Are you a literature snob?

[Razeus]

I was called snobbish today, because I haven't read Harry Potter nor Twilight. A couple of ladies (I'm a gentleman) were discussing the stories at lunch and asked if I've I was in to them. "No", I said. "I'm a 34 year old man".

Are you a literary snob?

[Ecurb]

I haven't read Twilight, although I finally broke down and read Harry Potter. Despite loving children's books, I boycotted the Potter series for a while because I didn't like the fact that they translated the books from English into American. "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" became "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", as just one example. It seems to me that American children are smart enough to learn English terms.

However, I finally broke down and read the books. The first couple were pretty good, combining two excellent literary genres: the British Public School genre and the Fantasy genre. The Hogwarts kids in the first couple of books feared getting caught sneaking out of the dormitory after hours more than they feared being killed by Voldemort, which was both funny and an insightful view of the nature of children. However, Voldemort was a mediocre villain, so the books went downhill when they began emphasizing the battle with Voldemort over Hogwarts shenanigans.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Eerrrrrrrr YEAH!!!!

[mortalterror]

Next, you're going to tell us you aren't into Justin Bieber.

[DocHeart]

I'm not a snob, they're just ignorant. :)

[kiki1982]

I'm not a snob, they're just ignorant. :)

Yup, happy are the ignorant.

[JCamilo]

How we can make this a genuine Harry Potter thread, so we can come latter and complain about another Harry Potter thread ?

[The Comedian]

Next, you're going to tell us you aren't into Justin Bieber.

Ha! Nice. And yeah, I'm sort of a snob. Not everything that I read has to be Dostoevsky, but best-sellers and teenie novels are not for me.

[Emil Miller]

I was called snobbish today, because I haven't read Harry Potter nor Twilight. A couple of ladies (I'm a gentleman) were discussing the stories at lunch and asked if I've I was in to them. "No", I said. "I'm a 34 year old man".

Are you a literary snob?

The first question that comes to mind is how old are the ladies?
The second is why does anyone, apart from children, read it anyway?
I can honestly say that were I an eleven-year-old, I would find H. Potter infantile, by the time I was nine I had already read Robinson Crusoe and Treasure Island. It's not that you are a snob but rather that the females concerned are suckers for the Random House sales technique.

[Emmy Castrol]

I'm a literature snob but only against pretentious literature. I've read the Harry Potter series and the Twilight series. This is because I don't view them as 'pretentious' literature. To me, they are just entertainment. I do get pissed off though when people act all pretentious and claim that the Harry Potter books and Twilight are written well because they are trash, just enjoyable trash. I can understand why both these series would not appeal to a man.

I also enjoy reading romances, mysteries and fantasy although I always keep in mind that they are entertainment literature.

So what am I snobbish against? Mostly popular contemporary fiction. I can't stand Jodi Picoult and Nicholas Sparks (both use cheap emotional tricks) and I can't help but be skeptical over anything that Oprah Winfrey recommends or that's on those Bookseller Top 100 lists.

[Lokasenna]

Am I a literary snob? Probably.

The point is to make a distinction between texts that are good and texts that are popular. These needn't be mutually exclusive, but they often are. This is because, in order to be popular, a writer has to (in some sense) pander to the lowest common denominator (i.e. idiocy), and this reduces the overall quality of the work. If any two-bit moron with half-a-brain is expected to 'get it', then its intellectual and artistic merits cannot be that high.

I read the first four Harry Potter books in my childhood with fervent ardour, but by the time the fifth came along I had long since outgrown them, and come to the realisation that there was infinitely better literature out there.

Is it snobbish to have a realistic opinion of a writer's literary merits and capabilities?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

To the average, reader, most definitely, and damn proud of it, too.

On these forums, though? No. Really gotta amp up the snobbishness to stick out on here.

[JCamilo]

Wait, wait...

that is not how it is played. You cann't say if you are a snob or not. It is not that easy. You must find other snob and he must call you snob. Otherwise, you are just pretencious. In this case, here, Mortal, me, JBI, Stlukes, Jozzany, etc must call you a snob and trade some ironic pointless jabs with you.

So, you people just forget it.

[IceM]

No; I appreciate canonical works because I see the beauty that lies beneath them. As a budding author with many fascinating ideas and less fascinating ability as of now, I find landmark works as valuable to showing what works to what degree.

But if being a snob means reading Calvino over Sparks, then sure.

[Jozanny]

My trump card: I'm elitist, and can make a better literary argument better than 97.7% of active online posters.

[JBI]

I'm totally a snob.

[sixsmith]

"I am completely an elitist in the cultural but emphatically not the social sense. I prefer the good to the bad, the articulate to the mumbling, the aesthetically developed to the merely primitive, and full to partial consciousness. I love the spectacle of skill, whether it's an expert gardener at work or a good carpenter chopping dovetails. I don't think stupid or ill-read people are as good to be with as wise and fully literate ones. I would rather watch a great tennis player than a mediocre one, unless the latter is a friend or a relative. Consequently, most of the human race doesn't matter much to me, outside the normal and necessary frame of courtesy and the obligation to respect human rights. I see no reason to squirm around apologizing for this. I am, after all, a cultural critic, and my main job is to distinguish the good from the second-rate, pretentious, sentimental, and boring stuff that saturates culture today, more (perhaps) than it ever has. I hate populist ****, no matter how much the demos love it." - Robert Hughes, Things I Didn't Know

[OrphanPip]

I love the trashiest of the trash and the good stuff, the middling stuff isn't worth the time. There's something special about art that is so terrible it's transcendent.

[DanielBenoit]

If the general public considers good literature to be Harry Potter, Twilight, Tom Clancy, etc. to be good literature and Shakespeare, Blake, Dante, Dickinson, etc. to be good but "outdated" literature, then sure, I'm a total elitist.

And while I don't care for popular trash, I do think Pauline Kael was right when she said "Trash has given us an appetite for art."

[stlukesguild]

JBI-I'm totally a snob.

Really? And I had always thought you were completely unassuming. :p

But then again... I'm probably in the 2.3% that JoZ alludes to.:rolleyes5:

[Jozanny]

JBI-I'm totally a snob.

But then again... I'm probably in the 2.3% that JoZ alludes to.:rolleyes5:

Who's being conceited now? :p

Our minds work a little differently where we manage to converge mon ami, but I have to concede that you can out do me on a point by point basis, and since I'm working, for now I'm too tired to grind the issue much finer.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

When he wants to, StLukes pwns all.

[JCamilo]

St. Lukes can not even use the word pwn and he does, he says "pwn" to let clear his reproval of such expressions.

[JBI]

JBI-I'm totally a snob.

Really? And I had always thought you were completely unassuming. :p

But then again... I'm probably in the 2.3% that JoZ alludes to.:rolleyes5:

There is a problem here you know though - people who are snobs but are on the old bandwagon, namely those who only read off of Harold Bloom's list. Oh, and they aren't few either. The two aren't necessarily connected, being good at argument, and being a snob, though to argue well perhaps a certain amount of snobbery is necessary.

[MystyrMystyry]

Daniel - you have to read Tom Clancy before you can diss him - he's great if you don't like feel like thinking too deeply, far better than a boring 'classic' and actually if you're at the beach relaxing there's a bonus to his kind of storytelling which isn't obvious unless you try to read Dickens or Nabokov down there, wishing that you'd brought along something breezy instead

Admittedly he's not the first or even best choice for night-time reading, but he's a master of his craft


As far as books that aren't exactly what you want to read, surely everyone's guilty of snobbery - at night searching for something to read, not that there are too few contenders, but what one's in the mood for changes so much day to day

Light airport fiction and genres are fine for what they are, but the more we become aware of the great works the more we want more time to enjoy them - I personally need an occasional break from the heavier texts because they can be as bad for you as they can be good for you

[mortalterror]

I wouldn't even think of challenging StLukes for the title of Litnet's chief snob. Why, when it comes to snobbery, he's better at that than criticism.

[mal4mac]

"I am completely an elitist in the cultural but emphatically not the social sense... I don't think stupid or ill-read people are as good to be with as wise and fully literate ones... Consequently, most of the human race doesn't matter much to me, outside the normal and necessary frame of courtesy and the obligation to respect human rights." - Robert Hughes, Things I Didn't Know

I don't think that makes Hughes a snob. A snob thinks other people are inherently inferior to him and can be treated with disdain, which makes the snob an elitist 'in the social sense'.

The OP was being snobbish because he was implying that the (34 year old?) ladies were intrinsically childish, with his "I'm a 34 year old man" comment. He was lucky to get away with a barbed comment...

Why couldn't he just have said that he doesn't like reading Harry Potter? That would not have been a direct attack on the ladies' adulthood, and would probably have resulted in a friendly conversation, where he might have encouraged them to read something better. If the ladies call him a snob *just* because he says, "I don't like reading Harry Potter", then they might be best avoided... with courtesy... because then they are actually being snobs!

[MsSilentia]

Well said mal4mac

By the way, I believe we all sometimes need something unpretentious to rest in. What we then choose is very individual. Why should easy literature be worse than watching football or knitting?

You can read to learn, to extent your “experience” or to develop your thoughts. You can also read to escape from the present or to taste a delicious language. Or maybe you just want to relax for a while. You will hardly choose the same book for all those purposes.

I think the “trash”-epithet is somewhat cheap. I do not believe there is one book in the whole existing literature that cannot be criticized and picked apart in order to define it as trash if you really decide to do it.
And, I admit it willingly, there are parts of the great litterature "canon" that I find totally uninteresting, at least of you do not have the intention to study the intellectual consept that finds them so very fantastic:)

To me, the most exciting literary experience is when somebody really has a story of his/her own to tell, something to express or an unique idea. If gaining new thoughts, at least I can overlook language or stylistic flaws to an extent.
I have not read Harry Potter or Twilight so I would stay out of commenting them. They might be good in their own way for all I know.

[Pecksie]

The point is to make a distinction between texts that are good and texts that are popular. These needn't be mutually exclusive, but they often are. This is because, in order to be popular, a writer has to (in some sense) pander to the lowest common denominator (i.e. idiocy), and this reduces the overall quality of the work. If any two-bit moron with half-a-brain is expected to 'get it', then its intellectual and artistic merits cannot be that high.

Is it snobbish to have a realistic opinion of a writer's literary merits and capabilities?

Spot on.

[Scheherazade]

I think one becomes a snob when refuses to read certain books based on hear-say or presumptions.

And I try not to do that. Did give Twilight a try but after the first 15 pages, I had to put it down so at least I can say why I don't want to read it. I read some of the HP books and I quite enjoyed them for what they are.

I always say this. One cannot live on gourmet meals all the time. A burger and fry does a world of good every now and done.

Relax and enjoy the ride.

(Yes, I am on painkillers)

[JCamilo]

I wouldn't even think of challenging StLukes for the title of Litnet's chief snob. Why, when it comes to snobbery, he's better at that than criticism.

Do you see here, Mutantis-Mutatis, a true snob snobs another snob. Mortal bites and laughs at sametime. That has nothing to do with the books that a person reads, but the capacity to mention obscure works which are carefully picked because nobody will mention it. It can be even trash literature, but since nobody knows, it will be accepted or lost under the lines and the mention of the obvious.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I was joking around, J. I used the word "pwn" flippantly, fyi.

[Pecksie]

I think one becomes a snob when refuses to read certain books based on hear-say or presumptions.

And I try not to do that. Did give Twilight a try but after the first 15 pages, I had to put it down so at least I can say why I don't want to read it. I read some of the HP books and I quite enjoyed them for what they are.



What you say is interesting. But in order to do that (i.e. read that type of books so as to at least be able to say 'I did read it, and I hated it') one has to live in a place where such books are readily accessible for free --- e.g. in a library. Any option that involves investing my hard-earned and usually tight money on books I'm 99.99% certain I will hate is a no-go for me.

Another question that may be validly asked is whether one must really refrain from 'refusing to read certain books based on hear-say' --- and thus deliberately expose oneself to things that have a very high likelihood of being s**t. Life is short, reading time is even shorter, and this necessarily leads to choices. Let us all be honest with each other --- how many of you forum members have really read 'The Da Vinci Code', cover to cover? I for one haven't, and never will --- which hasn't prevented me from enthusiastically bashing it every time I get a chance. What is it that makes me a snob --- the refusal to read it, the disparaging comments, or both?

You may have a point in that there's something perhaps unfair or arbitrary in criticizing a book/author you haven't read and never plan to. As to actually reading that stuff --- well, no, thanks. At least not in this lifetime.

[stlukesguild]

There is a problem here you know though - people who are snobs but are on the old bandwagon, namely those who only read off of Harold Bloom's list. Oh, and they aren't few either.

Thus we have snobbery within the ranks of the snobs. There are those who have read a good portion of those writers on the critical lists by Harold Bloom or Clifton Faidiman or the literary departments at Yale and Oxford... and then there are those snobs who have moved beyond this to being able to cite obscure Chinese poets, Spanish playwrights, Roman historians, Latin-American novelists, and Persian epics... not that we know anyone like that.:p

The two aren't necessarily connected, being good at argument, and being a snob, though to argue well perhaps a certain amount of snobbery is necessary.

Perhaps argument is not unlike any art form... it demands a certain degree of ego on the part of the participant.

[JuniperWoolf]

I think one becomes a snob when refuses to read certain books based on hear-say or presumptions.

Totally. When I saw a bunch of forty year old "scholars" bashing the literary merits of the Twilight series (which, by the way, WAS WRITTEN FOR TEENAGE GIRLS), I decided to read it out of spite (I'm sort of a "no one tells me what to read" kind of girl). I hate the idea of elitism, and so even if the things that I love are also loved by the "elite," I don't make a big deal out of it or base my personality around a stuffy, superior, scoffing intellectual stereotype. Too cliché, it's been done to death and is therefore boring.

[JCamilo]

I was joking around, J. I used the word "pwn" flippantly, fyi.

I never joke about something as serious as the granted position of people like me among the elite.

After reading what I wrote :iagree:

[stlukesguild]

I think one becomes a snob when refuses to read certain books based on hear-say or presumptions.

Totally. When I saw a bunch of forty year old "scholars" bashing the literary merits of the Twilight series (which, by the way, WAS WRITTEN FOR TEENAGE GIRLS), I decided to read it out of spite (I'm sort of a "no one tells me what to read" kind of girl). I hate the idea of elitism...


In an ideal world of infinite resources and an infinite amount of time to spend reading your anti-elitist ideas might make a degree of sense. One would recognize that there will always be time enough to get around to Tolstoy and Mozart. In the real finite world I do not have the resources no the time to spend upon artistic pablum and as a result, like most discerning audiences, I have developed an ability to quickly recognize what probably isn't going to appeal to me as literature... music... or art. I don't need to sit through the latest Twilight film to know that it's probably not for me. I don't need to buy Lady Gaga's latest CD and listen to it several times before recognizing that it truly isn't quite up to the level of Beethoven.

I must say I find it somewhat comic that anyone would place the word "scholars" in quotes... denoting a snide dismissive attitude toward the merit of these individuals whom one would assume earned their position as a result of some degree of serious study and knowledge of literature... right before they turn around and declare "I hate Elitism..." One definition of "elitism" is a sense of superiority over other individuals... including taking a holy-than-thou stance of proclaiming one's own "anti-elitism" (not, perhaps, unlike proudly trumpeting one's own sense of modesty).

Another definition of elitism is one suggesting that certain individuals... as a result of experience, knowledge, practice, and proven skills or abilities... are those whose views on matter in the area in question are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight. In other words, everyone has opinions... and all opinions are subjective... but some opinions are better than others. This notion of "Elitism" of which I speak may be better termed "Meritocracy" as opposed to Egalitarianism and Populism.

The scoffing or mocking by academics and scholars and readers of serious literature of books like the DaVinci Code or Harry Potter or the Twilight series has little to do with putting on airs or taking a stuffy, snobbish, superior attitude. This in itself is but a reverse snobbism, based upon false presumptions... at least to my own experience. Most of the academics, scholars, intellectuals, and passionate literature/music/art lovers I have been acquainted with are far from stuffy, often have a wicked and bitingly dark sense of humor, and passionately enjoy good art/music/literature in a broad array of styles and genre. The reason that Dan Brown, Harry Potter, Twilight, Lady Gaga, or Thomas Kinkade are such targets, is that they are but mediocre or less than mediocre work... and yet due to the mass marketing mechanisms they are put forth as being something far more than they really are. This opens them up to attack. A painter like Thomas Kinkade is no better than dozens of pseudo-Impressionists that might be found in any large city... yet he is put forward as a great master... "painter of light". The Twilight books and movies are nothing more than light entertainment for teenage girls... but the marketing makes these books seem inescapable... as if they were something truly stupendous. The critics attacking such works are simply putting forth a rational alternative view. Of course such efforts are largely futile. Pop fads will never be undermined by the learned views of critics and academics... nor in the long run, is such effort necessary. Fads will inevitably fade away into history until later generations will only find them mildly embarrassing.

[MsSilentia]

Pop fads will never be undermined by the learned views of critics and academics... nor in the long run, is such effort necessary. Fads will inevitably fade away into history until later generations will only find them mildly embarrassing.

Do not be too sure! Maybe such books will in a remote future be considered a very interesting comment on the culture of our time. Our society might be analyzed in the light of those books:smile5:

It has happened before, surely. And are you quite sure it would be totally wrong?
And in the end some 2000-ophiles will make them a literary model:p

[Drkshadow03]

I think one becomes a snob when refuses to read certain books based on hear-say or presumptions.

Totally. When I saw a bunch of forty year old "scholars" bashing the literary merits of the Twilight series (which, by the way, WAS WRITTEN FOR TEENAGE GIRLS), I decided to read it out of spite (I'm sort of a "no one tells me what to read" kind of girl). I hate the idea of elitism...


In an ideal world of infinite resources and an infinite amount of time to spend reading your anti-elitist ideas might make a degree of sense. One would recognize that there will always be time enough to get around to Tolstoy and Mozart. In the real finite world I do not have the resources no the time to spend upon artistic pablum and as a result, like most discerning audiences, I have developed an ability to quickly recognize what probably isn't going to appeal to me as literature... music... or art. I don't need to sit through the latest Twilight film to know that it's probably not for me. I don't need to buy Lady Gaga's latest CD and listen to it several times before recognizing that it truly isn't quite up to the level of Beethoven.

I must say I find it somewhat comic that anyone would place the word "scholars" in quotes... denoting a snide dismissive attitude toward the merit of these individuals whom one would assume earned their position as a result of some degree of serious study and knowledge of literature... right before they turn around and declare "I hate Elitism..." One definition of "elitism" is a sense of superiority over other individuals... including taking a holy-than-thou stance of proclaiming one's own "anti-elitism" (not, perhaps, unlike proudly trumpeting one's own sense of modesty).

Another definition of elitism is one suggesting that certain individuals... as a result of experience, knowledge, practice, and proven skills or abilities... are those whose views on matter in the area in question are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight. In other words, everyone has opinions... and all opinions are subjective... but some opinions are better than others. This notion of "Elitism" of which I speak may be better termed "Meritocracy" as opposed to Egalitarianism and Populism.

