Sick of critics like this!

[Mutie]

I was reading a review of the new Jonathan Franzen novel, and there were all these people boasting in the comments about how they won't read it, and how everyone who reads it is fooling themself and letting the hype from the intellectual elite tell them what to do, and they're the only ones brave enough to stand up to the pressure. The worst part was, they were acting like they were such rebellious heroes for not liking it. As if every single person who likes him is just kidding themselves and reading a book they don't really like to look highbrow, and they're the only ones bold enough to say how it is.

Actually..I would say I have not been pressured ever by people to read an acclaimed book or watch an acclaimed TV show or band, most people I know who like those things are just friendly and enthusiastic. It's the "rebels" trying to bully anyone not to like anything popular I find the most fascist.

[cacian]

which book is this?

[Mutie]

Freedom I mean. New to my hometown not to the world, sorry.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

We see this attitude when it comes to high forms of art in any medium, bet it literature, art, or music. People will insist that people who love something they don't understand do so because it's fashionable or because they want to be apart of that type of intellectual crowd. Now, this of course it can be true from time-to-time, and I've even thought it myself after seeing a much-hyped movie, or reading a much-hyped book.

Most of the time I think these comments come from people who don't understand whatever it is they're vilifying, and want to justify that misunderstanding by putting the blame on those who do.

[Mutie]

My brother loves Virgina Woolf, and I've never managed to get past a few pages of one of her novels he lent me, but I won't accuse him of not liking her. (although I do wonder sometimes. I do think some people like stuff just to look intellectual, but i dont feel like theres any pressure on people to). In fact I think most people aren't bothered what you like, they care more about who you are as a person, so its futile to leave clever books on your shelf for friends to see.

[Seasider]

@ Mutie
Virginia Woolf wrote other things than novels and I think one gets more of a rounded view of her from her letters, diaries and essays. Try A Room of One's Own or Three Guineas

[Heteronym]

There are a lot of those anti-intellectual people around, sadly, who think it's noble to despise any art that involves hard mental work to appreciate it. Just ignore them and stay true to yourself.

[Mutie]

Yeah, I need to check out more of Woolf non fiction.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Woolf may take some getting used to if you are familiar with her style and approach. Especially if you are coming from standard "page turners." She's not every one's cup of tea regardless. You see, do not expect plot with Woolf, the how is far more important than the what. Woolf does requires a lot of patience and investment on behalf of the reader and I think she is brilliant, but even so I wouldn't read her every day. Read Woolf slowly with coffee, either in some quiet coffee shop or home alone.

[cafolini]

Mongers are anywhere. Whatever they don't grasp they declare dangerous to your health. Most are in politics and trying to affect generous policies. When they live in small counties they ignore the laws and try desperately to rule by policy making.

[Drkshadow03]

What exactly were their criticisms? Do you have links?

[Calidore]

I don't see this being much different than the folks who disparage genre writers as purveyors of trash. Check out the Stephen King thread for an example. In both cases, it has nothing to do with quality, just elitism.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't see this being much different than the folks who disparage genre writers as purveyors of trash. Check out the Stephen King thread for an example. In both cases, it has nothing to do with quality, just elitism.

Completely agree. It works both ways.

[Heteronym]

But most genre writers are peddlers of trash. This relativism is part of what informs the anti-intellectualism of people who take pride in not reading difficult readers. Pretending there's no major difference between King and Franzen, it's all just a matter of taste, is an excuse for those who don't want to put the effort into finding the differences.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm curious if Franzen's naysayers were being anti-intellectual or overly intellectual. I've seen at least one literary critic accuse Franzen of being midcult.

[Calidore]

But most genre writers are peddlers of trash.

Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is trash. That does apply to genre fiction, but also to "literature" wannabes and everyone else.


This relativism is part of what informs the anti-intellectualism of people who take pride in not reading difficult readers. Pretending there's no major difference between King and Franzen, it's all just a matter of taste, is an excuse for those who don't want to put the effort into finding the differences.

That's the elitism I was talking about before: Deciding one's taste should be everyone's, and deciding that the reason it isn't is that the stuff one likes is too "difficult" and the rabble aren't up to the challenge, when the truth may be that the rabble simply aren't interested in smug, "satiric," misanthropic fiction about highly dysfunctional people behaving dysfunctionally. The subject and style may appeal to you--that's what art's about, diff'rent strokes--but it's awfully arrogant to turn one's opinion into fact and then use that to raise oneself and those of similar opinion onto a pedestal and look down on those who don't share it.

