers, readers like what Wilde woman described:

I read a study a few years ago that said the average American adult's literacy level is around that of 8th grade children. (I think I'm being generous here; some claim American literacy is closer to 5th-grade level.) That means the average Joe you meet on the street has the reading comprehension of a 13-year-old.
This creates a sad fate for both dichotomies, based upon the argument that we both consider books based upon their popularities. A few authors can squeeze themselves through both categories, such as John Steinbeck, Jane Austen, and J.R.R. Tolkein, but let us consider the in-depth, extreme authors that truly create the split - in one corner of the boxer's ring, we have Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Dante Alighieri; in the other corner, we have Stephen King, Nora Roberts, and John Grisham. Do you catch my drift?
All of these writers have a distinguished and undeniable popularity in their own fields of literature. Perhaps we do not read all of them, but I have never met an individual who spoke ill of Goethe. Intellectuals read Goethe, Sartre, and Dante not only as scholars, but also out of their popularity among the other intellectual readers; not to insult people who read King, Roberts, or Grisham, but others read them out of their popularity. Just because one reads Dante does not make him/her intelligent, and I agree with DrkShadow in claiming that a correct interpretation of The Divine Comedy does not exist, but an incorrect one does, yet perhaps we can choose which side of the boxing ring we desire to fit into - whether we belong there, others may judge.
Not that I consider myself the sharpest reader of Goethe, Dante, or Sartre, but I have read them all, fiction and non-fiction, and I fully admit that I started reading them based upon their popularity in the intellectual fields. Did I want to appear intelligent while reading Faust on the commuter train? No, but I genuinely gained an interest in it after not only recognizing its intelligent value, and also after reading its synopsis prior to cracking open the gem; now, I consider it one of the best pieces of literature ever written.
I love my mother to death, and have no doubts of her superior intelligence, but she reads Nora Roberts' novels. The admitted literary snob and elitist I consider myself, while I recall holding Hobbes' Leviathan under my arm, I asked her why she reads . . . these types of novels. She calls them "brain candy," and something easy to read after a difficult day at work (she also works in medicine); she knows the negative bias readers of classical literature, like I, have, but reads them solely out of enjoyment, choosing them, indeed, out of their popularity.

[stlukesguild]

Well, you hit the problem. On this side of the border, the notion of the "culture as a whole" is considered by many writers to be offensive.

And...? I personally find the majority of American popular culture to be crass and vulgar... but should I then be entitled to financial support of the government through the tax dollars of population as a whole whose values I don't share?

There is no coherent Canadian tradition, and the fact that the bulk of our writers are immigrants, or from immigrant families, many of which with racial/linguistic separators from the mainstream, makes any sense of "support the culture" quite difficult.

Again the question is "And...?" Is it the responsibility of the government to somehow counteract the biases of the market system... to offer up support for outsiders and minorities. Is it the role of the government to push some false egalitarianism? Are you saying that Black and Asian and Native-American and immigrants are deserving of special support. Personally I am a true elitist when it comes to art. I am concerned about nothing but the aesthetic merits of the work. Art has never been Egalitarian. The number of brilliant artists in any given form or genre is not spread out evenly among every nation, culture, religion, race, gender, or gender preference. There are more great writers from Britain than from Hungary and more great composers from Germany than from Portugal... or anywhere else. I have no use for a system of support of the arts that would favor an Asian or a Black or a Native-American writer over a the stereotypical White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male for any reason other than artistic merit. Either the support is political or artistic. If the goal is supporting work of the greatest artistic merit, political/racial/gender issues should have nothing to do with the decisions. If the goal is political, then that shouldn't be hidden behind false pretexts.

In a sense, I see it as a way in which the government, well, their arts system at any rate, tries to distort the perceived cultural identity of Canada, because, after all, even the whole "cultural mosaic" has been exposed as flawed, harmful, and segratory.

Again... if the goal is political, then that shouldn't be hidden behind false pretexts.

The only way for a poet to really make money, is to enter into the big anthologies. In this sense, that means, a) American/English anthologies, like the Norton (of which, I think, I counted around half a dozen Canadians, with about 2 poems each - less than the selection of Ezra Pound alone), or somehow get giant sales.

Uh... no. The poet could also get a job. If I recall correctly Dante, Goethe, William Blake, Keats, T.S. Eliot and endless other poets (and artists of every form and genre) have labored at a "day job". Every artist is essentially in business for him or herself. The government would not think that anyone was entitled to taxpayer support for starting up a business creating a product that was largely unwanted. What makes artists entitled to such?

Most associate themselves with academic institutions (another government funded program, as all universities (the ones that actually are credited at any rate) are government funded), or to get a day job.

Yes... and what is wrong with that?

But the question then comes, with the rise of the anthology as a sort of form, and the intense research and effort needed to really put together a good anthology, how are these people going to manage? And even when they do, how are they going to manage? It's OK if they are from rich, established families, but from poor, or newly arrived families, who face racial/cultural prejudices in workplaces and society, and even in the publishing world?