The scoffing or mocking by academics and scholars and readers of serious literature of books like the DaVinci Code or Harry Potter or the Twilight series has little to do with putting on airs or taking a stuffy, snobbish, superior attitude. This in itself is but a reverse snobbism, based upon false presumptions... at least to my own experience. Most of the academics, scholars, intellectuals, and passionate literature/music/art lovers I have been acquainted with are far from stuffy, often have a wicked and bitingly dark sense of humor, and passionately enjoy good art/music/literature in a broad array of styles and genre. The reason that Dan Brown, Harry Potter, Twilight, Lady Gaga, or Thomas Kinkade are such targets, is that they are but mediocre or less than mediocre work... and yet due to the mass marketing mechanisms they are put forth as being something far more than they really are. This opens them up to attack. A painter like Thomas Kinkade is no better than dozens of pseudo-Impressionists that might be found in any large city... yet he is put forward as a great master... "painter of light". The Twilight books and movies are nothing more than light entertainment for teenage girls... but the marketing makes these books seem inescapable... as if they were something truly stupendous. The critics attacking such works are simply putting forth a rational alternative view. Of course such efforts are largely futile. Pop fads will never be undermined by the learned views of critics and academics... nor in the long run, is such effort necessary. Fads will inevitably fade away into history until later generations will only find them mildly embarrassing.

Oh, not the imaginary bloc of critics argument again!

Harry Potter provides a wonderful example of why this is silly to apply to contemporary novels. Despite this weirdly imagined critical consensus that HP is bad or mediocre. Only a few critics have ever actually bothered to negatively criticize HP (Harold Bloom, Ursula LeGuin, and A.S. Byatt. I'm sure we could find a few others.)

Most other critics in newspapers and other intellectual forums like Salon.com had a positive view of the books. And then when one looks into the actual peer-reviewed journals there is positive acceptance of the books as good literature and it's treated as such, usually in journals dedicated to Children's literature. Analyses of the themes are done all the time. The most recent being "Embracing the "Abject Other: The Carnival Imagery of Harry Potter" by Jordana Hall in Children's Literature in Education, March 2011. My perception having talked to actual scholars studying specifically children's and YA literature and having read through some of these articles is that HP is considered good children's literature. So if there is a critical consensus it's actually in the opposite direction.

Before someone chimes in that "but it's only because it's popular and people are jumping on the bandwagon because what else are grad students and professors supposed to write about that hasn't been done . . ." One only has to notice that Harry Potter actually has a decent amount of critical support and many articles written about its themes, structures, and motifs whereas Twilight has pretty much none (the two academic analysis I found are negative critiques about their anti-feminist themes in the book). So much for the they only do it because it's popular argument. Well, if that were true we should see the same being done for Twilight.

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

Now I don't see a need to get back into another debate about the merits of HP. That wasn't really the point. The real point is that critical consensus can be elusive at times and it's silly to imagine there is perfect agreement among critics. It's very easy to read an article by Harold Bloom in the widely popular Wall Street Journal bashing HP and think, okay, that must be what all the critics think. Meanwhile, as I just demonstrated that isn't what all the critics think at all.

[Ecurb]

C.S. Lewis once wrote an essay debunking the distinction between "high brow" and "low brow" art. His argument was that there is no difference in kind between "art" and "trash". Instead, there was a distinction in quality. If Harry Potter is more entertaining than War and Peace, then it is better art.

Lewis went on to argue that, although Harry Potter wasn't written yet, it is not better than War and Peace. Great books are more entertaining than lesser books, because they not only amuse us while we are reading them, but for decades afterward. They are richer and more caloric than lighter entertainments, so they stick to the ribs, as it were.

By the way, it wasn't so very long ago that all novels were considered "low art", or "trash art". "Real" literature comprised poetry, history, biography, and philosophy. Yet here at Literature Forums the "100 greatest books" list consists of novel after novel. Nary a book of modern poetry, biography, or history can be found on the list. Shouldn't the true literary snob (in keeping with Harold Bloom's love of the "Canon") eschew novels altogether. Here, from Northanger Abbey, written 200 years ago, Jane Austen supports her favored literary form, while pointing out that it was then considered a low brow entertainment:


Catherine and Isabella... called each other by their Christian name, were always arm in arm when they walked, pinned up each other’s train for the dance, and were not to be divided in the set; and if a rainy morning deprived them of other enjoyments, they were still resolute in meeting in defiance of wet and dirt, and shut themselves up, to read novels together. Yes, novels; for I will not adopt that ungenerous and impolitic custom so common with novel–writers, of degrading by their contemptuous censure the very performances, to the number of which they are themselves adding — joining with their greatest enemies in bestowing the harshest epithets on such works, and scarcely ever permitting them to be read by their own heroine, who, if she accidentally take up a novel, is sure to turn over its insipid pages with disgust. Alas! If the heroine of one novel be not patronized by the heroine of another, from whom can she expect protection and regard? I cannot approve of it. Let us leave it to the reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure, and over every new novel to talk in threadbare strains of the trash with which the press now groans. Let us not desert one another; we are an injured body. Although our productions have afforded more extensive and unaffected pleasure than those of any other literary corporation in the world, no species of composition has been so much decried. From pride, ignorance, or fashion, our foes are almost as many as our readers. And while the abilities of the nine–hundredth abridger of the History of England, or of the man who collects and publishes in a volume some dozen lines of Milton, Pope, and Prior, with a paper from the Spectator, and a chapter from Sterne, are eulogized by a thousand pens — there seems almost a general wish of decrying the capacity and undervaluing the labour of the novelist, and of slighting the performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them. “I am no novel–reader — I seldom look into novels — Do not imagine that I often read novels — It is really very well for a novel.” Such is the common cant. “And what are you reading, Miss — ?” “Oh! It is only a novel!” replies the young lady, while she lays down her book with affected indifference, or momentary shame. “It is only Cecilia, or Camilla, or Belinda”; or, in short, only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best–chosen language.

[Paulclem]

C.S. Lewis once wrote an essay debunking the distinction between "high brow" and "low brow" art. His argument was that there is no difference in kind between "art" and "trash". Instead, there was a distinction in quality. If Harry Potter is more entertaining than War and Peace, then it is better art.

Lewis went on to argue that, although Harry Potter wasn't written yet, it is not better than War and Peace. Great books are more entertaining than lesser books, because they not only amuse us while we are reading them, but for decades afterward. They are richer and more caloric than lighter entertainments, so they stick to the ribs, as it were.

By the way, it wasn't so very long ago that all novels were considered "low art", or "trash art". "Real" literature comprised poetry, history, biography, and philosophy. Yet here at Literature Forums the "100 greatest books" list consists of novel after novel. Nary a book of modern poetry, biography, or history can be found on the list. Shouldn't the true literary snob (in keeping with Harold Bloom's love of the "Canon") eschew novels altogether. Here, from Northanger Abbey, written 200 years ago, Jane Austen supports her favored literary form, while pointing out that it was then considered a low brow entertainment:

Are you suggesting that literary elitism and snobbery is being dumbed down? :biggrin5:

[mal4mac]

... I believe we all sometimes need something unpretentious to rest in. What we then choose is very individual. Why should easy literature be worse than watching football...

The problem with Harry Potter is not that it is easy & unpretentious, but that it isn't, for me, a very good reading experience.

I do watch football to relax, now and again. For instance, I recently watched the Barcelona v. Arsenal match. If you *must* have easy, then surely you should still choose the best? In literature terms that might mean Dickens or Austen or (even easier...) R.L. Stevenson...

[mal4mac]

I think one becomes a snob when refuses to read certain books based on hear-say or presumptions.

There are thousands of new novels appearing each year. You can't read them all! So you have to rely on "hear say" and presumptions.

Imagine Mary, a typical eight year old. She decides not to read Harry Potter because her friend Shirley says it is boring, and tells her Black Beauty is more fun... Does that then make Mary a snob?

Just because I rely on Harold Bloom, John Carey or Germaine Greer to point me in certain directions doesn't make me a snob, just an elitist and a name dropper :)

[Armel P]

@OP

I guess I'm somewhat of a snob about everything so literature would be included.

[mal4mac]

Oh, not the imaginary bloc of critics argument again!

Harry Potter provides a wonderful example of why this is silly to apply to contemporary novels. Despite this weirdly imagined critical consensus that HP is bad or mediocre. Only a few critics have ever actually bothered to negatively criticize HP (Harold Bloom, Ursula LeGuin, and A.S. Byatt. I'm sure we could find a few others.)



Good point! Most serious critics agree that you can't declare a book "a classic" [= great literature] until it has been around for a long time (a hundred years?) Only then can does a book have a chance to be seen in proper perspective.

So I tend to do read the classics, with an occasional foray into something modern, just to see "what the fuss is about". It's almost always a disappointment, though. Sometimes I find exceptions - Philip Roth's Indian summer, for instance. "The Humbling" is tremendous...

Shouldn't the same apply to children? Shouldn't they be reading children's classics, like Treasure Island, and shouldn't we only give in to requests for Harry Potter after serious pestering and a demand that they read one classic between every Potter?

[BienvenuJDC]

Although the works of L Frank Baum are written on a simpler level. I enjoy reading it. But I haven't read anything like the Potter books or Twilight. However, I also enjoy some of the great novels. But even the works of Clive Cussler (which is full of cliche phrases) can entertain me as well. How can one judge what is good? Based on what?

[Petrarch's Love]

This conversation again? I think JBI, St. Luke's and a few others should just write up some permanent position posts on the subject that are placed prominently at the top of the forums and required reading for all who join.

At least talking about snobs is mixing it up a little from talking about elitists. Since people on this thread have begun talking about what constitutes a snob, I looked the word up in the OED, and was quite surprised at the first few definitions (the full definition pasted in the post below this one). I hadn't realized that "snob" began as a word used in reference to working/lower class people and that the most common modern connotation of "snob"--i.e. a person who looks down on what he/she considers beneath them--originates in a sense of the word in which those from the lower class are ambitious to move upward and intentionally distance themselves from their own origins by eschewing those things they perceive as marking them as a part of that class and embracing what seems to denote superior levels of intellect, wealth or sophistication.

I think this helps to pinpoint the real question that's being asked in the many threads devoted to the subject of literary snobbery. The question is whether the person who reads "high literature" is attempting to distance him or herself from those around her or him. This can, in fact, be the case in ways both positive and negative. Certainly, a person can be an intellectual snob in a negative sense, a person who looks down on others and attempts to use the privileges of education as a kind of cultural capital to assert superiority over others. On the other hand, for centuries people have been using the benefits of a well read, well developed intellect in order to distance themselves from certain aspects of their own background in a very positive way. I've been teaching a course on Shakespeare and Marlowe recently, two examples of several playwrights and poets in the Elizabethan era who came from working class backgrounds and were able to use their skill with words and their advantage of having had the chance to read the classics to better themselves economically and to get the chance to mingle some with those of the higher classes and receive patronage that the son of a tanner or a glover would normally never have had access to. I see students in my classes today who are consciously distancing themselves from backgrounds that were either economically or intellectually impoverished (or both) by seeking to acquire higher education, including reading the classics of literature, philosophy, history, or other "high end" stuff.

So I think that there are some very real motivations, and not all bad, for people to read in order to distance themselves from those around them, to make more of themselves. However, as St. Luke's indicates some in his post above, there are plenty of motivations for reading a greater percentage of "quality" literature than pop fiction that have nothing whatever to do with distancing oneself from others. For myself personally, the motivation to read great or well written books has nothing, or very, very little to do with an underpinning desire to distance myself from those around me. On the contrary, my own love of literature stems deeply in part from the thrill it provides of being able to connect to other minds, to identify with other points of view and to think outside myself and my own experience. Reading really excellent literature can open us up as people and give us insights and ways of thinking that entertaining but less substantial books do not. I tend to agree with the pith of the CS Lewis quote that someone posted above, that all books have the potential to be interesting or entertaining in the moment, but that certain books have a more substantial weight, have the potential to really sustain interest and provide a depth of insight over time that other works simply don't. Recognizing that this is so and choosing to spend more time with really satisfying works and only the occasional light read is no more about distancing one's self from others than wanting to spend more time eating a nice homemade marinara sauce, a tasty steak, or a stir fry made with quality ingredients with only the occasional greasy chinese takeout or McDonalds meal. And consuming quality literature is actually less economically expensive in the age of countless out of copyright e-texts than buying fresh meat and vegetables as opposed to cheap eggrolls.

In my experience the number of people who are intellectual snobs in the purely negative sense, who like to brag about having read great books primarily as a way of making themselves seem better than others, is actually an infinitesimally small group. Usually those who people find annoying and snobbish are not people who are really primarily concerned with making themselves seem superior but people who have made a shift themselves but haven't yet figured out how to convey where they've come to others. As the derivation of the word "snob" suggests, the problem is one of how to breach a divide, but the divide is normally less really one between a person and others around him or her than it is about a divide between the person and a former self. Students who has just opened up a new way of thinking because of books they've read, or who has made some sort of shift in class when they come to a university from a poor background experience a shift within themselves, a shift to having themselves opened to a richer way of thinking and living, or a richer variety of options for thinking and living, and they often react to this shift by condemning anything and anyone that connected to their previous way of thinking or acting. There are two main errors at work in such snobbery that make the snob completely unbearable to most people around him or her. One is the impulse to throw the baby out with the bathwater, to condemn everything about people who haven't read certain books or received certain ideas, without recognizing that there may be many excellent things about their own past experience that are valuable too. The other is to assume a strict dichotomy between literature and ideas that are more complex, fuller, more persistently engaging, and lighter entertainment. In such a dichotomy, if one is good the other must perforce be bad rather than recognizing that they are different things that serve different purposes. Both these errors of snobbery are, of course, not limited to students but to people of all ages, and certainly helped along by the basic pride within all of us that encourages us to place ourselves in what we think is a better light. However, the main motivation for such behavior is usually an underlying desire to express an excitement and enthusiasm for something really wonderful the person has discovered and a frustration with those who they think don't see or understand this wonderful discovery.

Most people who are very well read, however, loose this particular type of snobbery over time (which is distinct from the sort of elitism St. Luke's espouses and which he has detailed elsewhere). For the majority who do spend more of their reading time with more complex literature than with the current popular novel, the choice is not at all about creating distance between self and others, or between a former self and a current self, but about wanting to spend time with reading that is deeply and richly rewarding and that continues to challenge and to enlarge the reader. Furthermore--for me anyway--with time the reading of great literature becomes, not only less and less about creating a gap between myself and others, but more and more about having acquired a richness that can be shared with others, a rich assortment of produce that allows me to lay a feast out for others to share and gain from. I don't have any problem with reading lighter fiction or exploring recent works to see if there's possibly something really enduring at work in some of them, but I do spend the majority of my time with classic works. I am not a literary snob because of this. I am someone who chooses to read the things that I think will not only give me personally the most pleasure and food for thought, but will contribute to making me a repository of wisdom, insight and perspectives that I can in turn gift to others.

Speaking of which, I'd better get back to making my lesson plans for next terms class. I've pasted the OED definitions, with quotations, for the word "snob" in the post below for any interested parties.

[Petrarch's Love]

OED definition of "snob"
1.
a. dial. or colloq. A shoemaker or cobbler; a cobbler's apprentice.
α.
1785 F. Grose Classical Dict. Vulgar Tongue, Snob, a nick name for a shoemaker.
1819 Sporting Mag. 4 249 Tom Jenkins was known as a cobbler or snob.
1824 W. E. Andrews Crit. & Hist. Rev. Fox's Bk. Martyrs I. 252 Both Snip and Snob were burned for their pains.
1826 in W. Hone Every-day Bk. (1827) II. 837 Sir William Blase, a snob by trade.
1880 Fraser's Mag. Nov. 642 Even among the snobs the custom of the trade is against giving credit.
β.
1808 J. Jamieson Etymol. Dict. Sc. Lang., Snab, a cant term for a‥cobler's boy.
1813 Picken Misc. Poems II. 132 To flame as an author our Snab was sae bent.
1828 D. M. Moir Life Mansie Wauch xiv. 202 Rory Skirl, the snab, and Geordie Thump, the dyer.
1896 W. Harvey Kennethcrook 38 (E.D.D.), He had entered the craft in the usual way by being what the villagers called a ‘snab’.

b. The last sheep to be sheared; hence, the roughest or most difficult sheep to shear; = cobbler n. 1b. Austral. and N.Z. slang.
1945 C. E. W. Bean On Wool Track (new ed.) 135 The sheep most difficult to shear, which naturally is left last in the pen, is also called the ‘snob’.
1955 G. Bowen Wool Away! 157 Snob, the last sheep in the pen.
1971 J. S. Gunn Distrib. Shearing Terms New S. Wales 9 As it is the practice to leave rough sheep until last it is only to be expected that snob and cobbler for both ‘rough’ and ‘last’ will occur.‥ Snob and cobbler meant ‘last’ before specialising to ‘rough’.
1975 L. Ryan Shearers i. 49 ‘Get on to this wrinkled bludger!’ he said. It was the last sheep in the pen.‥ ‘Real snob, ain't it?’


†2. Cambridge Univ. slang. Any one not a gownsman; a townsman. Obs. (Cf. cad n.2 4.)

c1796 in C. Whibley In Cap & Gown (1889) 87 Snobs call him Nicholson! Plebeian name.
1828 Sporting Mag. 21 428 A capital front rank of ‘tassells’,‥all eager for a ‘slap at a snob’.
1865 Sat. Rev. Sept. 298/2 Happily the annals of Oxford present no instance of a ‘snob’ murdered in the streets.

3.

a. A person belonging to the ordinary or lower social class; one having no pretensions to rank or gentility.
1831 Lincoln Herald 22 July 3/6 The nobs have lost their dirty seats—the honest snobs have got 'em.
1834 W. H. Brookfield in F. M. Brookfield Cambridge ‘Apostles’ (1906) iv. 66 Snobs go early [to the Grand Opera, Paris], buy pit tickets‥, and beset comers at a quarter past seven to give them 51/ 2 francs for their tickets.
1841 J. T. J. Hewlett Parish Clerk III. 165 In the presence of a tail of snobs who accompanied him on his way.
1852 G. B. Earp Gold Colonies Austral. 9 The majority of the colonists are essentially snobs, and they are justly proud of the distinction.

b. A person who has little or no breeding or good taste; a vulgar or ostentatious person.