No... the central question remains why are these artists deserving of taxpayer support? Other questions include: Is this system of government enforced patronage on the public dollar an more inherently fair than the free market system... than the support of the masses, the wealthy patrons, and the institutions? and Is there any proof of the merits of this system? Where are the unsung geniuses who have been rescued and brought to light?

No, the government system is essential. Not only does it protect artists from publishing tyranny, but also from imperialist tyranny.

So it is the role of the government to counteract the free market system... the opinions of the masses and the wealthy individuals? Personally I don't think it does much to protect artists... rather it simply rewards artists who fit within another clique... that favored by certain academics who serve as the jurors upon such awards committees... but it rewards them with public tax dollars. Personally, I can't see why I should be taxed so that someone writing experimental Lesbian Feminist Inuit poetry can take a nice long sabbatical in Greece. By stating that government support is a necessity you are suggesting that A. There is little interest in such work B. Such work could not survive without governmental support... which leads me to question just how serious the artists are about their vision if it can only survive with governmental support. Again, I might point out that William Blake never needed (or probably expected) governmental support for him to remain true to his vision.

I think that is a somewhat responsible system. In truth, if these artists were living at home off of welfare, they would make similar amounts of money.

The reality is that it is a form of Welfare... and I still question its merits. I read (and these numbers were from the mid-1980s) that art schools in the United States churn out over 100,000 BFAs a year in the visual arts. Are we expected to support all of these great "visionaries" no matter how bad or how unwanted their work may be?

[JBI]

What are your aesthetic merits? Your sense of tradition is built on what? Your sense of judgment on what? On what Harold Bloom calls Aesthetic merit? On the Western Canon is your background?

The truth is, such constructs are artificial. Even the notion of the West is an ethnocentric one. For all this talk of literary merit, I've never once heard much talk about Li Bai, or Du Fu. I think I'm the only one who has ever mentioned Lu Hsun (often translated as Xun), despite that virtually all his works are now available in translation.

What of the Mahabharata? Surely even the snippet of the Bhagavad Gita alone satisfies literary merit. It's quite easy to discuss Cervantes here, for all his literary merit, but I've never once heard mention of Journey to the West here, despite its aesthetic merit, and the fact that it too is now readily available in translation. But of course, we all love to read from everywhere. That's why Wilson Harris is as discussed on these boards as Twilight, Harry Potter, and the Da Vinci Code, right? Who?


For all this talk about aesthetic merit, and not caring what the background of the writer is, I find it very strange how on these forums, not once are any of these central texts mentioned.


When you question the role of the government, you need to say which government. For all your statements about is it the role of the government to do x, more often than not, I say yes, it is. Many major developed countries support their artists, in fact, I think most of them now do.

Quite simply, I find your romantic notions of art inapplicable in today's society. Bookstores sell books, periodicals and billboards, and websites advertise books, and Americans owns the publishers, with the exception of a few fringe ones here. Now you suppose these people are not committed to their art, because they want to get a little governmental support to produce it, since without that, either it wouldn't have the ability to be made, or quite simply would just fade into oblivion (as did the majority of modernists texts in Canada, which major publishers refused to publish). In truth, it was believed Canada didn't even have a modernist movement in prose, because quite simply, these artists' work disappeared (and began to be unearthed about 5 years ago) because, quite simply, there was no governmental support for the arts, and no domestic ethnocentricity to boost sales.


Like I said, people get grants and subsidies for projects, not just for being artists. They are doing something, and if they are painting, they are probably using the cash to buy supplies of some sort, or a workplace of some sort. If you ask most Canadian writers, especially those working in theatre or the visual arts, they will tell you that the bulk of their projects could not have been realized without government support.

That being said, what's the role of your government? For all this talk, I think the reason this concept is so unpalatable to you, is because of the way your government functions, and the way the arts in the United States function in general.

The big difference:

T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Henry James, Gertrude Stein, Ernest Hemingway, Edith Wharton, Richard Wright.

American authors

Michael Ondaatje, Rienzi Crusz, Austin Clarke, Jim Wong-Chu, Rohinton Mistry, Nino Ricci, Pier Girogio di Cicco, Frederick Philip Grove. (I think it is also important to note that my spellchecker doesn't pick up any spelling mistakes from the American names, but half of these Canadian ones are underlined)

Notice the difference?

I'll give you a hint: (the American authors are all American authors, despite not living in the United States for the bulk of their lives, whereas the Canadian authors are Canadian because they moved to Canada).

The difference is, I think, extremely clear. American culture, and American so called aesthetics are obsessed with America primarily, and American culture. Canadian aesthetics have virtually nothing to do with Canada, and, instead, have more to do with world culture in general. It seems futile for a government to promote itself, when it really doesn't need to, as virtually everything their culture does and stands for, is a form of self-promotion. In truth, you get very little of the satirical take on history that seems to embody virtually all historical artwork from every other developed country (think Saramago here, for instance). If the United States can be said to be the best at something (besides perhaps baseball), it is promoting itself. In truth, the mandate of the country these days is supposedly to "spread freedom and democracy". There is no real need of a support of pluralism within that context.