1838 M. M. Sherwood Henry Milner iii. ix. 175 He is a genteel young man—no snob—quite the gentleman.
1843 Thackeray Irish Sketch-bk. I. x. 203 A vulgar man in England‥chiefly displays his character of snob by‥swaggering and showing off in his coarse, dull, stupid way.
1859 J. C. Hotten Dict. Slang 97 Snob, a low, vulgar‥person.

c. A person who admires and seeks to imitate, or associate with, those of higher social status or greater wealth; one who wishes to be regarded as a person of social importance.
1848 Thackeray Bk. Snobs i, I mean by positive [Snobs] such persons as are Snobs everywhere,‥being by nature endowed with Snobbishness.
1860 H. Mayhew Upper Rhine iv. i. 183 So necessary‥are the professional titles considered by the supreme Snob of an authority from whom we quote.
1863 M. E. Braddon J. Marchmont I. ii. 42 ‘What a snob I am,’ he thought; ‘always bragging of home’.
1882 C. E. L. Riddell Prince of Wales's Garden-party 127 He was‥such a snob, he felt pleased his clerks should hear a butler ask for a situation.

d. A person who despises those whom he or she considers to be inferior in rank, attainment, or taste. Freq. in extended sense, with defining word limiting its reference to a particular sphere.Overlaps with sense 3c.
1911 G. B. Shaw Getting Married 228 All her childish affectations of conscientious scruple and religious impulse have been applauded and deferred to until she has become an ethical snob of the first water.
1925 F. S. Fitzgerald Great Gatsby vii. 146 Listen, Tom. If you're such a snob, why did you invite him to lunch?
1931 A. Huxley Music at Night 121, I have met several adolescent consumption-snobs…these ingenuous young tubercle-snobs.
1935 C. Isherwood Mr. Norris changes Trains iv. 58, I rather enjoyed playing with the idea that he was, in fact, a dangerous criminal.‥ Nearly every member of my generation is a crime-snob.
1939 L. MacNeice Autumn Jrnl. xii. 49 Spiritually bankrupt Intellectual snobs.
1959 G. Freeman Jack would be Gentl. iii. 54 God knows, Moyra, I'm not a snob but that sort of person just wouldn't understand.
1960 J. O'Hara Serm. & Soda-water I. 26 He doesn't want to know her any better and neither would my mother. That isn't snobbishness.‥ You're the snob of us two.
1977 T. Heald Just Desserts i. 16 He does‥that frightful column in the Chronicle.‥ The wine snob's guide to an early cirrhosis.


e. inverted snob: see inverted snob n. at inverted adj. Special uses 2.


4. = blackleg n. 3.
a1859 De Quincey in Webster's New Internat. Dict. Eng. Lang. (1890) , Those who work for lower wages during a strike are called snobs, the men who stand out being ‘nobs’.

5. Used predicatively as adj., fashionable, snobbish, pretentious.
1958 Spectator 14 Feb. 209/3 A little slower than Buchan, a little less naively snob than Dornford Yates.
1970 Daily Tel. 9 Apr. 17/2 Champagne we consider too snob, and we're all off hard liquor. We drink wine now as an aperitif.

[OrphanPip]

Shouldn't the same apply to children? Shouldn't they be reading children's classics, like Treasure Island, and shouldn't we only give in to requests for Harry Potter after serious pestering and a demand that they read one classic between every Potter?

I think I have to take issue with the proposition that children should be approaching literature merely for its aesthetic value. Literature serves a social function as well: in breeding a sense of humanity, allowing access to new experience, or seeing the representation of your own experiences in a new way. Books that explore issues that seem trite and simplistic to adults are not necessarily useless to children.

Harry Potter is a book that promotes tolerance, self-confidence, and empathy. That doesn't make it good "literature" by any standard of literary criticism. However, I think children should be exposed to those values, and all the better if they are exposed to them in an entertaining way where the less perceptive of them don't realize they are learning something.

Twilight, on the other hand, is a regressive anti-feminist text that suggests to girls that their life should revolve around getting knocked up by emotionally distant creepy douche bags (but only after marriage).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

C.S. Lewis once wrote an essay debunking the distinction between "high brow" and "low brow" art. His argument was that there is no difference in kind between "art" and "trash". Instead, there was a distinction in quality. If Harry Potter is more entertaining than War and Peace, then it is better art.

Lewis went on to argue that, although Harry Potter wasn't written yet, it is not better than War and Peace. Great books are more entertaining than lesser books, because they not only amuse us while we are reading them, but for decades afterward. They are richer and more caloric than lighter entertainments, so they stick to the ribs, as it were.



This presumes that the only criteria for determining a book's quality is how "entertaining" it is to the reader, which seems greatly misguided. Art is made to provoke emotion, and not always positive emotion--many would argue the greatest works do quite the opposite.

Good art is the kind that provokes.

[Paulclem]

Shouldn't the same apply to children? Shouldn't they be reading children's classics, like Treasure Island, and shouldn't we only give in to requests for Harry Potter after serious pestering and a demand that they read one classic between every Potter?

Engaging children, with all the competition for their time these days, could be a problem for some of them. The problem with asserting that children should read this and should read that is that it takes no account of their interests. There don't seem to be as many exterior references tp pirates - except perhaps Pirates of the Carribean. There are plenty in HP, but it also dovetails nicely with the public school tradition and children escaping the protective influences of their parents in order to explore a dangerous romantic space.

Also the idea that trash leads to trash is not necessarily true. Kids develop and become more discerning, as we have. My son, who didn't read an awful lot by the way of books, and hardley ever, (if ever at all!), read a recommendation from me, did read a lot of Japanese graphic novels, played games developed in Japan such as the Final fantasy series - which involves a lot of reading anyway - and now is studying Japanese history and culture himsef to support his Japanese language course.

It is very presumptious to assert that someone not reading the "right kind of book" is either not getting much out of it, or that it doesn't develop the in some way. I read many pulp horrors as a spotty youth, but eventually got tired of the cheap thrills they provided. My own reading developed quite naturally without any guidance from parents, and only a few pointers from interested teachers.

Of course skillful guidance is always best, but I think the snobbery aspect comes into play with a dismissive attitude to the book which then dismisses the reader. Reading is still a key skill for kids, and I'd be happy for them to read most things because it is only through the exploration of ones own interests that a reading habit and discernment can occurr.

Have you ever been in the situation as a parent where you get your child a book you loved and want them to enjoy it as much as you did? But then they either refuse to read it or don't like it? It's happened to me, and diappointed as was that my kids didn't like what I liked, you just have to accept it and know that they'll be developing in their own way.

I also agree with your post Petrarch. Snobbery is the attitude to others - in this case through their reading choices.

[Ecurb]

This presumes that the only criteria for determining a book's quality is how "entertaining" it is to the reader, which seems greatly misguided. Art is made to provoke emotion, and not always positive emotion--many would argue the greatest works do quite the opposite.

Good art is the kind that provokes.

That's because some forms of provocation are entertaining. Nobody voluntarily allows himself to be poked in the eye with a sharp stick, provoking as that might be.

I agree with you, though, that provocative art is MORE entertaining than non-provocative art. Emotions are fun! What's the point of reading a novel without involving them? Indeed, sorrow is, if not quite fun, certainly entertaining. We all like a tear-jerker, because it allows us to play at sorrow – to enjoy it, in a strange sense. Novels bring us close to sorrow, while allowing us to maintain our distance, sort of like Princess Di’s funeral. That’s fun.

Why would anyone read a novel if NOT to be entertained? Philosophy is more enlightening and history or science more edifying. Novels are a form of entertainment.
.

[MsSilentia]

If you *must* have easy, then surely you should still choose the best? In literature terms that might mean Dickens or Austen or (even easier...) R.L. Stevenson...

You will probably put me under a bann for this but to me Austen is exactly what I find totally uninteresting, being it in the canon or not. I read two of her novels as a teenager and found them very silly. I have read two others many years later, and even if I today give them more credit for being a part of her time and class, I still do not feel they have widened my thoughts at any perseptible extent. But still I enjoyed three of them as easy litterature but no more. The forth one was just terrible. I was reminded of it when I read Hollywood wives some years later:alien:another reading experience that gave me no appetite for more either. It was too irritating to even rest in.

Now is that snobbish or is it uncultured? I believe neither. It is just my private taste. Why on earth should I try to persuade others from reading Austen's works just because I find them uninteresting?:confused:

[Jozanny]

Why would anyone read a novel if NOT to be entertained? Philosophy is more enlightening and history or science more edifying. Novels are a form of entertainment.


Yes, and as such I am increasingly bored by them. I posted down in Serious Discussions that I've read everything, and that doing so was like a marriage to Gilbert Osmond, putting out the lights one by one.

No one challenged me, or posted that they caught my allusion, even though my assertion is absolutely bogus on one level but contains a truism on the other. There isn't a genre or conceit that I don't know, comedy of manners? Check. Victorian morality? Check. Dystopian satires? Check. Sweeping sagas? Check. Modernism and its derivatives? Absolutely, but I am increasingly malcontent, and turning towards other fields, history, science, theory, even physics, which I freely confess pushes the limits of what my scarred brain can understand.

I've been entertained in the arena long enough.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That's because some forms of provocation are entertaining. Nobody voluntarily allows himself to be poked in the eye with a sharp stick, provoking as that might be.

I agree with you, though, that provocative art is MORE entertaining than non-provocative art. Emotions are fun! What's the point of reading a novel without involving them? Indeed, sorrow is, if not quite fun, certainly entertaining. We all like a tear-jerker, because it allows us to play at sorrow – to enjoy it, in a strange sense. Novels bring us close to sorrow, while allowing us to maintain our distance, sort of like Princess Di’s funeral. That’s fun.

Why would anyone read a novel if NOT to be entertained? Philosophy is more enlightening and history or science more edifying. Novels are a form of entertainment.
.

Well, I guess to me "entertainment" is something that provides positive emotions. I wouldn't classify a story like Of Mice and Men, a book that left me depressed for several days, as entertaining. Still, it's an excellent book. It brought out deep emotion in me, even if that emotion was unpleasant.

And, this is different than a tear-jerker, which lets us "play at emotion," as you put it. I may shed a tear during some movie, but once it's over and done with, I move on. Pieces of literate, like OMaM, did not fade away so quickly, and the sorrow I felt wasn't something I played at, I assure you.

I guess it all boils down to semantics, i.e., what do we define as "entertainment"? For me, entertainment is what gives me happiness, suspense, excitement, etc. Positive reactions. While I love works like OMaM, i wouldn't define them as entertaining for me, personally. I guess that's why basing a work's worth on entertainment value alone is something illogical to me, but only because what I find entertaining differs from others.

And, I guess I don't necessarily read for entertainment. It plays a part yes, and even the most depressing of books provide a kind of entertainment through the use of language itself, but still, only a part. I read novels more to expand my horizons, to use the cliche. I read to learn, to be provoked (whatever emotion it is), and to better understand the world around me. If I want pure entertainment, I'll watch some episodes of Seinfeld, play video games, or listen to some heavy metal.

[Jozanny]

I think beyond entertainment the serious reader looks for recognition, as well as the altered perspective of what she recognizes.

[Drkshadow03]

I think beyond entertainment the serious reader looks for recognition, as well as the altered perspective of what she recognizes.

Yes, to your last point! I remember reading a lecture on a blog by a lit professor who said the purpose of reading is that it should alter your view about an issue or topic, so that you can never view that issue exactly the same way again. This is what reading at its best does I think.


Good point! Most serious critics agree that you can't declare a book "a classic" [= great literature] until it has been around for a long time (a hundred years?) Only then can does a book have a chance to be seen in proper perspective.

So I tend to do read the classics, with an occasional foray into something modern, just to see "what the fuss is about". It's almost always a disappointment, though. Sometimes I find exceptions - Philip Roth's Indian summer, for instance. "The Humbling" is tremendous...

Shouldn't the same apply to children? Shouldn't they be reading children's classics, like Treasure Island, and shouldn't we only give in to requests for Harry Potter after serious pestering and a demand that they read one classic between every Potter?

Hmm, well I tried to read The Wind in the Willows with my 4th graders and that didn't work out so well because of all the foreign British expressions. I had to stop too much and explain.

[Mr.lucifer]

I tend to avoid mainstream popular stuff. As in the stuff that you find at supermarkets and nothing else in the book section. I only go for the well recieved stuff, whether it be contemporary or classic. I don't know what that makes me since I'm not really a avid reader.

I guess I would consider myself a literature hound, since I am constantly looking in the book stores and libraries looking for good books that 90% of the population hasn't heard of or read.

[stlukesguild]

Originally Posted by stlukesguild-
Pop fads will never be undermined by the learned views of critics and academics... nor in the long run, is such effort necessary. Fads will inevitably fade away into history until later generations will only find them mildly embarrassing.

Do not be too sure! Maybe such books will in a remote future be considered a very interesting comment on the culture of our time. Our society might be analyzed in the light of those books

When I suggest that the popularity of the latest fad is irrelevant, what I mean is the survival of works of art are decided upon by 3 distinct groups: 1. the "experts": critics, academics, historians, collectors, curators, etc...; 2. subsequent artists/writers/composers; 3. subsequent generations of art/music/literature lovers. The first two groups are little influenced by populist fads. The third group will not be influenced by fads either when looking toward an older work years after the fad has dies out (as it inevitably will).

It has happened before, surely.

Show me.

Perhaps we might need to differentiate between works that are "popular" and works that are part of a populist fad. Shakespeare, Petrarch, Ronsard, Dickens, Victor Hugo, Edgar Allen Poe, and even Alexander Dumas were "popular" by many standards of their time. They have all survived to the present and remain popular. Most are unquestioned "classics". Dumas... and perhaps even more, Arthur Conan Doyle are the closest we get to a fad that has survived... writers that are not generally admired by critics and other academics let alone by subsequent writers... but retain the admiration of the popular audience so that in many circles they are begrudgingly afforded the designation of a "minor classic". The Lord of the Rings may be another such book... but then again it is barely over 50 years old... and this is nothing in terms of literary history (and there is the added promotion of the films).

One might note that each of these examples of popular literature that remained popular actually have some true merit as literature. Both Arthur Conan Doyle and Dumas, for all their flaws as writers of pulp fiction, were masters of pulp fiction and invented some unforgettable characters and narratives. For each of the above examples of popular writers who survived, one can cite far many more of books and authors that were greatly popular during their time... and rapidly forgotten. Popularity, essentially, has nothing to do with aesthetic merit... either pro or contra. Popularity on the level of a fad, is also quite fickle. Today's pop stars, are often embarrassing or funny to tomorrows teen audience. The best such pop stars... the Beatles, Elvis, Frank Sinatra... retain a following... and are even discovered by subsequent individuals... but if they lack any real merit they rapidly go the way of the Monkees, Gerry and the Pacemakers, Hermann's Hermits, etc... Very few will survive the centuries.

[stlukesguild]

Hamlet was entertaining. Dante was entertaining. Blood Meridian was entertaining. They were also emotionally draining, harrowing, disturbing, intellectually and emotionally challenging, and much more. Some are entertained by the intellectual challenge of a New York Times cross-word puzzle or the word-play of James Joyce... and some want everything spelled out for them. Some find a ride on one of the world's tallest roller-coasters or emotional roller-coaster of Hamlet thrilling... and ultimately entertaining. Some want the comfort of the expected and the cliche.

"Entertaining" need not be reduced to a shallow or limited definition any more than "beauty".

[Mr.lucifer]

Hamlet was entertaining. Dante was entertaining. Blood Meridian was entertaining. They were also emotionally draining, harrowing, disturbing, intellectually and emotionally challenging, and much more. Some are entertained by the intellectual challenge of a New York Times cross-word puzzle or the word-play of James Joyce... and some want everything spelled out for them. Some find a ride on one of the world's tallest roller-coasters or emotional roller-coaster of Hamlet thrilling... and ultimately entertaining. Some want the comfort of the expected and the cliche.

"Entertaining" need not be reduced to a shallow or limited definition any more than "beauty".

Thank you, that is a great defense of wanting to look for entertaining. That is why I read above all.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Hamlet was entertaining. Dante was entertaining. Blood Meridian was entertaining. They were also emotionally draining, harrowing, disturbing, intellectually and emotionally challenging, and much more. Some are entertained by the intellectual challenge of a New York Times cross-word puzzle or the word-play of James Joyce... and some want everything spelled out for them. Some find a ride on one of the world's tallest roller-coasters or emotional roller-coaster of Hamlet thrilling... and ultimately entertaining. Some want the comfort of the expected and the cliche.

Exactly. We all have out own personal definitions of what's entertaining.



"Entertaining" need not be reduced to a shallow or limited definition any more than "beauty".

It need not be, but it be. :)

[mal4mac]

But even the works of Clive Cussler (which is full of cliche phrases) can entertain me as well. How can one judge what is good?

By identifying what is *not* full of cliche phrases?

Cussler might be entertaining. But is he the best entertainment?
--------
The OED definitions are very broad! I think the ones important to this discussion are:

3c. A person who admires and seeks to imitate, or associate with, those of higher social status or greater wealth; one who wishes to be regarded as a person of social importance.

3d. A person who despises those whom he or she considers to be inferior in rank, attainment, or taste. Freq. in extended sense, with defining word limiting its reference to a particular sphere.Overlaps with sense 3c.

I think the main fault that literary snobs have is a tendency to despise those who have what they consider to be inferior tastes.


I think I have to take issue with the proposition that children should be approaching literature merely for its aesthetic value... Harry Potter is a book that promotes tolerance, self-confidence, and empathy. That doesn't make it good "literature" by any standard of literary criticism.

You seem to be taking a very narrow view of literature, aesthetic value, and literary criticism. Treasure Island is not just a great work of Children's literature because it is well written (i.e., isn't full of cliches, repetition, tired metaphors, and bloated prose...) It is also has original imagination and good taste.

Aesthetic - "characterized by an appreciation of beauty or good taste" [Wordnet].

To the extent that Harry Potter shows tolerance, self-confidence, and empathy in action then it is in good taste. That is, it is creating aesthetic value, along with (hopefully) social value. But does it portray sufficient of these values, and others, to make it a great children's book?

Many of the acknowledged great works of children's literature also, surely, attempt to do this. Isn't it part of their greatness? Treasure Island, for instance, has a very tolerant, self-confident and empathetic lead character. Don't they exemplify these values better than Harry Potter?

Harry Potter perpetrates bad taste in a fantasy version of public school values that puts games, food, and magic at the top of the "to be desired" list. Tolerance, self-confidence and empathy are difficult to see through this mist of bad taste. They are better encountered in the works of Stevenson and other classic children's authors.

[mal4mac]

I tried to read The Wind in the Willows with my 4th graders and that didn't work out so well because of all the foreign British expressions. I had to stop too much and explain.

Is it a children's book?

http://www.suite101.com/content/book-review-the-wind-in-the-willows-a269530

[L.M. The Third]

I'm a literary snob at least 85% of the time, though that percentage is not necessarily only classics, but certainly books I consider well-argued, well-written and intelligent. I'm ashamed to say I also occasionally read trashy novels, but I'm not ashamed of being ashamed. :D

[OrphanPip]

To the extent that Harry Potter shows tolerance, self-confidence, and empathy in action then it is in good taste. That is, it is creating aesthetic value, along with (hopefully) social value. But does it portray sufficient of these values, and others, to make it a great children's book?

Many of the acknowledged great works of children's literature also, surely, attempt to do this. Isn't it part of their greatness? Treasure Island, for instance, has a very tolerant, self-confident and empathetic lead character. Don't they exemplify these values better than Harry Potter?

Harry Potter perpetrates bad taste in a fantasy version of public school values that puts games, food, and magic at the top of the "to be desired" list. Tolerance, self-confidence and empathy are difficult to see through this mist of bad taste. They are better encountered in the works of Stevenson and other classic children's authors.

No, I don't think so. Harry Potter revolves almost entirely around themes of tolerance and standing up to do the right thing. Games, food and magic make it interesting for children. Saying that Harry potter puts those at the center of things to be desired is like saying Treasure Island places a search for reckless adventure and piracy at the top of "to be desired" lists.

I can point to the fact that Voldemort's anti-muggle views are clearly analogous to racism. The Weasley's are poor and Rowling uses them to attack class discrimination, along with Dolby the house elf. Bullying is also a major theme throughout most of the books. These things are not difficult to see, they are incredibly blatant and hitting you over the head.