So yeah, I can't help but take offense. Your aesthetic judgments, for all they are worth, are nothing but rhetoric. There is no such thing as a coherent sense of aesthetic merit over another work, unless you have seen the other work. In that sense, translation too needs to be funded, as it is (though primarily from academic institutions, which here are state-funded). To really judge aesthetically, you need a text in front of you. If that text is cut off because American publishers, and American-influenced consumers don't want to buy into them, then I think yeah, you need a state funding of some sort.


I would also like to point out, that even your most aesthetic of all artists, William Shakespeare himself enjoyed a patronage of some kind, which really saw off his Sonnets to publication, amongst other works. Are we to say that they perhaps would have come down anyway?

The National Endowment for the Arts in the States is around 155million according to Wiki (lets say they are accurate, just for arguments sake).

According to Wiki, the Canada Council, puts out 152million, receives 16000 grant requests, and grants around 6000 (this is from the 2006 figures).

In contrast, the Arts Council of Ireland, puts out according to Wikipedia, 75.7 million Euros (which I think is somewhere around 101 million US).

Norway puts out to the Norsk Kulturrad (Arts Council Norway) 304million NOK which comes to around 46.5 million US.

Who knows though, perhaps there is a correlation between interest and funding. Perhaps this would explain why a poster a few pages back called Irish people the most literate. Perhaps this may explain the strong arts cultures within European countries. Hey, it seems like this thing matters.

Just googling a bit, I came across this article:

http://www.osborne-conant.org/arts_funding.htm

I'll just put out the questions, to promote the discussion a little bit.




n review, we see that Europe’s funding traditions and models suggest several policies and administrative practices Americans might consider:

1. Europeans use public funding to provide alternatives to the marketplace for cultural expression. This reinforces freedom of artistic expression and deeply enriches their societies. America’s heavy reliance on the market as an arbiter of culture sometimes limits our options. Our government spends billions on other intellectual spheres, such as education, space exploration and scientific research, but we have seriously limited our cultural lives through a suspicion toward public arts funding.

2. European politicians avoid attacking the arts for populist and opportunistic political gains. This is a taboo that is seldom, if ever, broken and the perpetrators generally only discredit themselves. Few mainstream European politicians would make remarks such as North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, who said, “The artists and the homosexuals ain’t seen nothing yet.” Europeans would find it absurd to eliminate almost half of a nation’s arts funding because of two or three marginalized avant-garde artists. After the traumas of both fascism and communism, Europeans realize how destructive the intimidation of artists is to the dignity and cultural identity of society. This no longer happens in Europe, and need not happen in America.

3. European arts funding is generally decentralized and administered mostly on the state and municipals levels. The NEA’s centralized funding makes it an easy target for populist political attacks. Europeans would also find it strange for a federal government to fund the arts in any specific way because it is so difficult at that level to have direct contact with the lives and work of artists and the communities they serve. The NEA and the states must continue to develop arts-funding models directly connected to cities, towns and regional communities.

4. Europeans use their cultural legacies to establish and assert their place in the world, often through extensive cultural diplomacy. American politicians should be reminded that Ella Fitzgerald, Leonard Bernstein and Louis Armstrong can often accomplish far more than an F-16, and for a tiny fraction of the costs, both economic and human. Given our talent, educational system, and wealth, we must renew our vision of how brightly our cultural light could shine.

5. Europeans combine arts education with the living presence of the performing arts within their communities. Classical music is far more relevant to young people when performing arts organizations are a highly present and esteemed part of their city or region. In America, the nearest genuinely professional full-time performing arts organization is often hundreds of miles away. America’s children should perceive the arts as part of their communities. And our more talented children should be able to think of the arts as a realistic career option, just as children in Europe do.

6. Even though Europeans often celebrate the lighter classics, they still stress classical musical for its inherent strengths. As the American Symphony Orchestra League has noted, America has been trying to build publics by emphasizing pops (and cross-over) concerts since the 1960s. This has had a partially adverse effect through lowering the public’s expectations. Superficial programming is also increasingly influencing classical music radio stations. Through confidence in classical music’s inherent strengths, higher standards and expectations could be awakened.

7. Europeans view the city itself as the greatest and most complete expression of the human mind and spirit. Venice, Florence, Rome, Prague, Amsterdam, Dresden, Barcelona and Paris, just to name a few, are all embued with this ideal. Americans, by contrast, behave almost as if they have lost hope in their cities, as if they were dangerous and inhuman urban wastelands to be abandoned for the suburbs. This tacit assumption has had a profound but largely unrecognized effect on American political and cultural discourse. Classical music is one of the most urban of art forms. Its status will always be measured by the health and vibrancy of our cities. Ultimately, questions of arts funding will only be fully resolved when we recognize that the well-being of our cultural and urban environments are deeply interdependent.