[kiki1982]

I'm a literary snob at least 85% of the time, though that percentage is not necessarily only classics, but certainly books I consider well-argued, well-written and intelligent. I'm ashamed to say I also occasionally read trashy novels, but I'm not ashamed of being ashamed. :D

I don't have the time to read trash, as I am incredibly slow and so I do not get spare time to read other stuff than good. I think my capacity is about 10 to 12 books of serious length a year...

That said, I tend to take notice of certain people's advice more than others. Only, they do not know it. I have five school friends of which I take one's advice about what is good to read seriously. The last thing she said was Murakami. The rest I don't take seriously, but I won't tell them, just because they would not understand what I am telling them. :D Then there is still my father with whom I can discuss stuff and who also has a serious taste. Not even my husband comes close.

We once went to a Terry Pratchett play. And I said I enjoyed it tremendously. He thought I was referring to, 'Now, I am going to read the books.' But I said, 'I enjoyed it tremendously in play format, but seen as I don't like fantasy, I will not read the books.' I just find fantasy boring although Pratchett seemed a litle more exciting, but I think I rather enjoy him in play format, because I can just about manage a few hours. My husband thought I was a snob.

I there something with not liking something that someone else likes?

[Jozanny]

I can point to the fact that Voldemort's anti-muggle views are clearly analogous to racism. The Weasley's are poor and Rowling uses them to attack class discrimination, along with Dolby the house elf. Bullying is also a major theme throughout most of the books. These things are not difficult to see, they are incredibly blatant and hitting you over the head.

A disabled essayist who used to publish for Ragged Edge praises Rowling for this, but wished she might have pushed the point more vigorously. I just don't have the time to explore her for the achievements or detractions, as I have a waiting list a mile long and have to balance that with my own work.

Being elitist doesn't mean I will not examine commercial genre, or not propose arguments about it, as I balk just a little when Tolerov says mass literature falls by the wayside as opposed to literature that changes relationships to other texts: Clavell and Michner may be mass market authors, but their work engineered my appetite for history. I think Shogun is very well written, besides. Is it a movement work? Perhaps not, but it opened a love of Japanese culture I never lost, not that I put myself on a diet of martial arts exploitation due to it.

[MsSilentia]

Originally Posted by stlukesguild-
Pop fads will never be undermined by the learned views of critics and academics... nor in the long run, is such effort necessary. Fads will inevitably fade away into history until later generations will only find them mildly embarrassing.

Do not be too sure! Maybe such books will in a remote future be considered a very interesting comment on the culture of our time. Our society might be analyzed in the light of those books

[]

It has happened before, surely.

Show me.

I cannot since it conditions that you would agree with me that the said novel is given the classic epithet undeservedly. But if you read another post of mine in this thread perhaps you can guess:wink5:
(Clue: a well known Regency writer)

But then I think you just gave a nice account yourself.

But even chic lit says something about the era it is written in. That can hardly make it a genre of masterpeices. but it might be an interesting study sometimes in the future.

[JCamilo]

You only need a single person who reads Jane Austen without any interest on how was brithish society at her time to disprove your argument.
And...
it is done.

[MsSilentia]

:pEqually to one single person reading Jackie Collins or Sex and the city or...:p

[stlukesguild]

But even chic lit says something about the era it is written in. That can hardly make it a genre of masterpeices. but it might be an interesting study sometimes in the future.

Of course... and if you were to major, for example, in Renaissance English literature you would undoubtedly read a lot of writers beyond Shakespeare, Spenser, Donne, etc... including some who were mediocre... even bad... but are of use if one is to gain a greater grasp of the era as a whole. I'm not so inclined. I recognize that the greatest artists, composers, and writers may not offer the clearest view of their time (their works, after all, are not period pieces) but that is not my purpose of reading.

[JCamilo]

:pEqually to one single person reading Jackie Collins or Sex and the city or...:p

It is not equal. The disprove the notion that Austen is only classical - meaning, provokes a continual reading and references until today - is the interest on knowing the society of her time as a historican would read the diary of people who lived then, is disproved by someone who read Austen only to see her aesthetical qualities.

You can read her to know about her time, she persists for being the best way to do so, her aesthetical skills cann't be easily dismissed by the use of readers.

[MsSilentia]

You can read her to know how her class looked upon themselves for sure. And, of course what kind of principles were expected for young women in that class. That is not excactly how life was for the vast majority of people.

As for the esthetics - well... that is a matter of taste. I cannot prove anything about that and neither can you. Let us just say that we probably do not agree about the esthetic values in Pride and Prejudice. We do not need to. Esthetic value is not science, far from it.

[Cunninglinguist]

The Weasley's are poor and Rowling uses them to attack class discrimination, along with Dolby the house elf.

Err, the Weasley's are just poor... Rowling hardly uses them to "attack" anything, and she hardly makes any overt moral claims throughout the books; as the books have no clear "moral(s)" that's probably where they start to digress from many other children's books. All Rowling does is portray racism, class discrimination, etc. as facts of life.

[OrphanPip]

Err, the Weasley's are just poor... Rowling hardly uses them to "attack" anything, and she hardly makes any overt moral claims throughout the books; as the books have no clear "moral(s)" that's probably where they start to digress from many other children's books. All Rowling does is portray racism, class discrimination, etc. as facts of life.

Hardly, the Weasley's are practically saints in the novels, if you think that is not moralizing, I don't know what is. The only thing Rowling falls short of is appending an explicit treatise on discrimination at the end of the novels.

(Edit: Let's not also forget that practically all the villains are also associated with aristocratic trappings, like the Malfoy's and the Blacks. Just because Rowling shies away from saying all rich people are evil, doesn't mean you can't look at the novels with a critical eye and see that practically all the villains are codified as rich, apart from Voldemort who rather has megalomaniacal obsession with erasing his less ideal past.)

[mal4mac]

As for the esthetics - well... that is a matter of taste. I cannot prove anything about that and neither can you. Let us just say that we probably do not agree about the esthetic values in Pride and Prejudice. We do not need to. Esthetic value is not science, far from it.

But there is usually a large consensus on taste; everyone likes ice cream. But some tastes need experience to acquire. Most experienced readers (critics, other writers...) tend to rate Austen very highly. It may be that you haven't acquired the taste yet. So give Jane another chance! Maybe in a few years...

[JCamilo]

Aesthetical vallue is not mathematical, but it is not tasting food. It does not depends on the momment of the reader, listerner, etc.

No matter how bad you think, your taste, nothing can make you reduce Dante's Comedy to "I did not like". The rythim and metric can be objectivelly analysed. The use of symbolism. The philosophy behind it. The construction of the sentences, the careful language. You certainly can analyse it. Just like you can tell Henry James wrote better than me. It is not subjective.

[MsSilentia]

But there is usually a large consensus on taste; everyone likes ice cream. But some tastes need experience to acquire. Most experienced readers (critics, other writers...) tend to rate Austen very highly. It may be that you haven't acquired the taste yet. So give Jane another chance! Maybe in a few years...

I have given her four chances in a course of more than thirty years since the first attempt and I still think her main quality is to show us what intellectual level was considered suitable for young ladies at the time:rolleyes5: I just cannot see any really sharp difference between her and modern chic lit. The precence or absence of sex has nothing to do with quality as long as it keeps to main stream of the time it is written in.

But I would not ask you to dislike her. That is your own choice. Just please do not patronize all of us who choose to have our own opinion.
What i really wanted to prove with this is that epithets like classic or trash or esthetic values have more to do with what group we want to be associated with than substantial facts.

Of course I do not mean that a slovenly written novel, devoid of ideas of its own and published before it was actually ready to meet the readers is as good as something well finished and eccentric. But that is usually not what causes discussions since probably everybody agree about that.

[OrphanPip]

All novels were chic lit when Austen was writing though. It was considered a low art, grown out of the Renaissance prose Romance, that was predominantly read by those who did not have the traditional education required to read classical text or poetry, i.e. women.

Austen is pretty much the mother of the modern novel in English, and likely the most influential on the structure of the novel in English up until Virginia Woolf and James Joyce.

Edit: And really compared to Fielding, Richardson, Burney, and Defoe she stands head and shoulders above the other major early novelist.

[MsSilentia]

Austen is pretty much the mother of the modern novel in English, and likely the most influential on the structure of the novel in English up until Virginia Woolf and James Joyce.

Hanging around, doing nothing useful and seing nothing outside your own narrow sphere while waiting for a convenient suitor?

[JCamilo]

Yes, I am sure Dom Quixote, Gargantua, Gulliver, Tyrant Lo blanc were read by the minority of women who read...

Jane Austen is not chic literature, when she wrote the format of modern novel was being created. They are moving from the farse taught by Cervantes to a urban setting, with social sittuations rather than adventures. Without her, we would not have Dickens and all.

[Jozanny]

Hanging around, doing nothing useful and seing nothing outside your own narrow sphere while waiting for a convenient suitor?

How exactly is this a valid critique? Like Pip, I am not an Austen maniac, but Pip's analysis is on the mark. Austen follows on Burney's heels and brings the comedy of manners into its own, as a relevant and important genre.

I have almost no patience with children and childishness! :rolleyes5:

[JCamilo]

Is she talking about Austen?I thought it was about Shakespeare... My bad...

[OrphanPip]

Yes, I am sure Dom Quixote, Gargantua, Gulliver, Tyrant Lo blanc were read by the minority of women who read...

Jane Austen is not chic literature, when she wrote the format of modern novel was being created. They are moving from the farse taught by Cervantes to a urban setting, with social sittuations rather than adventures. Without her, we would not have Dickens and all.

No, it's a fact that Austen wrote for and was read by a predominantly female audience. I'm just using chic lit dismissively here to point out that the center of the English novel (which could be called the novel of sensibility) in Austen's period was women concerns. And really, we shouldn't ignore that since Austen is one of the first writers to actually address female experience at all in a serious fashion. I meant "chic lit" dismissively though, I didn't mean Austen should only be read by women, but she was definitely writing in a genre that was targeted to women.

Austen isn't really so much in communication with the Quixotic elements of Fielding and Swift. She's more in communication with the growing obsession with creating verisimilitude and defining normative behavior that comes out of Richardson, Defoe, and Burney. Plus, by the time Austen is writing, the novel is no longer a rare specimen, it is as common as dirt and being read primarily by middle class men and women. Which is a major reason why the novel turns away from aristocratic wanderings.

Edit: I think it's Dickens who most shows the disparate strains of the English novel in a whole, he combines the whimsical and picaresque of Fielding with the social realism of Austen.

[JCamilo]

No, it's a fact that Austen wrote for and was read by a predominantly female audience. I'm just using chic lit dismissively here to point out that the center of the English novel (which could be called the novel of sensibility) in Austen's period was women concerns. And really, we shouldn't ignore that since Austen is one of the first writers to actually address female experience at all in a serious fashion. I meant "chic lit" dismissively though, I didn't mean Austen should only be read by women, but she was definitely writing in a genre that was targeted to women.

When she wrote, the female audience was too small for her not to be read by male in good number as well. Something like only 20% of women in england could read. Anyways, that is not what I mean by she not bein Chic-lit, this genre that is modern. She is a female writer, with female point of view, but she is not even that engaged like Woolf was. Her text is a bit dualist, she do build her male figures as well. My reply is more to yours "All novels are chic literature", rather anything else. Novels are had an inferior status, and after her female readers will be more important (not just for female writers or main characters, they are for Victor Hugo and Dickens too), but anyways, that is not her merit (as writer)...


Austen isn't really so much in communication with the Quixotic elements of Fielding and Swift. She's more in communication with the growing obsession with creating verisimilitude and defining normative behavior that comes out of Richardson, Defoe, and Burney. Plus, by the time Austen is writing, the novel is no longer a rare specimen, it is as common as dirt and being read primarily by middle class men and women. Which is a major reason why the novel turns away from aristocratic wanderings.

Like I said, she finds a solution that is not the path of Cervantes. But her realism is, a trait of all novels, is Cervantic. Don Quixote has a huge realism, but Cervantes could only tell it as a form of charicature, something Fielding, Swift, Voltaire, etc did. She got in a way to transform this comedy in irony, no doubt, thanks to guys like Defoe (which still had some elements of adventures or comedy), and this is without doubt her undeniable place - not the costume of her time - she found an aesthetical solution for the novel (which could and was used by any genre) for a realistic portrait of society and some sense of shakespearean voices and dialogues (not saying she had the shakespearean language). She is much more than MsSilentia wants to give credit for. After all, even if you and me disagree here and there about some details, we all see merit in creating those sittuations in her novels...


Edit: I think it's Dickens who most shows the disparate strains of the English novel in a whole, he combines the whimsical and picaresque of Fielding with the social realism of Austen.

Yes, I think that so. Dickens is the guy who saw her merits but also the others and combined it with great craft. But I am sure any can reduce his greatness to "people read dickens to see how was society at his age". :p

[Jozanny]

There are better ways to build an argument than simply attacking Austen on the basis of contemporary feminist values. Like Burney, Austen was a child of the Enlightenment, and women did not have professions, and you can trace this as far back as The Princess of Cleves, where women of a certain status were

a show pieces
b political negotiating tools
c mothers expected to excel in home economics

Austen is quite aware of these trappings, and subverts them to get at the greater truth of good human pair bondings and what good breeding actually meant.

[JCamilo]

In a way, it like reading Candide and saying Voltaire was defending blissiful ignorance and missing the irony of both.

[JBI]

You guys face the problem of assuming she actually subverts anything, or wills to. Take a strong example of "reactionary" fiction, namely we look back on Theatre under Mongolian China, where Chinese people were seen by their conquerors as dirt and usable scum - drama then existed as a form of protest, very provocative satire - however, here is the catch - Mongolians loved it. They supported it, and all went to laugh at themselves - nothing was subverted.

Now, return to Austen - she is not writing to subvert, mainly give a bit of irony and comedy to a situation she doesn't perhaps despise, but rather has mixed feelings about. She is not the least bit polemic, nor the least bit militant - her sketch does not call for change, nor encourage women's rights.

If anything she is just reporting on the new sphere of her society - Mrs. Bennet is not a villain, despite being ridiculous, but Emma, the more free thinking crazy rich girl is to an extent. There is no delimitation being addressed, as all the characters are trapped in their authors idea of reality.

[JCamilo]

I think you are talkin about two things. Nobody suggests she is engaged politically wise. She is not, she is quite timid to be. Her text is, exactly because the irony. Just like Voltaire, not a democrat, not against the ancien-regime, not atheist, became a hero for the revolutions for all that he would despite because his irony does not let his "mask" clear to people which "reading" was not precise enough to see he double side of this kind of text.

Do not forgot, the same people Moliere mocked would laugh. The same victims of Oscar Wilde irony applauded him to the end. It is the king is nude logic. But eventually she changed the things a little, opening some room for women writers, but it is not a revolution, rather a process (even because her reading was developed with time).

[stlukesguild]

Hanging around, doing nothing useful and seeing nothing outside your own narrow sphere while waiting for a convenient suitor?

How exactly is this a valid critique?

I have almost no patience with children and childishness!

My thoughts exactly. As has been suggested before, most of Shakespeare's sonnets might be reduced to something as inane as "When I think of you, I feel blue" while Cezanne's paintings might be seen as nothing more than a bunch of stupid fruit on a table. What matters is what the artist does with his or her subject. If the proper choice of subject matter were all that mattered we might all become brilliant artists/writers simply by choosing a properly "profound" theme.

[mal4mac]

Aesthetical vallue is not mathematical, but it is not tasting food. It does not depends on the momment of the reader, listerner, etc.

No matter how bad you think, your taste, nothing can make you reduce Dante's Comedy to "I did not like". The rythm and metric can be objectively analysed. The use of symbolism. The philosophy behind it. The construction of the sentences, the careful language. You certainly can analyse it. Just like you can tell Henry James wrote better than me. It is not subjective.

Beauty is the key component of aesthetic experience. The work might have a beautiful rythm, beautiful symbolism, beautiful philosophy, beautiful sentence construction, beautiful carefulness... But all that rhythm, philosophy, & language has to pan out in a moment of recognition, "Ahhh... That is beautiful!" If, after much effort in trying to read Dante, you don't have sufficient "Ahhh..." moments then you can indeed say, "I did not like..."

For Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten aesthetics is the science of the sense experiences, and beauty is the most perfect kind of knowledge that sense experience can have. So it is akin to tasting food, indeed people talk about the 'culinary arts', so tasting food is an aesthetic experience.

For Immanuel Kant the aesthetic experience of beauty is a judgment of a subjective but similar human truth, since all people should agree that “this rose is beautiful” if it in fact is. So aesthetical value is, indeed, a subjective judgement! But, one we can (hopefully!) agree on...

[mal4mac]

Hanging around, doing nothing useful and seing nothing outside your own narrow sphere while waiting for a convenient suitor?

I do a lot of hanging around, avoiding DIY, but I try to think and read a lot. Austen's heroines seem quite active compared to me! I admire their thinking, and talking, and don't see why they should have to be gadding about the world, or doing "useful work" like,say, "teaching school" (another school novel, now that would be boring....)

[mal4mac]

But I would not ask you to dislike her. That is your own choice.


It is not a choice, I can't chose to dislike chocolate ice cream.

[JCamilo]

Beauty is the key component of aesthetic experience. The work might have a beautiful rythm, beautiful symbolism, beautiful philosophy, beautiful sentence construction, beautiful carefulness... But all that rhythm, philosophy, & language has to pan out in a moment of recognition, "Ahhh... That is beautiful!" If, after much effort in trying to read Dante, you don't have sufficient "Ahhh..." moments then you can indeed say, "I did not like..."

For Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten aesthetics is the science of the sense experiences, and beauty is the most perfect kind of knowledge that sense experience can have. So it is akin to tasting food, indeed people talk about the 'culinary arts', so tasting food is an aesthetic experience.

For Immanuel Kant the aesthetic experience of beauty is a judgment of a subjective but similar human truth, since all people should agree that “this rose is beautiful” if it in fact is. So aesthetical value is, indeed, a subjective judgement! But, one we can (hopefully!) agree on...

Kant? Baumgarten?

How oldated are them? Why not briging Schiller, will make me feel less older.

Producing a feeling akim to beauty appreciation is the aesthetical feeling. Not beauty itself, because unlike Kant is often misquoted (he is not saying that people would all define something is beauty, so they all would find beauty, but if people point something is beautiful, that it is therefore there is elements that can be rebuild and re-created to exemplify beauty, anyways) saying "which object" is beautiful is subjective, not what is what cause beauty.

Food, as you claim, is just pleasant. Beauty of art, if we strech the word, is not just what is pleasant. It is not what we like. A work of art, everyone, can be analyse by specialists. They can see the technical application there - A sonnet with bad metric is not subjective, it is a sonnet with bad metric. If the poet intented a sonnet, he objectivelly failed.

[mal4mac]

Kant? Baumgarten?

Food, as you claim, is just pleasant. Beauty of art, if we strech the word, is not just what is pleasant. It is not what we like. A work of art, everyone, can be analyse by specialists. They can see the technical application there - A sonnet with bad metric is not subjective, it is a sonnet with bad metric. If the poet intented a sonnet, he objectivelly failed.

The sonnet might have a bad metric, but it may still be subjectively beautiful. The poet might have failed to produce a good metric, and if he intended to do that he has failed in his task. But he may have produced a beautiful work - if so he has, ultimately, succeeded!

[JCamilo]

Sure, find poems which are badly written which are good.

I find funny, someone who like you, judges so quickly the merits of some author, adopting this subjective discuss. The only possible implication is that Shakespeare is not better than Dan Brown. Just more poeple said he is, because they read him after a good night of sex and not while going to work, sitting on the subway.

[Reread]

I just remember being offended when I was 13 and reading David Copperfield, and some well meaning adult came up to me and said, "Oh, you like books, huh? You should read the Twilight Series." It was then I really lost faith in the literary tastes of the adults in my life. I would definitely consider myself a literary snob, but I try to read the books before writing them off.

[Ecurb]

There are better ways to build an argument than simply attacking Austen on the basis of contemporary feminist values.

Indeed, some modern critics think Austen pandered to conventional tastes while offering potential interpretations of her books that were more subversive to male domination. The slavery issue in Mansfield Park (Sir Thomas makes much of his money from slave labor on his estates in Antigua) may serve as a comparison to the plight of Fanny Price. In Emma, Jane Fairfax specifically compares her economic situation to that of slaves.

As an unmarried woman, Austen was dependent on her father and her brothers for her bread (her novels didn't make much money, at least until late in her short life). Her father evidently encouraged her literary talents (who wouldn’t have, given their spectacular fecundity?). However, the reading public may not have bought her books had she been more openly subversive.

In addition, it is principle of literary criticism that it is unfair to criticize one novel for failing to be a different novel. Works of art should be criticized in their own terms. It is certainly true that Austen’s novels are not War and Peace (despite being set in the same time period), but it is also true that War and Peace is not Ulysses. Indeed, Tolstoy himself claimed that “interestingness” was a quality of false art. So our fascination with Napoleon’s invasion of Russia adds to our interest in War and Peace, but does not (acc. Tolstoy) add to the novel’s artistic merits.

Besides, if we are to eliminate love and marriage as sufficient subjects for interesting novels, we must rule out Anna Karennina, Madame Bovary, Middlemarch, etc., etc. etc.

Novels, after all, are “romances”, and romance is a fitting subject for a romance.

Here, in Northanger Abbey, Austen shows some feminist propensities by expounding with her customary wit on the advantages of feminine imbecility:



The advantages of natural folly in a beautiful girl have been already set forth by the capital pen of a sister author; and to her treatment of the subject I will only add, in justice to men, that though to the larger and more trifling part of the sex, imbecility in females is a great enhancement of their personal charms, there is a portion of them too reasonable and too well informed themselves to desire anything more in woman than ignorance.....

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

To me a snob is someone who acts snobby for the sake of being snobby--to put on a show, impress his/her family or friends, etc. I always think of the characters Frasier and Niles Crane, who definitely loved their art, opera, and literature, but definitely had no scruples about acting like a total douches about it. Snobs are the fake ones, who love higher art for the image it gives, not because they truly love it.

[Magga]

I haven't read Harry Potter nor Twilight either, and considering that I can spend hours in a bookstore before I have my pile of books that I want to read, I guess that you can call me a literary snob, too. I mean, I don't read anything if I'm not sure - or at least believe - that something is good, or at least worthwhile. Harry Potter? Some kid going to a magic school to learn magic trics to avenge his magic parents by killing a magic villain together with his magic friends - no thanks. Twilight? An emotional teenage girl being stalked by some ancient vampire creep in an awfully cliched romance (a word that hardly describes the awkwardness of that relationship) - no thanks. However, if I trust an author to produce good works because of previous experiences, I will buy their books and read them without much consideration, but on the contrary, I will not bother to pick up a book by an author who have produced nothing but crap for years, unless, of course, someone I trust advice me to. But why shouldn't you be a literary snob? It takes a while to read a book, so why read a bad one?

[Ecurb]

I haven't read Harry Potter nor Twilight either, and considering that I can spend hours in a bookstore before I have my pile of books that I want to read, I guess that you can call me a literary snob, too. I mean, I don't read anything if I'm not sure - or at least believe - that something is good, or at least worthwhile. Harry Potter? Some kid going to a magic school to learn magic trics to avenge his magic parents by killing a magic villain together with his magic friends - no thanks. Twilight? An emotional teenage girl being stalked by some ancient vampire creep in an awfully cliched romance (a word that hardly describes the awkwardness of that relationship) - no thanks. However, if I trust an author to produce good works because of previous experiences, I will buy their books and read them without much consideration, but on the contrary, I will not bother to pick up a book by an author who have produced nothing but crap for years, unless, of course, someone I trust advice me to. But why shouldn't you be a literary snob? It takes a while to read a book, so why read a bad one?

Since you ask, the reason not to be a literary snob is that there are a great many books that are dissed by the literary cognoscente but are actually very good. English Professors, book critics, and scholars may have different tastes than children or teenage girls, but they don't necessarily have better taste. They are subject to prejudices, elitist tendencies, and tastes developed through enjoyment of books that support them professionally (i.e. are good subjects of critical analysis).

Of course it is quite reasonable to read books that a concensus of critical experts recommends. However, it is also quite reasonable to read books that a consensus of popular taste recommends. The advantage of reading the books the critics and professors like is that you can talk aobut them with other well-educated people; the advantage of reading best sellers is you can talk about them with everyone. If (as Harold Bloom suggests) one benefit of a canon is the social benefit of shared experience, then that is surely a benefit of reading best sellers, as well Who would watch American Idol or Dancing with the Stars if it weren't for potential water cooler conversations?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Since you ask, the reason not to be a literary snob is that there are a great many books that are dissed by the literary cognoscente but are actually very good.

Like?

[LitNetIsGreat]

It takes a while to read a book, so why read a bad one?

I have to agree. It's my take on things completely.


If (as Harold Bloom suggests) one benefit of a canon is the social benefit of shared experience, then that is surely a benefit of reading best sellers, as well Who would watch American Idol or Dancing with the Stars if it weren't for potential water cooler conversations?

But you'd have to ask if the person who watches such things worth talking to in the first place? I personally wouldn't subject myself to such torture to ice break that's for sure. There's nothing wrong with reading best sellers if you enjoy them, but for me, bad prose is a crime that doesn't pay.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

But you'd have to ask if the person who watches such things worth talking to in the first place? I personally wouldn't subject myself to such torture to ice break that's for sure. There's nothing wrong with reading best sellers if you enjoy them, but for me, bad prose is a crime that doesn't pay.

Yes. One of my friends insisted quite emphatically that he only read Twilight so he could talk to cute girls about it. I asked him why he would want to talk to such vapid women in the first place (we're not talking casual readers, we're talking the ones who line up at the store to get a copy at midnight). He didn't really have an answer. He said I should read them for the same ends. I informed him that while I am definitely not adverse to getting laid, I wouldn't sell my soul for pussy. He must have been particularly hard-up (pun intended).

Still, Twilight seems more and more a reasonable trade off. It wouldn't take that long to read, and the next movie will be out in no time. . . . .

[mal4mac]

I find funny, someone who like you, judges so quickly the merits of some author, adopting this subjective discuss. The only possible implication is that Shakespeare is not better than Dan Brown...

I enjoy reading Shakespeare 'in the moment'. You can instantly feel that "To be or not to be..." is a great speech, that "tastes" much better than anything Brown has written - if you have a reasonably developed taste in literature.

[JCamilo]

Non sense, it is not better written than anything. By your logic, it is merely enjoyed.

It is a matter of logic: you are saying it is better written, then you must have a logical form to valuate it. Otherwise, all you do is fill us with empty air and you could spare our culture to try to impose what you find fun as what is inherently better. You cannt say it tastes better, you cannt say anything, which is rather funny for someone so haroldbloomesque as you.

[JCamilo]

I have to agree. It's my take on things completely.



But you'd have to ask if the person who watches such things worth talking to in the first place? I personally wouldn't subject myself to such torture to ice break that's for sure. There's nothing wrong with reading best sellers if you enjoy them, but for me, bad prose is a crime that doesn't pay.


You do not read a book because it is good. (ok, you may). Most readers have no critical skill to measure as such. And they should not. You read a book because it allows you a good experience. That is all.

And it is valid to the snobs too. I read Dante not because Dante has wings, a halo, holy harps. It is because I enjoy it. It is a good experience. After it, I learnt why it was good, in fact many years after my second reading of the Comedy.

In a way, I still read once or while comic books. Or Dumas's Mouskeeters. And news about football. Some guy may read a poem which is not the best poem in the world, because it was the poem he gaves to his wife when they first meet.

[Ecurb]

Like?

Off the top of my head, "Lord of the Rings" was subjected to some critical backlash (just like Harry Potter) when it first came out. I think it was so different from "high-brow" novels that critics and academics didn't know what to make of it. Anthony Trollope's novels were praised at first, but after Trollope depicted himself as a professional grind rather than an artiste critics savaged his novels for several decades before his reputation revived.

I mention these because they are examples where critical opinion has changed. Obviously, when critical opinion has not changed, there is more debate about whether the novel in question is "very good" or not. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. (I think of Wagner in music, or Whistler in painting off the top of my head, too.)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Off the top of my head, "Lord of the Rings" was subjected to some critical backlash (just like Harry Potter) when it first came out. I think it was so different from "high-brow" novels that critics and academics didn't know what to make of it. Anthony Trollope's novels were praised at first, but after Trollope depicted himself as a professional grind rather than an artiste critics savaged his novels for several decades before his reputation revived.

I mention these because they are examples where critical opinion has changed. Obviously, when critical opinion has not changed, there is more debate about whether the novel in question is "very good" or not. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. (I think of Wagner in music, or Whistler in painting off the top of my head, too.)
Interesting. I definitely didn't know that about LotR.

[JCamilo]

It is not hard, LoTR still far from being unanimity. I do not think it is a great book, maybe a good book, close to Dracula or Three Mouskeeters. It got positive reviews once or while too.
But it is rather obvious, critics will fail often. Hamlet wasn't really that praised until XVIII Century, Tolstoy and Voltaire attacked Shakespeare, Borges called Beckett Vulgar and Neruda a second rate romantic poet, Voltaire (again) said the Divine Comedy was only divine because Bocaccio didnt read it, Virginia Woolf said Ulysses was dirty and Stevenson was a bad writer, Emerson attacked Poe who threw all dirty on Longfellow... such is life...

[Ecurb]

It is not hard, LoTR still far from being unanimity. I do not think it is a great book, maybe a good book, close to Dracula or Three Mouskeeters....

Heresy! Burn him!

Actually, one reason I love Lord of the Rings is because I first read it as a child, and we grownups never love anything quite so well as children do. When I reread it, it brings me back to those more innocent days. My older brother Mark wore a crackerjack ring on a string around his neck for a year after finishing the book.

Obviously, there are other great children's books that probably don't quite qualify as great adult literature -- look at "Harold and the Purple Crayon" or "Where the Wild Things Are". It's hard to compare them to adult novels, because they are a distinct art form. It would be like comparing a novel to a poem. (I'll grant that LOTR is more like adult novels than "Harold" is, but you get my point.)

[stlukesguild]

I think Dracula is quite a bit better than the Lord of the Rings and I'm guessing Mortal would champion Dumas over Tolkein.

Off the top of my head, "Lord of the Rings" was subjected to some critical backlash (just like Harry Potter) when it first came out. I think it was so different from "high-brow" novels that critics and academics didn't know what to make of it.

No... it's just that it was a rather bad pastiche of various medieval epics... and even Wagner.

I mention these because they are examples where critical opinion has changed. Obviously, when critical opinion has not changed, there is more debate about whether the novel in question is "very good" or not. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. I think of Wagner in music, or Whistler in painting off the top of my head, too.

Critical opinion at the time of an innovative new art work is often wrong. John Ruskin couldn't appreciate Whistler; Hanslick hated Wagner. It is less than likely, however, that Dan Brown or J.K. Rowling are going to be later recognized as geniuses. You should recognize what was being attacked in Wagners music or Whistler's paintings. The artists were recognized as extremely talented... the critics questioned or even hated the direction in which they were employing their abilities. At the same time, you might recognize that there were as many supporters as detractors. We don't see some critics championing Dan Brown and we don't see a following of artists of real merit building upon Dan Brown's work.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Personally, I never understood LotR's allure. It's good, I guess. But, man, does it drag. I had a tough time just getting through Fellowship.

[mtpspur]

Of course I'm a snob--at my age (59) I read what I WANT to read with only a tiny regard for the opinions of friends and family or social status. I like to think I have range going from the Bible to theology books to the classics to pulp and back again. Not to mention comic books but that's another category.

[JCamilo]

I think Dracula is quite a bit better than the Lord of the Rings and I'm guessing Mortal would champion Dumas over Tolkein.

Oh, Dumas by far. In some way, if that guy was around today, when they didnt pay for pages written he would not need to extend his work, his texts would be clean... He would humiliate the likes of Dan Brown or be the most vallued hollywood scritwritter.
He knew what he was doing, even when he knew he was doing something wrong (or telling one to do)... But more like, Dracula, LoTR, Frankstein, Sherlock, maybe H.G.Wells, Lovecraft certainly... those good writers, books who fail pray to the traps of genre, they cannt leave there, but the style, maybe characters, something grants them perpetual interest.
As Dracula, I do not know. Unlike some of those, it is not the best gothic horror work, it is not the primordial, the first... It is more the last... Seems like less interesting that Tolkien excessive geography to me.

[mortalterror]

I think Dracula is quite a bit better than the Lord of the Rings and I'm guessing Mortal would champion Dumas over Tolkein.
I don't know which writer has plainer, clunkier prose: Stoker or Tolkein? The characters are silly. The action is implausible. What the two both have in spades is originality and plot. What I think people like about Tolkein is his world building. He really fleshed out his setting in an in depth way, so there are layers upon layers of it. There is such a weight of back story to each character and event, so much mythology and detail that even the ridiculous gains a sort of weight and paper thin caricatures gain a third dimension.



Critical opinion at the time of an innovative new art work is often wrong. John Ruskin couldn't appreciate Whistler; Hanslick hated Wagner. It is less than likely, however, that Dan Brown or J.K. Rowling are going to be later recognized as geniuses. You should recognize what was being attacked in Wagners music or Whistler's paintings. The artists were recognized as extremely talented... the critics questioned or even hated the direction in which they were employing their abilities. At the same time, you might recognize that there were as many supporters as detractors. We don't see some critics championing Dan Brown and we don't see a following of artists of real merit building upon Dan Brown's work.

I honestly see things I like in both Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling's oeuvres. I laughed and mocked all through Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code movie, but when I sat down with the book one night, I saw that the sentences had a good flow and his book had great pacing. Pacing is something that most serious writers stink at. Even really good writers, I'm talking Hemingway, Melville, James, have a lot of trouble getting readers to the next page. You know that thing that happens in a book which is really well written, which you really like, but you just have to put the book down because it's exhausting or there's a lull? That's what I'm talking about.

What major genre writers lack in art, ideas, and style, they usually make up for with the technical components of their craft. In the 19th century, we had Scribe's "well made play". Now we have "well made novels." Dumas is a good example of this. He wrote the greatest thrillers ever written. He streamlined everything people loved about popular fiction, then he elevated it to a level never matched before or since. You can't find a dull sentence in his best books. Seven hundred pages just race by.


As Dracula, I do not know. Unlike some of those, it is not the best gothic horror work, it is not the primordial, the first... It is more the last... Seems like less interesting that Tolkien excessive geography to me.
You know, I think horror has so much unexplored potential. It's such a basic, powerful emotion, which so few writers of real talent have ever bothered to tap into. I really think that there's something at the bottom of these vampire, werewolf, witch, and zombie stories which just needs to be streamlined by a really strong writer.

[JCamilo]

I don't know which writer has plainer, clunkier prose: Stoker or Tolkein? The characters are silly. The action is implausible. What the two both have in spades is originality and plot. What I think people like about Tolkein is his world building. He really fleshed out his setting in an in depth way, so there are layers upon layers of it. There is such a weight of back story to each character and event, so much mythology and detail that even the ridiculous gains a sort of weight and paper thin caricatures gain a third dimension.

I think Stoker is the best bad writter ever. Tolkien obssession with geography, history and language destroy the pace of his book. The philosophical aims of Shelley destroy the pace of her Frankstein, but Stoker? He does it by himself. The book goes well more or less until Lucy death. Then, the whole chase in england and by Europe... how mislead it that. The characters move like in Peter Jackson movie. There is not timing, no sense of geography. He evens get a wrong place...
Tolkien at least is too carefull with all this that Joyce could write Ulysses with Gondor and not Dublin as setting...

Dumas is something else, the mobility of DArgtangnan is not logical, but this never bothers the reader, they never move out or in. The humor of the narration links all. I always ask why hollywood thinks they must change the story - it is perfect. Perhaps only the first Raiders of Lost Ark or in some sense 007 best movies can compare with the action of Dumas. And Stevenson.

As horror genre, I do not know, but the history of the genre does not help. Unlike science fiction (it is science), fantasy (kids need literature), it has no purpose. The big name of Horror, Poe is not well accepted but even him, was unable to work with a long plot. And when we have a true great, they forget it is horror. Melville could be easily there. Henry James certainly with Turn of the Shrew, Kafka too... You have to be explict, implicity... Genre limitations, if we scrap this, we will find great horror writers.

I do not like vampires much. Ghosts. Zombies. Witches. Those are more complex, not just a urbarn evil faery full of taboos. I recall when I read Cormac's The road, i got the feeling : this is a zombie story. They are just absent.

[mortalterror]

I've given the original question some thought and I don't feel superior to people who read Harry Potter, Twilight, and Dan Brown books. I feel superior to people who only read Harry Potter, Twilight, and Dan Brown books. I still read comic books and watch crummy martial arts movies, but in between those, I manage to fit the occasional Iliad or Don Quixote.

[mortalterror]

I think Stoker is the best bad writter ever. Tolkien obssession with geography, history and language destroy the pace of his book. The philosophical aims of Shelley destroy the pace of her Frankstein, but Stoker? He does it by himself. The book goes well more or less until Lucy death. Then, the whole chase in england and by Europe... how mislead it that. The characters move like in Peter Jackson movie. There is not timing, no sense of geography. He evens get a wrong place...

The crazy thing about Tolkein is his world building. He'd invent whole new languages for his elves and trolls. I think that's a big part of the appeal of his books. Most writers of genre fiction set their action in another time and another place because they have no idea what is actually going on around them and how to make it interesting. They can't make a dissolving marriage or paying bills interesting. They don't know how a microprocessor works so they write about magic. Tolkein's world feels real. He put some love into it. He put some time. He wrote about a dozen books situated in that place, and he knows why his characters do things. He might not be a great writer, but he was never a lazy one. His Middle Earth tales are as consistent and grounded in their own logic as Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County.


Tolkien at least is too carefull with all this that Joyce could write Ulysses with Gondor and not Dublin as setting...

Dumas is something else, the mobility of DArgtangnan is not logical, but this never bothers the reader, they never move out or in. The humor of the narration links all. I always ask why hollywood thinks they must change the story - it is perfect. Perhaps only the first Raiders of Lost Ark or in some sense 007 best movies can compare with the action of Dumas. And Stevenson.

I think the Musketeer books are a little better than Lucas or 007's writing, but Stevenson is an apt comparison. Defoe would be another good one, and probably Walter Scott.