Over the long term, these general understandings that Europeans have gained over centuries of experience could beneficially influence the political and cultural climate in America. It is not enough that people have freedom of speech; they must also have mechanisms for meaningfully expressing and debating it. Public arts funding is deeply valuable because it encourages societies to be diverse, intellectually alive, inquisitive and realistic. It furthers the discourse societies need to fully express their communal and national identity and place it in the rest of the world. It furthers our ability to heal and help. It furthers our well-being, freedom of expression, and pursuit of happiness. Public arts funding represents the deepest American ideals.

[stlukesguild]

What are your aesthetic merits? Your sense of tradition is built on what? Your sense of judgment on what? The truth is, such constructs are artificial. Even the notion of the West is an ethnocentric one. For all this talk of literary merit, I've never once heard much talk about Li Bai, or Du Fu. I think I'm the only one who has ever mentioned Lu Hsun (often translated as Xun), despite that virtually all his works are now available in translation.

Come on... aesthetic relativism? That's just a weak-minded bit of nonsense passed off in universities by academics who are far more concerned about enforcing an artificial egalitarianism than they are about art. You yourself moaned about being stuck reading Marie de France and skipping Dante and have had little kind to say about Harry Potter.

As for artistic multiculturalism... I'm all for exploring other voices. if you recall, I'm the one who started the thread on the Eastern Canon and have brought up questions about Japanese and Chinese poets as well as Middle-Eastern authors and even medieval Hebrew poets from Islamic Spain. Nor have I been anywhere near the grand champion of American writers that you have been for Canadians. Even there, you might recall that I have made more than one posting about Anne Carson.

What of the Mahabharata? Surely even the snippet of the Bhagavad Gita alone satisfies literary merit.

Certainly... and the Shah-nameh and the Qur'an and the Tao Te Ching and The Adventures of Amir Hamza.

It's quite easy to discuss Cervantes here, for all his literary merit, but I've never once heard mention of Journey to the West here, despite its aesthetic merit, and the fact that it too is now readily available in translation. But of course, we all love to read from everywhere. That's why Wilson Harris is as discussed on these boards as Twilight, Harry Potter, and the Da Vinci Code, right? Who?

Of course you might also note that The Davinci Code, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are also more often discussed than Goethe, Holderlin, Nerval, Neruda... even Borges, Calvino, and Kafka. You can suggest an Anglo-centrism (and this certainly is to be expected in the English-speaking world)... but I can argue an equal aesthetic myopia.

For all this talk about aesthetic merit, and not caring what the background of the writer is, I find it very strange how on these forums, not once are any of these central texts mentioned.

Again... I have thrown out postings related to my readings of such central non-Western authors... and gotten little response. This does not lead me to the conclusion that we should be throwing more money in support of the efforts of contemporary outsider and minority artists. Perhaps a broader base of education.

When you question the role of the government, you need to say which government. For all your statements about is it the role of the government to do x, more often than not, I say yes, it is. Many major developed countries support their artists, in fact, I think most of them now do.

Again, the question is why is it the essential duty of the government to spend money in the support of artists who (by your suggestion) cannot survive otherwise? Of course I am playing a bit of the devil's advocate here. I am not fully against government patronage (at least of institutions, orchestras, etc...) nor of patronage in general... but what makes you feel that the art which cannot survive in the market either through the support of the masses or of wealthy individuals is worthy of my tax dollars?

Quite simply, I find your romantic notions of art inapplicable in today's society. Bookstores sell books, periodicals and billboards, and websites advertise books, and Americans owns the publishers, with the exception of a few fringe ones here. Now you suppose these people are not committed to their art, because they want to get a little governmental support to produce it, since without that, either it wouldn't have the ability to be made, or quite simply would just fade into oblivion (as did the majority of modernists texts in Canada, which major publishers refused to publish).

How are my notions "Romantic"? I don't recall Pablo Picasso (an immigrant to France), T.S. Eliot (an immigrant to Britain) or endless others depending upon government hand-outs. William Blake didn't need to rely upon the publishers... he printed his own damn books... as did William Morris. Of course such results in a smaller audience... initially. Is it the initial size of the audience that assures survival? In reality, the history of government support (in the visual arts at least) has bee abysmal. It was never the Impressionists or Courbet or Van Gogh who earned the grants, but rather the academics with connections to the other academics involved in the award process.

In truth, it was believed Canada didn't even have a modernist movement in prose, because quite simply, these artists' work disappeared (and began to be unearthed about 5 years ago) because, quite simply, there was no governmental support for the arts, and no domestic ethnocentricity to boost sales.

How supportive was the United States? If I recall, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Hemingway, etc... relied initially upon European... especially French and British publishers. If such is the sole goal, what stopped the Canadians from becoming ex-patriots like Eliot, etc...?

Like I said, people get grants and subsidies for projects, not just for being artists. They are doing something, and if they are painting, they are probably using the cash to buy supplies of some sort, or a workplace of some sort.

Yes... they are making something... something for which there is a very limited demand (if any at all)... and I should be taxed to support it? I pay for my own studio space (quite a hefty sum... I could be driving a far better car), my own paints and art supplies, and if I decide that I need to travel to see an art exhibition in New York, I'll pay for that as well and not expect that I am entitled to a share the tax dollars.