[Emmy Castrol]

You do not read a book because it is good. (ok, you may). Most readers have no critical skill to measure as such. And they should not. You read a book because it allows you a good experience. That is all.

And it is valid to the snobs too. I read Dante not because Dante has wings, a halo, holy harps. It is because I enjoy it. It is a good experience. After it, I learnt why it was good, in fact many years after my second reading of the Comedy.

In a way, I still read once or while comic books. Or Dumas's Mouskeeters. And news about football. Some guy may read a poem which is not the best poem in the world, because it was the poem he gaves to his wife when they first meet.

JCamilo you express it perfectly here. Reading should be read because people enjoy it (regardless of whether the experience is happy one or sorrowful one) not because it develops any intellectual capacity. The evolvement of taste is a good by-product but should not be the main objective of reading, otherwise the nature of that taste is false.

But I am going to agree with MissSilentia and her taste in regards to Jane Austen. I won’t dispute that Austen is well-written but I have never enjoyed her. Everyone may say all they wish about how realistic she was for her time; personally I think that most of her work is written out of a suppressed desire to escape her reality, almost as if she were living a fantasy of her life through her work. I find her social commentary clever and accurate but her characters dislikeable and the circumstances around them unrealistic.

Books are as varied as people. A novel can be as well written as a person is good but if you dislike the person, you just do, no matter how good they are. If one chooses to dwelve deeper into the why's, they might find it is because of some incompatibility with their values and this is as subjective as religion.

[JCamilo]

The crazy thing about Tolkein is his world building. He'd invent whole new languages for his elves and trolls. I think that's a big part of the appeal of his books. Most writers of genre fiction set their action in another time and another place because they have no idea what is actually going on around them and how to make it interesting. They can't make a dissolving marriage or paying bills interesting. They don't know how a microprocessor works so they write about magic. Tolkein's world feels real. He put some love into it. He put some time. He wrote about a dozen books situated in that place, and he knows why his characters do things. He might not be a great writer, but he was never a lazy one. His Middle Earth tales are as consistent and grounded in their own logic as Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County.

No doubt, that is why i think Silmarillion is his best book, since it is not edited to be a novel, ends like a clean history book.




I think the Musketeer books are a little better than Lucas or 007's writing, but Stevenson is an apt comparison. Defoe would be another good one, and probably Walter Scott.

As a movie (may have others) I think they know Dumas lesson. Indiana and Bond have Dargtangnan agility, mobility. Like Dumas, the movies break and down action, they are not like Caribean Pirates, which despite having better actors, are a waste. And they have better models, like Errol Flynn movies...

[Emmy Castrol]

The only thing I would fault about Dumas is his treatment of female characters. He created tightly constructed worlds within Three Musketeers and Count of Monte Cristo and the only blur against them is the despairing perspective he seems to have allowed to affect his portrayal of Constance and Mercedes. Then again, Dumas is only human after all and he must have some flaw to make him likeable.

[kiki1982]

I don't know why Dumas is always criticised for his female characters. If anything, they are anything but weak. Constance maybe dies a horribe death, but not just because... Because she used d'Artagnan as a means to get the Queen her way, just as Mme de Chereuse used Aramis really for the same purpose. Milady, who is trying to get Buckingham away from the Queen (resulting in a war between France and England brought on by Richelieu's jealousy of Buckingham) could not have that and as a result she kills Constance.
The parallel between the lives of Athos with his first wife who turned out to be a convict/Milady and d'Artagnan who will forever regret Constance is striking. In that, both have probably been cheated on by a woman who did not love them but used them because it was convenient.

Mercédès was not a sad case, but rather an amazingly strong case, really. Yes, she lost her husband, but she does give away her money and tells Edmond go swing. She could have lived happily and richly with Edmond in which case she would have been weak. Instead, she tells him she doesn't know him anymore and considers him dead. How is that weak? She oluntarily chooses a life of poverty and loneliness (and possibly a dead son into the bargain) where she could have had it all. How is that to be called weak?

Women in Dumas, as far as I have seen, are maybe weak on the surface but are anyting but that. They are manipulators, as all women really are :D.

[mal4mac]

Off the top of my head, "Lord of the Rings" was subjected to some critical backlash (just like Harry Potter) when it first came out.

Was? It still is - by many serious critics, e.g., Mark Lawson:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/dec/29/lordoftherings.film

"JRR Tolkien's books are a laboured reorganisation of Norse myth by a writer who struggled with the sentence structures of English"

Edmund Wilson, at the time America's pre-eminent man of letters, dismissed The Lord of the Rings as "balderdash" in a review for The Nation titled "Ooh, Those Awful Orcs." Wilson also swatted at Tolkien defenders like Auden and C.S. Lewis, observing that "certain people--especially, perhaps, in Britain--have a lifelong appetite for juvenile trash." [as I live in the UK I know that's true!]

Harold Bloom calls LTR "inflated, over-written, tendentious, and moralistic in the extreme."

"Sometimes, reading Tolkien, I am reminded of the Book of Mormon," writes Bloom. Tolkien's verse--which litters the text of The Lord of the Rings--is generally accepted to be even worse. [Too right!]

The Tolkienists are still marginal in academic circles, Tolkiens canonicity is still certainly in great doubt.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=kicking_the_hobbit

I did read LRT in my mid-teens - during my juvenile trash fantasy sojourn (at least I was juvenile...) - what a boring summer holiday that was! If you *must* have juvenile trash fantasy try Michael Moorcock, he's a lot more fun...

[mal4mac]

It is not hard, LoTR still far from being unanimity. I do not think it is a great book, maybe a good book, close to Dracula or Three Mouskeeters. It got positive reviews once or while too.
But it is rather obvious, critics will fail often. Hamlet wasn't really that praised until XVIII Century, Tolstoy and Voltaire attacked Shakespeare, ...

In later life Tolstoy attacked all literature that didn't directly support his own extreme branch of Christianity - including, not only Shakespeare, but his own novels! At that point, he could not be taken seriously as a critic of literature.

"... there are to be found in "Hamlet" ... sublime strokes worthy of the loftiest geniuses. It seems as if nature had taken a delight in collecting within the brain of Shakespeare all that we can imagine of what is greatest and most powerful..." - Voltaire

http://www.uoguelph.ca/shakespeare/essays/voltaire.cfm

[Lokasenna]

Hmm...

Speaking as a Tolkienist, I rather disagree with those critics (then and now) who have lambasted him. It's a bit like Bach - he was derided by many of his contemporaries as far too odd (and rather old fashioned), and had a minimal following in his own time. But now he is considered one of the greatest musical geniuses to have ever lived.

I personally believe the same is true of Tollers. Academics of the future, I think, will look back on Tolkien and come to the conclusion that he was one of, if not the, greatest writer of the 20th century, and LotR one of its greatest literary masterpieces.

To return to the theme of the thread, anyone who attempts to be snobbish towards someone who appreciates Tolkien has clearly not understood the importance of the work. It is not merely a fantasy novel, but rather the culmination of a fascinating medievalist revival that began in the mid-19th century. With Tolkien, we can trace the threads of his work right back into the dawn of pre-history. Just because something is a little different, and a little out of its time, doesn't make it insignificant.

[JCamilo]

In later life Tolstoy attacked all literature that didn't directly support his own extreme branch of Christianity - including, not only Shakespeare, but his own novels! At that point, he could not be taken seriously as a critic of literature.

"... there are to be found in "Hamlet" ... sublime strokes worthy of the loftiest geniuses. It seems as if nature had taken a delight in collecting within the brain of Shakespeare all that we can imagine of what is greatest and most powerful..." - Voltaire

http://www.uoguelph.ca/shakespeare/essays/voltaire.cfm

You cannt take Voltaire as lightly. He loved english culture but was a french nationalist. He is a great responsable for Shakespeare popularity in england but latter he felt like Shakespeare was drainning french threatre identidy and he changed sides, claiming Shakespeare was too insular and listed a couple of nobody who would be remembered because they are more continental. Voltaire was probally inventing the Nobel.

As Tolstoy, his attack on Shakespeare was not product of his old age, but even so, in his attack, Tolstoy can teach what is necessary to write like him. He is a considerable better critic than some guys who insist to use freud to analyse literature...

[metal134]

I'm kind've a tweener on Tolkien. I think his stories are srtong and multilayered. He makes great use of symbolism and allegory. But his prose is just awful. That doesn't stop me from enjoying his books, but it is undeniabley awful.

[JCamilo]

Tolkien using allegory... He must killing peter jackson again in his grave...

[Drkshadow03]

Hmm...

Speaking as a Tolkienist, I rather disagree with those critics (then and now) who have lambasted him. It's a bit like Bach - he was derided by many of his contemporaries as far too odd (and rather old fashioned), and had a minimal following in his own time. But now he is considered one of the greatest musical geniuses to have ever lived.

I personally believe the same is true of Tollers. Academics of the future, I think, will look back on Tolkien and come to the conclusion that he was one of, if not the, greatest writer of the 20th century, and LotR one of its greatest literary masterpieces.

To return to the theme of the thread, anyone who attempts to be snobbish towards someone who appreciates Tolkien has clearly not understood the importance of the work. It is not merely a fantasy novel, but rather the culmination of a fascinating medievalist revival that began in the mid-19th century. With Tolkien, we can trace the threads of his work right back into the dawn of pre-history. Just because something is a little different, and a little out of its time, doesn't make it insignificant.

Not to mention if evaluated from factors that determine canonicity or survival I would also say at the moment the evidence is in favor of Tolkien's work surviving into the future, not against it. Let's review:

1) The work has lasted the test of time thus far. It's almost 60 years old. For comparison purposes, keep in mind most best-selling works do well for about two to three months (selling a bagillion copies) and then end up in remainder bins with no one reading them anymore, and eventually out-of-print within a few years. No reason to think this trend will change.

2) It's taught in academic classrooms. I've taken an actual class on LOTR, plus I've seen syllabuses at other universities, although they did correspond to movie release dates. However, fantasy courses, which are offered more frequently almost always include LOTR. There is no reason to think this will change anytime soon.

3) There are two peer-reviewed journals dedicated to scholarly articles on Tolkien and his work (Tolkien Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_Studies) and Mythlore (http://www.mythsoc.org/mythlore/)). Academic scholarship on Tolkien has increased, not decreased over the years.

4) The work even managed to make one of those contentious Best of lists (the Time's 100 Best Novels from 1923 to the present (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1951793,00.html)).


So test of time thus far? Check.

Taught in academia in one context or another? Check.

Scholarly articles written about his works with some frequency? Check.

Two journal dedicated to his works? Check.

Made any Best Of Lists (that isn't dedicated solely to the fantasy genre)? Check.

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

Keep in mind I'm not actually a big fan of Tolkien myself and agree with a lot of the criticisms of his work.

[Ecurb]

I can see why some lovers of the novel might criticize Tolkien -- his characters are archetypical rather than individual; their relationships are predictable. The standard themes that English Literature teachers like to talk about -- character development for example -- are missing.

Of course JCamilo is correct that Tolkien hated allegory.

Also, The Silmarillion is not a novel at all, but a mythology (Jcamilo called it a history, and mythologies would be called "histories" by native speakers). Tolkien did spawn a slew of Fantasy novels -- but, whatever one thinks of the genre, most readers agree that Tollers was head and shoulders above both his predecessors and his imitators. Whether genre novels constitute serious literature is, of course, a question the literary snobs might answer differently from those of us who merely like a good read. After all, the Norse and Greek Gods were archetypical rather than individual, too. Are Norse and Greek mythology therefore excluded from the realm of "literature"?

[JCamilo]

Yes, I would rather not call it mythology, as it is not the myth of anything, rather an account, maybe biblical like of something that indeend did happen. But yes, that is the idea.

I think the main odd favorable to Tolkien continuity is not those, Drkshadow. Is that Tolkien didnt follow commercial formula. It is not a page turner, something that you read quick (like Mortal describes Dan brown, flow page from page), it does not even an easy plot pattern (Tolkien splits all ,mix with those songs). Most of fantasy followers of Tolkien adapted him to the usal romance formula. Tolkien should never been a commercial success, it should be wrong, because that, it looks like it will go right.

[Ecurb]

The Jews who wrote the Old Testament didn't distinguish between myth and history, and neither do most preliterate people. It is we moderns who see the supernatural accretions as "mythological" rather than "historical" -- because they strain our credulity. Of course in a fantasy the supernatural aspects of the history don't bother us -- the entire thing is made up, after all. Nonetheless, the Silmarillion, with it's creation stories, pantheon of god-like Valar, and tales of heroic deeds and magical artifacts reads like a mythology more than like a modern history.

The Lord of the Rings has an interesting structure -- the story is split in the last two books between the tale of Frodo and Sam and the tale of the War with Sauron and the Return of the King. In addition to that, though, the book doesn't read like a page-turner adventure story because action and exposition are juxtaposed. Think of the first book: Exposition in the Shire -- Action in Fleeing the Nazgul -- Exposition in the Old Forest -- Action in Fleeing the Nazgul -- Exposition in the journey with Aragorn -- Action in the Knife in the Dark -- Exposition in Rivendell -- etc. etc. It is the depth and detail of the exposition that makes the Lord of the Rings stand above other fantasy novels, and that makes the action scenes more involving.

[OrphanPip]

I actually prefer the Silmarillion to LotR as well, but I'm not a Tolkien fan in general. I think part of the appeal of the Silmarillion is that the individual stories, though sometimes linked, were short enough to make Tolkien's style tolerable. I'm not sure I think the stories are great literature though. Some of them have the same archetypal quality and appeal of minor fairy tales and myths.

Moorcock was mentioned earlier in reference to Tolkien, and of course Moorcock is the anti-Tolkien of the fantasy genre, his essay "Epic Pooh" essentially blames Tolkien for ruining the genre; he considered LotR to be a manifestation of Anglican Toryism.

There continues to be a disturbing trend in epic fantasy literature that comes out of that early 20th century mentality prevalent in LotR, and that is the obsession with racial characteristics. Associating countries, races, or cultures entirely with certain set characteristics seems a bizarre practice of sanctioned prejudice in fantasy literature because the branded groups are imagined.

[Ecurb]

I actually prefer the Silmarillion to LotR as well, but I'm not a Tolkien fan in general. I think part of the appeal of the Silmarillion is that the individual stories, though sometimes linked, were short enough to make Tolkien's style tolerable. I'm not sure I think the stories are great literature though. Some of them have the same archetypal quality and appeal of minor fairy tales and myths.
.

I'd suggest that myths and fairy tales are the essence of literature. Obviously, if a reader doesn't like myths and fairy tales, he won't like Tolkien.

[JCamilo]

The Jews who wrote the Old Testament didn't distinguish between myth and history, and neither do most preliterate people. It is we moderns who see the supernatural accretions as "mythological" rather than "historical" -- because they strain our credulity. Of course in a fantasy the supernatural aspects of the history don't bother us -- the entire thing is made up, after all. Nonetheless, the Silmarillion, with it's creation stories, pantheon of god-like Valar, and tales of heroic deeds and magical artifacts reads like a mythology more than like a modern history.

To be honest, it didnt matter the distinguish. Mythological societies didnt had an historical view of their myths, not because they mixed both, but simply because Myth predates chronological organization and philosophical explanations .Jews had quite a good notion their texts aren't literal as History book, but my point about Silmarilion not being myth is just that they are more a chronicles of real events. You have not even a slightly doubt: when tolkies says the elves lived in lalala land and tree had light, there was indeed all of this. It was not a linguistic explanation of the world around ,they are factual. Of course, we do call some mythological accounts as possible historical facts, an alegorical view of myths, which is not a tolkien approach. A nitpick from my part maybe.

[Ecurb]

All I meant is that in most preliterate societies there are not two distinct words, one of which could be translated as "myth" and one of which as "history". There are often discrete words that we might translate as "fairy tale" or "riddle" (a well known literary form in many societies, and used by Tolkien in The Hobbit), but what we would call "myth" and what we would call "history" are not distinguished in the vocabularies of most preliterate people.

[Lover]

I read for the pleasure of reading. I read what enjoy, not because it is superior in literary terms, but because it offers me superior pleasure. It just so happens that what I enjoy most is considered good literature. If something I enjoyed was considered low quality I would read it happily. I find most popular books to be dull, overly simple, predictable, and very boring, but I don't find them that way because somebody told me to. My tastes are spoiled. It is kind of like a drug addict, at first I could get the high easily, but now it takes more and more to get me there (and I see little point in reading if I don't get there).

[mal4mac]

There is no kind of evidence or argument by which one can show that Shakespeare, or any other writer, is 'good'. There is no test of literary merit except survival, an index to majority opinion.

[mal4mac]

If something I enjoyed was considered low quality I would read it happily.

Why? You might enjoy eating low quality ice cream, but if a friend read out the list of additives, and you knew those additives to be unhealthy, you would (I hope!) feel disgusted and stop.

If a friend reads out a list of reasons for what you are reading being low quality, and you agree with them, then why wouldn't you stop reading that literature? Why put rubbish into your mind when you would never put it into your body?

[JCamilo]

There is no kind of evidence or argument by which one can show that Shakespeare, or any other writer, is 'good'. There is no test of literary merit except survival, an index to majority opinion.

I am sure nobody can show why Beethoveen is better than Britney Spears, therefore from now on you could reffrain from saying something is better or mention Bloom who objectively tries to argue this?

[Drkshadow03]

Why? You might enjoy eating low quality ice cream, but if a friend read out the list of additives, and you knew those additives to be unhealthy, you would (I hope!) feel disgusted and stop.

If a friend reads out a list of reasons for what you are reading being low quality, and you agree with them, then why wouldn't you stop reading that literature? Why put rubbish into your mind when you would never put it into your body?

Well, she qualified all this by saying she reads for pleasure. If she finds books that you or someone else would consider low quality entertaining, but gets pleasure out of it, so what? You yourself have argued (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1014407&postcount=50) that escapism or entertainment has value:


"Of course it's valid! Did you see your favourite Sue Perkins on Saturday, Kiki? She was extolling the virtues of the corniest best sellers, in that, unlike much "serious literature", many have good plots, are easy to read, and allow people to escape from their miserable lives for a few hours. These things have value."

You have also written elsewhere that you primarily read for enjoyment (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1014398&postcount=3) and admit people find different things enjoyable.

Last but not least, eating additives in low quality ice cream can possibly cause long-term health problems like cancer. Reading the latest Star Wars novel for fun will not give you brain cancer, will not send you to long trip to the hospital, and has no demonstrable effect on health or quality of life. This is an intellectually dishonest metaphor.

So if she enjoys a romance novel as well as Dickens because she finds both provide her enjoyment, I am failing to see what grounds you're dismissing reading the cheap romance novel.

[BienvenuJDC]

Well, she qualified all this by saying she reads for pleasure. If she finds books that you or someone else would consider low quality entertaining, but gets pleasure out of it, so what? You yourself have argued (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1014407&postcount=50) that escapism or entertainment has value:



You have also written elsewhere that you primarily read for enjoyment (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1014398&postcount=3) and admit people find different things enjoyable.

Last but not least, eating additives in low quality ice cream can possibly cause long-term health problems like cancer. Reading the latest Star Wars novel for fun will not give you brain cancer, will not send you to long trip to the hospital, and has no demonstrable effect on health or quality of life. This is an intellectually dishonest metaphor.