If you ask most Canadian writers, especially those working in theatre or the visual arts, they will tell you that the bulk of their projects could not have been realized without government support.

And...? I have a friend who is an architect and an artist. He has never seen any of his architectural projects realized. Another friend is a composer who has never heard any of his works performed by a major symphonic orchestra. Should they be entitled to such? The reality is that the system of entitlements is just as unfair as that of the free market. Do you honestly believe that only the best art is being awarded these grants? Robert Mapplethorpe... a third-rate photographer whose entire career is virtually a rip-off of Imogen Cunningham... deserved public monies so that he could take more photos of large penises and bull-whips stuck up his posterior? Again... you suggest that these entitlements are a necessity... the proof is in the pudding. Who are the major artists who have been rescued from obscurity through public aid?

That being said, what's the role of your government? For all this talk, I think the reason this concept is so unpalatable to you, is because of the way your government functions, and the way the arts in the United States function in general.

I'll give you a hint: (the American authors are all American authors, despite not living in the United States for the bulk of their lives, whereas the Canadian authors are Canadian because they moved to Canada).

The difference is, I think, extremely clear. American culture, and American so called aesthetics are obsessed with America primarily, and American culture.

Canadian aesthetics have virtually nothing to do with Canada, and, instead, have more to do with world culture in general. It seems futile for a government to promote itself, when it really doesn't need to, as virtually everything their culture does and stands for, is a form of self-promotion... If the United States can be said to be the best at something (besides perhaps baseball), it is promoting itself. In truth, the mandate of the country these days is supposedly to "spread freedom and democracy". There is no real need of a support of pluralism within that context.

C'mon, JBI... this is just more of your Anti-American/pro-Canadian jingoism. Arshile Gorky, Willem DeKooing, Philip Guston, Mark Rothko... all central figures to Abstract Expressionism... the first artistic movement in which the United States was the center of the art world. Every one of them was an immigrant. Gorky escaped the Armenian genocide and worked in a factory. Rotho was Jewish Russian and taught in the public schools for 30 years. DeKooning was Dutch and also worked in a factory. Guston... was Canadian. Yet all the aesthetics of our art is self-obsessed? That's nonsense. At least within my field of the visual arts we are more than painfully aware of our position in contrast to the ancient cultures of Europe, Asia, and the Middle-East.

In truth, you get very little of the satirical take on history that seems to embody virtually all historical artwork from every other developed country (think Saramago here, for instance).

Gore Vidal? Thomas Pynchon? John Barth? Nabokov... but of course he was an immigrant. Hell, American literature is laden with writers who offer a less-than-ideal picture of American culture and history (Faulkner, Dos Passos, etc...). To suggest that American art and literature is just a great monolithic self-aggrandizing behemoth shut off from the rest of the world is far more offensive than anything I might have suggested... and I might add, more than a bit blinded by a pro-Canadian victim stance.

So yeah, I can't help but take offense. Your aesthetic judgments, for all they are worth, are nothing but rhetoric. There is no such thing as a coherent sense of aesthetic merit over another work, unless you have seen the other work.

And so we cannot know that the latest in the Twilight series is a piece of aesthetic crap... we must read and experience all before offering any comparison... but that leads us back to the reality that certain works of art survive while others are lost over the ages. And this would all seem to be the result of the workings of the market. Certain works retain relevance and resonate across time. I won't deny that there are political and economic realities that bear influence. A brilliant poet writing in Hungary in the 1600s has more than a few strikes going against him or her. But what is the alternative? Are we responsible assure each an every artist an equal audience? Bailing out the banks would be nothing in comparison to seeing to i that every person who believes he or she is a writer or a poet or an artist is given the finacial support to compete with Pynchon, Harry Potter, and Damien Hirst.

In that sense, translation too needs to be funded, as it is (though primarily from academic institutions, which here are state-funded). To really judge aesthetically, you need a text in front of you. If that text is cut off because American publishers, and American-influenced consumers don't want to buy into them, then I think yeah, you need a state funding of some sort.

Again, it comes down to a a finite or limited amount of resources or funding and endless works of art waiting for their audience. How many of Dante's and Petrarch's poetic peers have never been given full quality translations? Outside of the Hymns to the Night, how much of Novalis oeuvre is available to an English language audience? Again... one also might be expected to also ask (when using taxpayer money) what are we getting for our dollar? Are we getting something a great worth to the people who are footing the bill?

I'll continue the rest of this dialog later... there are some interesting points certainly deserving of being addressed.

[Brave Archer]

There are times were I have read a book based on popularity, Dan Brown comes to mind. I picked up Angels and Demons, which had a story I enjoyed, although not greatly written, and I also picked up Davinci, which had a story I couldn't stomach for more than two pages.

Most of the time it is all a popularity contest. Look at any top 100 list, and you'll find popular authors. In my opinion, I think James Baldwin is one of a handful of great American authors and I stumbled onto him.

I guess my answer is, it depends on the situation.

[stlukesguild]

OK... where did I leave off?:D You posted a series of statements relating to arts funding:

1. Europeans use public funding to provide alternatives to the marketplace for cultural expression. This reinforces freedom of artistic expression and deeply enriches their societies. America’s heavy reliance on the market as an arbiter of culture sometimes limits our options. Our government spends billions on other intellectual spheres, such as education, space exploration and scientific research, but we have seriously limited our cultural lives through a suspicion toward public arts funding.

How does the funding of work which you suggest cannot survive in the market system without assistance actually provide much in the way of an alternative in the marketplace? The work awarded such funding is certainly going to be that which fits the narrow range favored by the academic poets/painters/composers who make up the body deciding who is or is not worthy of such endowments. By and large most of this sort of art is already guaranteed a certain degree of survival through the support of these very institutions. The question that still begs to be answered is why any art which cannot survive through the support of the masses in the marketplace, through the patronage of the wealthy, or through the support of institutions such as that of universities... or through the tenacity and perseverance of the artists is deserving of the support of public tax dollars... especially in times of financial stress and when there are so many more important things begging for the public dollar: education, medical costs, etc...

2. European politicians avoid attacking the arts for populist and opportunistic political gains. This is a taboo that is seldom, if ever, broken and the perpetrators generally only discredit themselves. Few mainstream European politicians would make remarks such as North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, who said, “The artists and the homosexuals ain’t seen nothing yet.” Europeans would find it absurd to eliminate almost half of a nation’s arts funding because of two or three marginalized avant-garde artists. After the traumas of both fascism and communism, Europeans realize how destructive the intimidation of artists is to the dignity and cultural identity of society. This no longer happens in Europe, and need not happen in America.

I have no problem with this argument. American politicians certainly love to play this card... portraying each other as snobbish elitists out of touch with the common man. Artists, poets, the Hollywood producers, the record industry, homosexuals, those who live in the cities are continually demonized and portrayed as not "real Americans" or sharing "real American values" by politicians seeking the support of certain fearful voters... but of course the reality is that there is no monolithic "real American" or "real American values". There is also a a large remnant of our pragmatic Puritan heritage that remains among a large portion of our population who believe that art is not only not a necessity, but it is also something effete... wasteful... or at least not of any practical use. I still don't see how funding art through public monies is going to change this. If anything it merely opens up these artists to such attacks of wastefulness, etc...

3. European arts funding is generally decentralized and administered mostly on the state and municipals levels. The NEA’s centralized funding makes it an easy target for populist political attacks. Europeans would also find it strange for a federal government to fund the arts in any specific way because it is so difficult at that level to have direct contact with the lives and work of artists and the communities they serve. The NEA and the states must continue to develop arts-funding models directly connected to cities, towns and regional communities.

Certainly this may be a part of the problem. The artists awarded WPA funding back in the time of the Great Depression often worked in and for local or regional communities... providing art for regional theaters, post-offices, schools, etc... It is hard to justify doling out grants so that an artist can travel to France or Italy to ostensibly study the old masters when a great percentage of the very population whose tax dollars are being used to fund such cannot afford the same "luxury".

4. Europeans use their cultural legacies to establish and assert their place in the world, often through extensive cultural diplomacy. American politicians should be reminded that Ella Fitzgerald, Leonard Bernstein and Louis Armstrong can often accomplish far more than an F-16, and for a tiny fraction of the costs, both economic and human. Given our talent, educational system, and wealth, we must renew our vision of how brightly our cultural light could shine.

The governments have always done as much... in the US as much as anywhere else. The major orchestras, operas, museums, etc... are a continual means of promoting the culture. It might be noted, however, that Ella Fitzgerald, Leonard Bernstein, Louis Armstrong... and one might add Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollack, William Faulkner, T.S. Eliot, Walt Whitman, Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, etc... have never needed the support of tax money to reach an international audience. Of course art always follows money and the wealth of the United States has given many artists in the US advantages over artists in other countries. Of course this has been true across history which is why various nations and cities become artistic centers for a given period of time. At the same time I somehow doubt that had an artist gained the support of the government in 15th century Hungary it would have in any way been as useful as the support of the DeMedici in Florence. In the long run... the art must come to the recognition of the market in the great cultural/economic centers.

5. Europeans combine arts education with the living presence of the performing arts within their communities. Classical music is far more relevant to young people when performing arts organizations are a highly present and esteemed part of their city or region. In America, the nearest genuinely professional full-time performing arts organization is often hundreds of miles away. America’s children should perceive the arts as part of their communities. And our more talented children should be able to think of the arts as a realistic career option, just as children in Europe do.