So if she enjoys a romance novel as well as Dickens because she finds both provide her enjoyment, I am failing to see what grounds you're dismissing reading the cheap romance novel.

You have worded my own sentiments quite well. As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, how are we to try to make a standard of literary worth that rejects some writings worthless that others deem worthwhile?

[JuniperWoolf]

I must say I find it somewhat comic that anyone would place the word "scholars" in quotes... denoting a snide dismissive attitude toward the merit of these individuals whom one would assume earned their position as a result of some degree of serious study and knowledge of literature... right before they turn around and declare "I hate Elitism..." One definition of "elitism" is a sense of superiority over other individuals... including taking a holy-than-thou stance of proclaiming one's own "anti-elitism" (not, perhaps, unlike proudly trumpeting one's own sense of modesty).

Haha, so you're saying that I'm snobby about my lack of snobbery. Cool. That's like having a superiority complex about an inferiority complex.

[mortalterror]

Not to mention if evaluated from factors that determine canonicity or survival I would also say at the moment the evidence is in favor of Tolkien's work surviving into the future, not against it. Let's review:

1) The work has lasted the test of time thus far. It's almost 60 years old. For comparison purposes, keep in mind most best-selling works do well for about two to three months (selling a bagillion copies) and then end up in remainder bins with no one reading them anymore, and eventually out-of-print within a few years. No reason to think this trend will change.

You and I are the same age; so we both remember back to a time before the movies came out when TLOTR was not held in the same esteem it is today. Prior to 2001, it was a known if somewhat niche book, rarely given any serious thought by people who didn't play D&D or read Dragonlance. The movies, which are better than the books, served as advertisements for the books to the tune of several hundred million dollars. Thus the series has justly or unjustly gotten an additional 15 minutes of fame. The Narnia books of C.S. Lewis are also feeling the boost of international blockbuster movie advertising and renewed interest lately. However, I will allow that you could argue their successful adaptation to the blockbuster market is a sign of their continued merit.


2) It's taught in academic classrooms. I've taken an actual class on LOTR, plus I've seen syllabuses at other universities, although they did correspond to movie release dates. However, fantasy courses, which are offered more frequently almost always include LOTR. There is no reason to think this will change anytime soon.

And I've seen courses offered on Star Trek. That doesn't make it great literature. It's more a sign of pandering that sometimes goes on in academic circles, an attempt to be accessible, egalitarian, and relevant to contemporary culture.

If it's taught in fantasy courses, one could at least make the argument that it's better than most other fantasy out there, but that's because fantasy as a whole is at a comparatively lackluster level. Is it as good as Peter Pan or The Wizard of Oz? Sure. But I don't know that I could make a compelling argument for fantasy even being as good as mystery what with the likes of Doyle, Hammett, and Chandler on the other side.


3) There are two peer-reviewed journals dedicated to scholarly articles on Tolkien and his work (Tolkien Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_Studies) and Mythlore (http://www.mythsoc.org/mythlore/)). Academic scholarship on Tolkien has increased, not decreased over the years.

Are there peer-reviewed journals dedicated to scholarly articles on Stephen King?


4) The work even managed to make one of those contentious Best of lists (the Time's 100 Best Novels from 1923 to the present (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1951793,00.html)).

Some of those books are definitely better than others. I have no objection to TLOTR sharing space with Deliverance and Are You There God? It's Me Margaret.


Keep in mind I'm not actually a big fan of Tolkien myself and agree with a lot of the criticisms of his work.

I've been reading some of those articles Mal4mac mentioned and I think the criticisms are sound. Sauron is a pretty lame villain. The ring wraiths don't do much but hang around looking scary. The hobbits are ineffectual children. The prose is awful, the climax underwhelming. The number of times that characters come out of dangerous situations unscathed is frustrating and unrealistic. It has that Johnny Quest or Hardy Boys feel about it far too often.

I can definitely stand behind that charge of infantilism Moorcock levels at Tolkein. It's a story about kids who found a magic ring and have to fight a vague Evil being. There's a lot of that stuff in fantasy, even the more grown up stuff. Take some of the other popular fantasy series for example. Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar: youths with magical horses. Anne McCaffrey's Dragonrider's of Pern: basically a boy and his dragon stories. Even George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire has a side to it where those direwolves might as well be Clifford the Big Red Dog. At least Frodo doesn't have a magical pet.

[Jozanny]

Haha, so you're saying that I'm snobby about my lack of snobbery. Cool. That's like having a superiority complex about an inferiority complex.

Although luke can take care of himself, in this case he happens to be right about reverse snobbery leading to a kind of tunnel vision, like what Daniel Schneider does with Cosmoetica, attacking scholarship and its investment in a serious competitive product like the Virginia Quarterly Review as a sinecure that hurts the poor.

Schneider isn't stupid, and his brashy working class cut to the chase mentality is similar to mine, but I do not resent excellence because of my low rung in the publishing pecking order; he does.

I value the high end market that VQR strove to have as a literary press, destroying that endowment won't make my inner city life any better.

As to ego, yes, I have one, but I am old enough to respect those who have knowledge that I lack; perhaps that is something to think about.

[Drkshadow03]

You and I are the same age; so we both remember back to a time before the movies came out when TLOTR was not held in the same esteem it is today. Prior to 2001, it was a known if somewhat niche book, rarely given any serious thought by people who didn't play D&D or read Dragonlance. The movies, which are better than the books, served as advertisements for the books to the tune of several hundred million dollars. Thus the series has justly or unjustly gotten an additional 15 minutes of fame. The Narnia books of C.S. Lewis are also feeling the boost of international blockbuster movie advertising and renewed interest lately. However, I will allow that you could argue their successful adaptation to the blockbuster market is a sign of their continued merit.

And I've seen courses offered on Star Trek. That doesn't make it great literature. It's more a sign of pandering that sometimes goes on in academic circles, an attempt to be accessible, egalitarian, and relevant to contemporary culture.

If it's taught in fantasy courses, one could at least make the argument that it's better than most other fantasy out there, but that's because fantasy as a whole is at a comparatively lackluster level. Is it as good as Peter Pan or The Wizard of Oz? Sure. But I don't know that I could make a compelling argument for fantasy even being as good as mystery what with the likes of Doyle, Hammett, and Chandler on the other side.



Are there peer-reviewed journals dedicated to scholarly articles on Stephen King?



Some of those books are definitely better than others. I have no objection to TLOTR sharing space with Deliverance and Are You There God? It's Me Margaret.

I've been reading some of those articles Mal4mac mentioned and I think the criticisms are sound. Sauron is a pretty lame villain. The ring wraiths don't do much but hang around looking scary. The hobbits are ineffectual children. The prose is awful, the climax underwhelming. The number of times that characters come out of dangerous situations unscathed is frustrating and unrealistic. It has that Johnny Quest or Hardy Boys feel about it far too often.

I can definitely stand behind that charge of infantilism Moorcock levels at Tolkein. It's a story about kids who found a magic ring and have to fight a vague Evil being. There's a lot of that stuff in fantasy, even the more grown up stuff. Take some of the other popular fantasy series for example. Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar: youths with magical horses. Anne McCaffrey's Dragonrider's of Pern: basically a boy and his dragon stories. Even George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire has a side to it where those direwolves might as well be Clifford the Big Red Dog. At least Frodo doesn't have a magical pet.

Oh, I'm not doubting at all that a large part of LOTR's recent academic appearances is a kind of pandering to the masses due to the films, but LOTR is a seminal book to the fantasy genre that it should be on most fantasy syllabuses.

To your Stephen King question, there are peer-reviewed articles written about Stephen King's work, but as far as I know there isn't any peer-reviewed journals dedicated to him.

As far as LOTR being ignored in academia prior to the films, one of the advantages of taking a LOTR course myself is I got to delve into a great deal of the scholarship and know this isn't entirely true. Now I have no idea if LOTR courses were offered in academia with any frequency prior to the film; I would probably say no. But there were definitely a large group of Ph. D scholars with academic positions writing both book-length works and scholarly articles about the work prior to the films (80s and early 90s). So while I agree the main audience of these books were D&D nerds, there were definitely academics interpreting and saying positive things about LOTR long before the films.

I also never said I disagreed with Mal4mac's critics. Like I said I'm not a huge fan of LOTR myself. I think it's okay. Meanwhile I really really like Are You There God? It's Me Margaret.

[JCamilo]

LoTR was one of the top selling books of XX century before the movie. Before RPG was even invented, they are extremelly popular already. So, it is not wonder academics may work with Lotr, which is often a flaw in the arguments reggarding the importance of a given book due the presence of academic works, as they can pick subjects for reasons other than literary merit. In this case, Tolkien is without doubt iconic of fantasy literature, either for good or evil, just like Arthur Clarke or Isac Asimov are for science fiction, even if both are just ok writers. Or like Robert Howard is for fantasy, almost as important as tolkien.

As the movies (i only watched the 3 and half hour thraillers) they are awful. They do not even improve tolkien's flaws with the character. At first they help with action scenes, but the logical destruction of tolkien main merit, his geography is not worth of it.

[Lokasenna]

Prior to 2001, it was a known if somewhat niche book, rarely given any serious thought by people who didn't play D&D or read Dragonlance.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. Not only is it one of the best-selling books of the century, but academics have been writing on Tolkien since he started publishing. The movies notwithstanding, Tolkien scholarship has been building in strength for decades.


And I've seen courses offered on Star Trek. That doesn't make it great literature. It's more a sign of pandering that sometimes goes on in academic circles, an attempt to be accessible, egalitarian, and relevant to contemporary culture.

That might be the case with some institutions. For example, my old university offered a module called 'Narratives of Witchcraft' that, as well as several medieval texts, offered a seminar on Harry Potter, with the open aim of drawing more people along. I also know that the academic who ran the module was desperate to jetison HP off it, so that he could get some serious academia going. In my current university, however, one of the most popular undergraduate modules is called 'Germanic Myth and Legend' - not only does this study the medieval texts, but it also has a look at the post-medieval reception of the literature in the figures of William Morris, Richard Wagner, and Tolkien; Tollers is in there with some big figures. It's rigourously academic, and I can tell you now that I have recieved some utterly fantastic and scholarly essays on Tolkien.


If it's taught in fantasy courses, one could at least make the argument that it's better than most other fantasy out there, but that's because fantasy as a whole is at a comparatively lackluster level.

Well, that's subjective. I like mystery novels as well, but I'd take a good fantasy over a good crime novel any time.


Sauron is a pretty lame villain. The ring wraiths don't do much but hang around looking scary. The hobbits are ineffectual children. The prose is awful, the climax underwhelming. The number of times that characters come out of dangerous situations unscathed is frustrating and unrealistic.

But this reflects the style and topoi of early medieval literature! It's a concious act of imitation. That's not to say you, or even most people, have to like it - if they did, more people would be reading Old Norse literature for fun. But the artistry of Tolkien's vision is manifestly apparent to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with his medieval antecedents. Personally, I love Tolkien's prose style - it is in no sense realistic, but then it's not supposed to be; it captures the medieval style beautifully.

[JCamilo]

I would call Tolkien extremelly realistic. He is very logical, his descriptions are detailed, he does not go futher - in a way, if we are in middleearth, he would be a historican, a Herodothus of life - except the momments Tom Bombadil.

But the imitation of medieval literature, does not imply (as he does not have the same format) that is good. But really, Sauron is not good. Morgoth (or watever his name is, the original evil) is quite more active. Sauron is in the end, a guy who had he ring idea, has a big eye, does not even present a physical challenge (and this is when tolkien is anti-medieval, the heroes in traditional sense, Aragorn and Gandalf, do not face the villain. It is like Sauron is waiting them for a Bewoulf vs.Grendel momment, then he got those two little hobbits. The medieval villain had his power matched in a battle, in tolkien he loses sense and power due to hobbitts being more relevant).

It is not about liking or not, Paulo Coelho does an imitation of 1001 nights and Sufi texts. It is obvious to however see it. If Tolkien merit was in the medieval background - nobody I think denies Tolkien academic knowledge - I think LoTR would be gone as a oddity. It is the modern encyclopedic work, the capacity to turn a atlas in a novel, the modern vision of language formation, that probally makes LoTR go well even when it should not. It grants unity, some originality (we can compare with a handfull of previous "other words" before him, see how bigger his work is) and his continuity.

[KilgoreT]

I only read books with introductions by academic people

[Ecurb]

But really, Sauron is not good. Morgoth (or watever his name is, the original evil) is quite more active. Sauron is in the end, a guy who had he ring idea, has a big eye, does not even present a physical challenge (and this is when tolkien is anti-medieval, the heroes in traditional sense, Aragorn and Gandalf, do not face the villain. It is like Sauron is waiting them for a Bewoulf vs.Grendel momment, then he got those two little hobbits. The medieval villain had his power matched in a battle, in tolkien he loses sense and power due to hobbitts being more relevant).
.

It is true that in LOTR (although not in The Silmarillion) Sauron plays no on-stage role. Personally, I think this is a good idea. Voldemort was a far creepier villian when he was "he who shall not be named". Once he actually showed up, he was a bore. Some things are better left to the imagination, and Sauron is one of them.

The movies, by the way, blew it by showing Sauron in the prologue, and by having those ridiculous wizard fights between Gandalf and Saruman. Saruman looked like a storm trooper using his staff as a ray gun, or like a video game character. Gandalf and Saruman's powers are best left psychic and intangible -- and so are Sauron's. With Sauron off stage, he is represented by the Ring, and the Eye (both of which are pretty cool).

[Ecurb]

I only read books with introductions by academic people

Good plan! I only read the introduction, and skip the book.

[Lokasenna]

But really, Sauron is not good. Morgoth (or watever his name is, the original evil) is quite more active. Sauron is in the end, a guy who had he ring idea, has a big eye, does not even present a physical challenge (and this is when tolkien is anti-medieval, the heroes in traditional sense, Aragorn and Gandalf, do not face the villain. It is like Sauron is waiting them for a Bewoulf vs.Grendel momment, then he got those two little hobbits. The medieval villain had his power matched in a battle, in tolkien he loses sense and power due to hobbitts being more relevant).


Actually, no. Having Sauron as a disembodied and distant evil that the heroes never get to fight is both entirely suitable and entirely authentic to early medieval heroic literature. You see, the heroes of Old Norse literature understand violence; they are not concerned about fighting, even if they are overmatched and doomed to die as a result of it. Old Norse heroes fight giants, dragons and the undead in rather blazé fashion; this is because the giants, dragons and undead meet them on their level. Both hero and monster share an understanding of the use of physical violence to promote their case; the hero accepts it and meets it, even if his own powers are incompatible.

However, some sagas present a different and more abstract kind of evil. It is imposing, powerful, and terrifying: it is immune to violence, but will not itself bestir to violence. And when confronted with this, these great Icelandic heroes fall to bit. Psychologically, they are utterly ill-equipped to deal with such an approach. For example, one of the great Icelandic heroes, Grettir Ásmundarson, over the course of his career fights mighty warriors, fearsome undead, and powerful trolls - all of which he takes in his stride. But he also develops a powerful fear of the dark - it is deep, nebulous, isolating and utterly impervious to anything he can do against it. Another wonderful example is Eyrbyggja saga, which documents a series of hauntings. Various horrible visitations and violent, destructive undead terrorise the farmstead, but the culmination of the haunting is an apparition of a ghostly seal that is immune to weapons and just sits there staring at the household; an action that sends them into an uncharacteristic terror.

Tolkien is feeding into this; Sauron is a great villain because you can't simply deal with him by fighting him. He is too abstract; without a body, he permeates the entire fabric of the world - both in the actions of his army, and in a deeper sense through the powers of the lesser rings.

I could go on further, but I'm aware that I'm getting off-topic...

[mortalterror]

But this reflects the style and topoi of early medieval literature! It's a concious act of imitation. That's not to say you, or even most people, have to like it - if they did, more people would be reading Old Norse literature for fun. But the artistry of Tolkien's vision is manifestly apparent to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with his medieval antecedents. Personally, I love Tolkien's prose style - it is in no sense realistic, but then it's not supposed to be; it captures the medieval style beautifully.

I don't think so. In medieval literature violence has consequences. Everyone dies in The Song of Roland, Beowulf, The Niebelungenlied, and Njals Saga. In the Lord of the Rings Boromir is conspicuous as the only major character who dies despite numerous engagements. When the heroes are defeated, they get tied up and escape again and again. If I were Saruman, I'd have put two beans in the back of Gandalfs grey skull and dumped him in a ditch. Merry and Pippin get captured by orcs. Frodo gets captured by other orcs. Giant spiders, cave trolls, a balrog, and several small to large armies of malevolent beings attack the party and nobody dies. Give me a break! Nobody's even maimed, hamstrung, or crippled in like a hundred violent clashes. Half of these characters are three feet tall and never held a weapon in their life.

Meanwhile, Strider walks around with a broken sword that belonged to some distant ancestor. He fights off the wraiths by pretty much waving fire at them like they're just a pack of wolves. You got the deus ex machina of Tom Bombadil, and Shadowfax acts more like a tank than a real horse. There's some silly stuff going on in these books that I don't think you could get away with in the really good medieval epics.

[Ecurb]

Not everyone dies in The Song of Roland. Charlemagne doesn't die. In fact, in the Charlemagne legends (based on Orlando Furiosso as well as Chanson and other sources), Ogier the Dane goes off to Avalon to live eternally with King Arthur and Morgana (which parallels Frodo, Bilbo and Gandalf sailing into the West at the end of LOTR). Rinaldo survives for centuries and ends up fighting in the Crusades (as does Huon of Bourdeaux). Obviously, real historical people all die, eventually -- and so do Aragorn, Arwyn, Pippen, and Merry. although not until the Appendixes.

Not everyone dies in Beowulf, either. Of course Beowulf dies (eventually), but only as an old man. Wiglaf survives.

[Jozanny]

Against my better judgment, I utterly fail to see why LOTR ignites such passion. It is a movement work that reinvented fantasy as a genre, and I am studying what makes genre new and exploitative for a paper I'm writing, and any reader who cares can see that it is an entertaining saga that offers perspectives one can value, critique, or both, but if you look at contemporary fantasy, like my friend Lee Doty, who just loves me :p, the genre as a whole has clearly devolved into the special effects syndrome, with little to offer readers beyond having a playful attitude conquers the darkness, or don't we miss the good old days when warlords could rape and pillage?

I do not think this thread is solely about defending or savaging commercial populism, but rather whether or not it is good to be picky. I enjoyed LOTR as a young adult, but LNF's obsessiveness with it certainly makes rational people think twice.

[JCamilo]

Actually, no. Having Sauron as a disembodied and distant evil that the heroes never get to fight is both entirely suitable and entirely authentic to early medieval heroic literature. You see, the heroes of Old Norse literature understand violence; they are not concerned about fighting, even if they are overmatched and doomed to die as a result of it. Old Norse heroes fight giants, dragons and the undead in rather blazé fashion; this is because the giants, dragons and undead meet them on their level. Both hero and monster share an understanding of the use of physical violence to promote their case; the hero accepts it and meets it, even if his own powers are incompatible.