Now this is absolute nonsense. The genuine major orchestras and theaters may be separated by hundreds of miles... but we are comparing two very different geographies. The single state of Texas is larger than France, Germany, or Great Britain... but there are far greater expanses that are sparsely inhabited. One cannot assume that a far rural tract of North Dakota will have easy access to such major arts institutions... but I doubt the reality is far different in Russia, China... or Canada for that matter. Living in Ohio... which is certainly not the center of arts culture in the world... I still have access to the Cleveland Orchestra, Opera Cleveland, The Akron Symphony, The Cleveland Museum of Art, The Oberlin Museum of Art, the Akron Art Museum, the Toledo Museum of Art, at least half a dozen professional theaters, etc... If I am willing to drive a few hours there is much more (Columbus, Detroit, Pittsburgh) and the major arts centers of Chicago, Washington DC, Philadelphia, and New York are but 6 to 8 hours by car.

At the same time I agree that children often are limited in their artistic outlook and experience... but this has far more to do with education than access. Our schools are struggling to make ends meet and the arts are often the first "luxury" to be trimmed. Exposure to music, literature, and art is often far less than what it should be in our schools and if this is not supplied by parents the children have little notion. Perhaps if we are to spend tax dollars on the arts it should be in the form of arts education... giving students a broader notion of their world.

6. Even though Europeans often celebrate the lighter classics, they still stress classical musical for its inherent strengths. As the American Symphony Orchestra League has noted, America has been trying to build publics by emphasizing pops (and cross-over) concerts since the 1960s. This has had a partially adverse effect through lowering the public’s expectations. Superficial programming is also increasingly influencing classical music radio stations. Through confidence in classical music’s inherent strengths, higher standards and expectations could be awakened.

This problem is often due to the fact that there is a notion that the size of the audience is the sole measure of success. This practical approach has been carried over from the business world to the arts... and the educational institutions with highly questionable results. Universities and art museums and orchestras are often headed by CEOs with MBAs rather than by arts experts and art lovers. As I have already stated above, I have no problem with the notion of spending tax dollars on such institutions as museums and orchestras preserving and promoting works of art in which the worth or value is not truly questioned. Many of the CEOs of these same institutions are more than willing to sell out their values for a larger audience. Thus we have universities catering to student demands for courses on comic books and porn films, art museums throwing together exhibitions devoted to Elvis and Marilyn Monroe, etc... other Museums selling off ("deaccessioning") major works in order to purchase works of questionable merit to buy something that will make a big splash in the press, etc... Again... it is here... in maintaining the standards of our institutions whose role is to preserve the best art of the past... and in our educational institutions which have the ability to develop future audiences for the arts... that I believe we should be spending any tax money... not in the questionable effort of providing stipends for obscure minimalist composers teaching at some liberal arts college in Vermont.

7. Europeans view the city itself as the greatest and most complete expression of the human mind and spirit. Venice, Florence, Rome, Prague, Amsterdam, Dresden, Barcelona and Paris, just to name a few, are all embued with this ideal. Americans, by contrast, behave almost as if they have lost hope in their cities, as if they were dangerous and inhuman urban wastelands to be abandoned for the suburbs. This tacit assumption has had a profound but largely unrecognized effect on American political and cultural discourse. Classical music is one of the most urban of art forms. Its status will always be measured by the health and vibrancy of our cities. Ultimately, questions of arts funding will only be fully resolved when we recognize that the well-being of our cultural and urban environments are deeply interdependent.

This is a problem that goes far beyond the arts and whether we see our cities as cultural centers. Part of it has to do with the way taxes are raised and spent in the US. Those who work in the large urban centers commonly live in the suburbs and their tax dollars (property taxes and commonly half of their income taxes) are earmarked to these suburban communities. These people see no reason why the fruits of their labor should be used to support additional police forces, teachers, etc... to counteract the declining conditions in the cities. At the same time... inexpensive housing and governmental assistance for the same is often limited to the larger cities thereby creating ghettos for the poor and the minorities and assuring that they won't end up in our back yard.

Until taxation is not localized and we begin to recognize that the cities and their surrounding suburbs and rural communities are all interlinked and interdependent... this problem will continue to escalate. In spite of the fact that the cities often remain centers of industry, employment, transportation, and culture, our government has for far to long written laws that penalize these very same cities. Billions of dollars have been spent on constructing superhighways allowing for rapid commuting between the suburbs and the cities... making it far more attractive for someone to live 40 or 50 miles away from the urban center where he or she works. At the same time the government has often awarded great tax incentives to builders constructing homes and strip malls in these one rural communities further drawing people away from the cities. These cities must then contend with the problems of a population that is often at or below the poverty level with less resources which leads to an inevitable increase in crime, decline in services such as education, and obviously even more population loss of any one who can afford to leave.

Your commenter states, "questions of arts funding will only be fully resolved when we recognize that the well-being of our cultural and urban environments are deeply interdependent" I would suggest, questions of arts funding will only be fully resolved when we recognize that the well-being of our urban, suburban, and rural environments are deeply interdependent.

Over the long term, these general understandings that Europeans have gained over centuries of experience could beneficially influence the political and cultural climate in America. It is not enough that people have freedom of speech; they must also have mechanisms for meaningfully expressing and debating it. Public arts funding is deeply valuable because it encourages societies to be diverse, intellectually alive, inquisitive and realistic. It furthers the discourse societies need to fully express their communal and national identity and place it in the rest of the world. It furthers our ability to heal and help. It furthers our well-being, freedom of expression, and pursuit of happiness. Public arts funding represents the deepest American ideals.

Again... I support the arts funding when it takes the form of support for educational institutions, museums, orchestras, performing arts theaters, etc... At the same time, I question the merit or value of support for the individual contemporary artist who cannot survive or create without public money. I would also point out that the vast majority of the artists and art that most fully expresses our communal and national identities and places it in the rest of the world has done so without the need of public dollars. The music of Appalachia and the the Jazz of New Orleans rose out of some of the poorest regions of the nation. The Abstract Expressionists who remade the face of art were commonly employed for years in the drudgery of manual labor in order to make ends meet. I have no romantic illusions that the artist must or should suffer to create... still artist survive and thrive in spite of their circumstances... rarely because they met the criteria to gain government support in the form of tax dollars.

[mono]

*bump*
Considering that I really loved discussing and reading about this hot topic, and that we have a few newer members on the forum, I thought to give this thread another chance. :D

[Don Quixote Jr]

Do you consider a book based on its popularity?

Not usually, but then again, you're reading a post by someone who has read just about everything written by James Clavell, James Michener, Michael Crichton and John Grisham... All of whom I presume are much more popular than heavyweight. If I like the first book I read by an author, I'll usually read more, and if I dislike the first book by an author, I usually avoid them. This usually works for me, except in the case of Gore Vidal...I really liked Burr and Myra Breckinridge but couldn't get through 1876.
So far it's worked for me in the case of the loathsome Ayn Rand, I wouldn't touch anything written by her with somebody else's hand on an eleven-foot pole, even if they were wearing a hazmat suit!
Occasionally I'll become interested in a book by seeing it featured at a local bookstore. One recent example is Spade & Archer, the prequel to The Maltese Falcon. I borrowed the audio copy from the local library because I like The Maltese Falcon a lot and this prequel seems to have gotten some favorable reviews.
Overall I try to avoid judging a book by it's popularity or lack thereof, I'm more inclined to heed the suggestions of friends in regards to what I'll read next.

[teashi]

I usually get a book because I've heard it (or the author) is good and could be interesting to me. I don't care much for Oprah stickers, they themselves don't make me not want to try a book, they just tell me Oprah or someone working for Oprah liked it enough to put a sticker/label on it and let other people know. And if some Oprah fans value her opinion and it interests them to read those books.. well what's the harm.
What I don't like are those 'Now a major motion picture!' labels.. the ones that are part of the cover and don't scratch off.

[Quark]

Considering that I really loved discussing and reading about this hot topic, and that we have a few newer members on the forum, I thought to give this thread another chance. :D

Always thinking, Mono

[mono]

Always thinking, Mono
I do what I can, friend, but usually I just try to keep up with others. :D

Not usually, but then again, you're reading a post by someone who has read just about everything written by James Clavell, James Michener, Michael Crichton and John Grisham... All of whom I presume are much more popular than heavyweight.
Interesting thought, Don Quixote Jr, and it makes me wonder if a lot of us, including myself, refuse to even consider a book based upon its popularity. Out of that list, I have only read Michael Crichton and James Clavell, neither of whom I liked, and have not given another chance. While we readers tend to group a lot of authors in the same categories (genres, too, but I speak primarily of how you said, "more popular than heavyweight"), I tend to turn the other cheek at the same authors, among many others; my swift judgment of thinking that I will likely not enjoy their books seems a bit unjust, admittedly so, but just as many of us inevitably consider a book based upon its popularity, I think we do not consider them, too.

[Jozanny]

I evaluate whether or not to read a text based on the challenge it might offer me, and sales have scant little to do with this. The reviewers I respect usually don't disappoint me, but recently they did with their cheerleading for Richard Yates and Revolutionary Road. Best anti-suburbia work my foot. Frank and Alice Wheeler are paint-by-numbers characters reheated to death through the failing studio mill between say, 56 to 79, around which time the genre starts dying out. Oddly, it was the real estate agent and her son who came through with any ontological realism. Popular stories are necessary. Without them the best talents have nothing to play off of and challenge. To use an easy example, what Puzo did with The Godfather was to Americanize the corrosion of possibly once valid Italian social norms. But it took Scorsese's Mean Streets to remove the operatic attraction of gangster methodology and institute the brutal realism of a diseased code, that, by the 70's, was an American hybrid all its own. It is rather difficult to have high art without mass commercialism informing upon it.

[kelby_lake]

Most of the time it is all a popularity contest. Look at any top 100 list, and you'll find popular authors. In my opinion, I think James Baldwin is one of a handful of great American authors and I stumbled onto him.

I guess my answer is, it depends on the situation.

I really like Giovanni's Room and I came upon that by accident.

Yep, I would read a book if it became very popular, but normally I distrust popularity- often it becomes mere hype and not a reflection of the book's quality.
I like obscure works which have high ratings by a few people much more.