However, some sagas present a different and more abstract kind of evil. It is imposing, powerful, and terrifying: it is immune to violence, but will not itself bestir to violence. And when confronted with this, these great Icelandic heroes fall to bit. Psychologically, they are utterly ill-equipped to deal with such an approach. For example, one of the great Icelandic heroes, Grettir Ásmundarson, over the course of his career fights mighty warriors, fearsome undead, and powerful trolls - all of which he takes in his stride. But he also develops a powerful fear of the dark - it is deep, nebulous, isolating and utterly impervious to anything he can do against it. Another wonderful example is Eyrbyggja saga, which documents a series of hauntings. Various horrible visitations and violent, destructive undead terrorise the farmstead, but the culmination of the haunting is an apparition of a ghostly seal that is immune to weapons and just sits there staring at the household; an action that sends them into an uncharacteristic terror.

Tolkien is feeding into this; Sauron is a great villain because you can't simply deal with him by fighting him. He is too abstract; without a body, he permeates the entire fabric of the world - both in the actions of his army, and in a deeper sense through the powers of the lesser rings.

I could go on further, but I'm aware that I'm getting off-topic...

Fear of the Dark is not a character. When Darkness appears as a being, it can be faced, as it was faced.

And no, Sauron is not a fear intangible. He is quite tangible. He had his hand cut, an army of men and elfs defeated him in his mighty. He is not without a body due to his power, but absence of it. He is really, really, a poor (Morgoth, Modred, you know the original rebel who is ultimatelly responsable even for Sauron corruption). As a class of being, Gandalf and him are even close (the white Gandalf at least, who refuses to go and face Sauron more to allow Frodo fullfill his destiny - which was denied to Bilbo - than for fearing his power.)...

It was pretty clear Sauron is a minor evil, just like the heroes "are minor", everything was less powerful, in a sense, Simarilion is the mythical account, LoTR the romance account. Trying to find analogies with the sagas is a matter of argument and those same arguments can draw frodo to the jesus allegories.

[Ecurb]

I do not think this thread is solely about defending or savaging commercial populism, but rather whether or not it is good to be picky. .

The more books (or movies, or music, or any other art form) one can enjoy, the more fun one will have. Therefore, it seems self evident that it's not good to be picky. On the other hand, perhaps "picky" people (those with discriminating tastes) actually like their favorite art MORE than those who are less discriminating like everything. In that case, it might be good to be picky.

That is not all there is to "snobbery", though. Snobbery involves not only having discriminating tastes, but looking down on those with less discriminating tastes. If some ten-year-old kid likes Harry Potter as well as LOTR, does that mean that he doesn't like LOTR enough, or that he likes Harry Potter too much? In either case, why object?

I suppose it's reasonable to want friends who share one's interests and enthusiasms, whether one is enthusiastic about Harry Potter, Britney Spears, Joyce, Bach or baseball. But looking down on those who do not share those enthusiasms seems a bit insecure, like Middle School kids who ask a new acquaintance what music they listen to, in hope of discovering whether he or she is worth cultivating.

Literary snobbery is more like other forms of snobbery than we might at first admit. It's a (more politically correct) way of determining who went to the "right" universities, or comes from the "right" social class. The Ivy League crowd eschews Dan Brown.

[JCamilo]

One guy who enjoys Beethoveen like a maniac can have as much fun as someone who enjoys Britney spears. He just have to listen again.

[Ecurb]

One guy who enjoys Beethoveen like a maniac can have as much fun as someone who enjoys Britney spears. He just have to listen again.


True. But you can't avoid listening to pop music (I'll grant that Britney Spears is a bit dated, but she was all I could think of) -- it's ubiquitous. So you'll probably have more fun if you like it than if you hate it.

[stlukesguild]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG_gcH1V8yI

:cornut::ihih::troll::ciappa:

[mortalterror]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG_gcH1V8yI

:cornut::ihih::troll::ciappa:

That certainly does suck. These might be better.

Blind Guardian: Lord of the Rings
"There are signs on the Ring/ Which make me feel so down/ There's one to enslave all Rings /To find them all in time /And drive them into darkness /Forever they'll be bound"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q71A5hPk2mM

Led Zeppelin: Ramble On
"Mine's a tale that can't be told, / My freedom I hold dear; / How years ago in days of old / When magic filled the air, / T'was in the darkest depths of Mordor / I met a girl so fair. / But Gollum, and the evil one crept up / And slipped away with her."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3HemKGDavw

Led Zeppelin: The Battle of Evermore
The ringwraiths ride in black,/ Ride on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BjiRKBC05c

Then there are the lyrics in Stairway to Heaven "There's a lady who's sure/ all that glitters is gold/ and she's buying a stairway to heaven."

Of course, The Lord of the Rings Symphony by Johan de Meij may be more your thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IorOng9qUOo&playnext=1&list=PLC167A1F26EDE0203

[Veho]

My reply is slightly off topic now you've all moved on to LoTR. Oh, well.

Jane Austen wrote about what she knew and what we all know: real life. Her realistic writing was concerned with middle class women, the society in which they had to survive and the social and domestic expectations placed upon them. Often literary 'snobs' worship the works of Homer and Dante (etc) but dismiss the works of Austen for being glorified chick-lit. Are works that focus on realistic issues beneath their literary tastes? But as humans should we not value Austen's social commentaries as equally as we value tales of heroes, Gods, and beasts? If Austen's work is glorified chick-lit, is Homer's not glorified fantasy? Of course not. All works are a voice from their time.

Austen was highly influential to the development of the novel form; her use of free indirect speech, omniscient narrators and irony produced a narrative style that was unique in that period. It enabled her to give her novels a didactic element without preaching to her readers, and a comicality that is still appreciated by readers centuries later. Throughout Pride and Prejudice we are shown Elizabeth's thoughts and we are witnesses to her self-realisation but we are never preached to. Elinor's 'conservative orthodoxy' serves as a contrast to Marianne's sensibility, but Austen's techniques makes the reader aware that Elinor is 'Right'.*

Austen deals with all of her themes subtly. Yes, she is no Mary Wollstonecraft or whoever, but she does deal with the problems facing women at that time: marriage, the laws of entailment that affected women, money, female best-before-dates, prejudices, equality etc. She is a feminist; can you see Elizabeth or Emma living in subservience to their husband's ideas and will? No, they are marriages of equality. But she is a novelist first and foremost, not a non-fiction writer like Wollstonecraft, and novels are written to entertain.

*(Butler, Jane Austen and the War of Ideas)

By the way, I think you're all a bunch of snobs.:smile5:

[kiki1982]

I don't think so. In medieval literature violence has consequences. Everyone dies in The Song of Roland, Beowulf, The Niebelungenlied, and Njals Saga. In the Lord of the Rings Boromir is conspicuous as the only major character who dies despite numerous engagements. When the heroes are defeated, they get tied up and escape again and again. If I were Saruman, I'd have put two beans in the back of Gandalfs grey skull and dumped him in a ditch. Merry and Pippin get captured by orcs. Frodo gets captured by other orcs. Giant spiders, cave trolls, a balrog, and several small to large armies of malevolent beings attack the party and nobody dies. Give me a break! Nobody's even maimed, hamstrung, or crippled in like a hundred violent clashes. Half of these characters are three feet tall and never held a weapon in their life.

It was engrained into my brain by my professor German literature that most of those sagas end in death. Sure, Charlemaigne does not, but that's a later kind. The really really early ones are mere heroes fighting monsters and such like the Niebelungenlied. All ends in death, not because of the violence, because that is a good thing in Germanic culture, but because life ends in death. That is all. The wheel of fortune sends you to a high the one moment and then the gods decide it is your time to die. Enjoy it when it lasts and then prepare for death. Violence has nothing to do with the hero's death or not, it is just his lot. He may well have his head cleft and still survive or something. If it is his lot to do so. It is only later you get real heroes who can only win because God is with them. or something and you also get the idea that evil must be eradicated by the knight who fights with God behind him. In Germanic literature, as far as it has been explained to me, you do not have evil that has to be eradicated, but evil that is there, and will stay there, forever, to be fought and re-fought, and re-fought until eternity. It cannot be conquered because there are essentially only gods that make things happen. As such, you are fighting the gods, and that is a battle that cannot be won.


Fear of the Dark is not a character. When Darkness appears as a being, it can be faced, as it was faced.

Fer can become so much part of the story that it can become a character. A personalisation so to say.

[JCamilo]

A catterpillar is not a moth, it must became one. The whole point is that Sauron is not the uncertain fear of dark that you cannt fight phisically as claimed. He is an actual being, which was faced and defeated by direct confrotation. (In fact, he is a terrible loser, he is always defeated). His rings are not something universal that all fear, just a very good mobile service.

There is certainly myths, legends, etc where certain feelings became a character. From Maya in Budhist stories to Neil Gaiman's Sandman family, but the point which I was replied was an attent to equate Sauron inaction as if he is an absent psychological enemy, which you cannt defeat and not a monster, a powerful wizard, etc which in usual sagas a hero faces. I LoTR Sauron is kind off lonely, he got hobitts to play. That was not worth all his power, he cann't even reckonize them as a threat until the end. You could write a play Waiting Gandalf for him...

[kiki1982]

The ring is as much a part of Sauron as Sauron is a part of the ring, though. He helped to forge the rings of power and then in secret made his own in order to gain power over all the others, so the ring is a realisation of his own evil nature. In that, wherever the ring goes, goes Sauron, and as it is destroyed Sauron is destroyed as well. It is not because he loses the ring at some point for a period of time that he loses the total battle. Not at least until the ring is destroyed. If anything, it could possibly be argued that the ring is Sauron and that his evil nature transforms people into evil if they hold onto the ring too much. Why otherwise do Frodo and Gollum start to fight ver it so that Frodo also loses a finger?

[JCamilo]

Yes, but so? Sauron is not a concept which cann't be fought. He is a individual who made evil - and he is in fact, corrupted by evil, he was not evil at begining. He is a evil warlord-witch, so something as "fear of dark" and even, he often uses the evil he finds in the person.
Sauron can and was faced physically at first and in LoTR he is not, because Tolkien changes the heroes (Gandalf and Aragorn) places for unusual heroes (Frodo and Sam). The reason why there is not a battle final was not that Sauron could not be fought, more like because it was a destiny of Frodo (Bilbo, but given away) and exactly because he expected one like Gandalf, and his net was too big to get smaller fishes.

[mortalterror]

There's actually an evil character named Grima Wormtongue in TLOTR. Tolkein ought to get kicked in the balls just for how pathetic that name is. He could have taken another second or two and called him Badman Imavillain and it would have been better. "How did Jerry Regicide get to be chief advisor to the king?"

[JCamilo]

Yeah, I can understand using names that are after a guy's trait, not unusual in medieval narratives... But really, as soon as ready that guy name I was "Uh, please tell me he just have odd pets"... and this is funny, considering Tolkien was carefull enough with all namings, I can only suppose that was something that made his kids laugh a lot.

[Lokasenna]

Yeah, I can understand using names that are after a guy's trait, not unusual in medieval narratives... But really, as soon as ready that guy name I was "Uh, please tell me he just have odd pets"... and this is funny, considering Tolkien was carefull enough with all namings, I can only suppose that was something that made his kids laugh a lot.

Grím (from which I'm sure we can derive Gríma) is a common Old Norse male given name. Gríma itself is an Old English and Old Norse word meaning (amongst other things) 'mask' and 'ghost', which seems rather fitting. Quite a few Old Norse poets are described as having an ormstunga - literally a worm's tongue. Probably the most famous in Gunnlaugr Illugason, who even adopts it as his nickname, thus becoming Gunnlaugr Ormstunga. As a nickname, it is supposed to represent their eloquence and linguistic cunning.

I fear we are going rather off-topic. Much as I enjoy discussing the literary merits of Tolkien, this is a debate about snobbery.

[weltanschauung]

well, yes i am.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

I was called snobbish today, because I haven't read Harry Potter nor Twilight...
Are you a literary snob?

No. I long to be, but I doubt it will come to pass.
For example, I am nearly finished with Ian Flemming's "Goldfinger"

My son had read all of Harry Potter. As a family we looked forward to seeing each of the movies with him. I enjoyed the movies, but I haven't read the books.

.

[JCamilo]

Grím (from which I'm sure we can derive Gríma) is a common Old Norse male given name. Gríma itself is an Old English and Old Norse word meaning (amongst other things) 'mask' and 'ghost', which seems rather fitting. Quite a few Old Norse poets are described as having an ormstunga - literally a worm's tongue. Probably the most famous in Gunnlaugr Illugason, who even adopts it as his nickname, thus becoming Gunnlaugr Ormstunga. As a nickname, it is supposed to represent their eloquence and linguistic cunning.

I fear we are going rather off-topic. Much as I enjoy discussing the literary merits of Tolkien, this is a debate about snobbery.

It is irrelevant if the name if fitting or not. It is. But it is like Adolf Hittler changed his name in 1933 to Adolf Iwannaruletheworld, or Adolf Ikilljews. Fitting, but rather not cunning, for a character who was supposed to be sneaking in and manipulating things. Seems like a name that works with young kids, maybe a left over of when Tolkien started to write and it was targeting his sons and kids and latter he was was found of the name and didnt change it. But still a bad name, specially coming from someone who crafted so many names.

[kiki1982]

I was called snobbish today by my hubby. He thinks, and he has mentioned that a few times actually, that I do not read for enjoyment but to impress. If I was reading solely to impress, my friend, I would never finish a book. For the people ho kno hat I am rederring to: I would be like Father Ted Crilly trying to look smart by getting books, not reading them... ;) He said, 'Oh, but I never hear you laugh or see you smile.' I said, 'But if there isn't anything to laugh about or nothing to smile about, what do I have to do then?'

Really, I just think he's jealous and is a bit sad that he cannot pluck up the courage to start on a classic or something, but it may be that I read too much into it because I read too much :p

[oshima]

While I make a conscious choice to generally only read works that are of a higher caliber, I'm not above enjoying a Steven King or JKR novel. I also understand that while I read literature (or rather, read, period) because I am interested in expanding my understanding of language, narrative, history, and human cognition, it would be silly to expect most people to be interested in and/or have the time to pursue those works that often require considerable extra mental effort and time to grasp.

[Scoggy]

Please define "Literary Snob." It seems that the only requirement here is that one choose not to read Twilight or Harry Potter. That can't be right...

[Emmy Castrol]

If I was reading solely to impress, my friend, I would never finish a book.

I know someone who reads to impress and she does finish the books she reads but she never seems to understand what she just read (kiki, you seem to understand what you read though). It's as if she reads just so people can see her reading. She would read Twilight and Dumas but to her, they are both as well written as each other (and I suspect she prefers Twilight). When I first knew her I didn't know yet how pretentious she was and I gave her a good reading list - now I regret it because she's probably going through the list and reading them for the sole reason to impress.

When I say impress, this is not necessarily to impress 'others'. I think deep down she hates herself and so she's created an image of herself of who she would prefer to be. This ideal of herself is well-read and cultured, so she reads to impress her ideal self.

[Drkshadow03]

I know someone who reads to impress and she does finish the books she reads but she never seems to understand what she just read (kiki, you seem to understand what you read though). It's as if she reads just so people can see her reading. She would read Twilight and Dumas but to her, they are both as well written as each other (and I suspect she prefers Twilight). When I first knew her I didn't know yet how pretentious she was and I gave her a good reading list - now I regret it because she's probably going through the list and reading them for the sole reason to impress.

When I say impress, this is not necessarily to impress 'others'. I think deep down she hates herself and so she's created an image of herself of who she would prefer to be. This ideal of herself is well-read and cultured, so she reads to impress her ideal self.

Sounds like Mr Bast (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/booklist-2011-6-howards-end-by-e-m-forster/) from Howard's End.

[kiki1982]

I know someone who reads to impress and she does finish the books she reads but she never seems to understand what she just read (kiki, you seem to understand what you read though). It's as if she reads just so people can see her reading. She would read Twilight and Dumas but to her, they are both as well written as each other (and I suspect she prefers Twilight). When I first knew her I didn't know yet how pretentious she was and I gave her a good reading list - now I regret it because she's probably going through the list and reading them for the sole reason to impress.

When I say impress, this is not necessarily to impress 'others'. I think deep down she hates herself and so she's created an image of herself of who she would prefer to be. This ideal of herself is well-read and cultured, so she reads to impress her ideal self.

Oh, that's a bit... boring for her isn't it? But see it like this: maybe one time she'll really get to the stage where she does not prefer Twilight any longer, but rather the rest and maybe the light will shine on her and she'll get what the writer is saying.

Man, if I am reading something I do not like, I will just not finish it at all, never in my life in fact. That's why I rather finish it anyway on the rare occasions that I do not like that particular book, than leave it. I will always wonder what I am missing. I actually did plod through Waverley, which I did not really enjoy - a bit too The Sorrows of Young Werther in naïvety, which does not get credit with me... I can understand why it was such a best seller in its day, and Scott had a few brilliant moments of prose, but it wasn't for me, though I like Scott. Had Waverley been the very first Scott, I would never have touched him again, but fortunately that first timer was Ivanhoe. :)

That said though, there are many very exciting ones that should at least give as much pleasure as Twilight and probably even more. Isn't there a list somewhere of books about the super-natural, like Dracula and such?

And, you could help her by trying to discuss one of her books, or does she reject that altogether?

[edit] Oh, and thank you for that nice compliment! :)

[mal4mac]

While I make a conscious choice to generally only read works that are of a higher caliber, I'm not above enjoying a Steven King or JKR novel...

Dickens is just as easy to read as King or JKR, at least for reasonably literate adults. There are many other classic authors who are just as easy to read. Reading should enrich mind or spirit or personality, not *just* be "fun" or an "escape". But with writers like Dickens, Tolstoy, Austen... and many others... you can have a fun read that is also enriching...

"Twilight author Stephenie Meyer 'can't write worth a darn', says Stephen King" http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/feb/05/stephenking-fiction

Is Stephen King a literary snob? :)

[missmeadowsweet]

I never thought of it like this, that prefereing good literature is possibly being a literary snob. I suppose it could be called that, but I agree with others who have said that balking at a lot of today's popular reading and prefering classics or truly well-written literature merely shows that one has good taste in reading; aka, one has read enough and cultivated one's mind enough to prefer what is truly worth reading. It's literature that will enrich your mind and not merely provide the kind of satisfaction one wants or the escape one needs.

I have read the first two Harry Potter books and the first Twilight book and I don't think they're horrible, but they are certainly not good literature, especially Twilight. They're interesting, exciting, and appealing, perhaps, but definitely not good literature, and I don't know how that case could be seriously argued. They have a certain value as the type of books they are, but no more than that. Anyway, that's my opinion.

[Drkshadow03]

They're interesting, exciting, and appealing, perhaps, but definitely not good literature, and I don't know how that case could be seriously argued.

http://ofblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/reflections-upon-harry-potter.html and here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=760860&postcount=200).

[Reichmann]

Don't you realize you are a snob when you never read anything on the Best Seller list?

[Aurora]

I read whatever I like! Regardless of whether it's in the 'Canon' or not. I'll make my own judgement of a book, everyone's different and it's a shame to miss out on something just because it doesn't have a brilliant reputation. Hardly anybody saw John Keats as a literary great in his day.

Also, I very much enjoyed Harry Potter when I was younger

[Babak Movahed]

hahahahahahahaha!

That doesn't make you a literature snob... it just makes them childish!

Funny story though