[Scheherazade]

That's the elitism I was talking about before: Deciding one's taste should be everyone's, and deciding that the reason it isn't is that the stuff one likes is too "difficult" and the rabble aren't up to the challenge, when the truth may be that the rabble simply aren't interested in smug, "satiric," misanthropic fiction about highly dysfunctional people behaving dysfunctionally. The subject and style may appeal to you--that's what art's about, diff'rent strokes--but it's awfully arrogant to turn one's opinion into fact and then use that to raise oneself and those of similar opinion onto a pedestal and look down on those who don't share it.Hear, hear!

[cafolini]

Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is trash. That does apply to genre fiction, but also to "literature" wannabes and everyone else.



That's the elitism I was talking about before: Deciding one's taste should be everyone's, and deciding that the reason it isn't is that the stuff one likes is too "difficult" and the rabble aren't up to the challenge, when the truth may be that the rabble simply aren't interested in smug, "satiric," misanthropic fiction about highly dysfunctional people behaving dysfunctionally. The subject and style may appeal to you--that's what art's about, diff'rent strokes--but it's awfully arrogant to turn one's opinion into fact and then use that to raise oneself and those of similar opinion onto a pedestal and look down on those who don't share it.

Good points. Not much more to say about it.

[Scheherazade]

Good points. Not much more to say about it.Reckon we should close this thread now?

[Mutie]

I'm curious if Franzen's naysayers were being anti-intellectual or overly intellectual. I've seen at least one literary critic accuse Franzen of being midcult.

He seems very humble to me and seems to consider himself midcult. I relate to it because my family is dysfunctional and very similar to what he writes about - I wouldn't expect anyone else to read it especially someone from a healthy family who wouldn't relate (lol).

[AlysonofBathe]

I'm curious if Franzen's naysayers were being anti-intellectual or overly intellectual. I've seen at least one literary critic accuse Franzen of being midcult.

I've seen a lot criticism of Franzen via the intellectual stream of literary criticism. Anyone remember the Franzenfreude debacle - it may have started with Jodi Picoult, but my God did that get ugly fast.

My advice: read what you like, leave the bickering to others.

[Heteronym]

Calidore, literature, which you put in inverted commas, is the 10% good from Sturgeon's Law. Genre books are already in the 90%, as are the literature wannabes, who, by definition, aren't really literature.

I agree taste is for each one to decide; and people are free to prefer mediocre novels to literature. But after several years reading quality and crap novels, I feel confident enough to say there's no matter of subjectivity when it comes to art. Good art is visible from a distance, as is drivel.

[Drkshadow03]

Calidore, literature, which you put in inverted commas, is the 10% good from Sturgeon's Law. Genre books are already in the 90%, as are the literature wannabes, who, by definition, aren't really literature.

I agree taste is for each one to decide; and people are free to prefer mediocre novels to literature. But after several years reading quality and crap novels, I feel confident enough to say there's no matter of subjectivity when it comes to art. Good art is visible from a distance, as is drivel.

Given that Sturgeon was a genre writer I somehow doubt that's how he understood his own law. Most genre writers I know quote that law as well as evidence that ninety percent of literature is crap.

After several years of reading quality and crap novels, plus obtaining an actual bachelors and Masters degrees on the subject, I feel confident enough to say that you're obviously wrong and clearly a certain amount of subjectivity is inherent in the nature of art. If you were in fact correct, we would see every single literature professor, critic, and well-read reader possessing exactly the same tastes and agreeing completing whether an individual work is good literature or not; there should be no deviation or disagreement ever among critics or experts. Since that never seems to happen, ever, we can easily conclude that you're premise is incorrect by a simple observation of reality.

However, the mistake people make is to go to extremes with these positions. People assume it's all subjective (therefore relative) or it's all objective. When, of course, it's really intersubjective; a lot of subjectivities coming in agreement to create a certain objectivity. This allows for variability in views of individuals, even individuals that are good readers, while maintaining a certain objective stature.

[mal4mac]

I read one Franzen novel last year (The Corrections) and didn't find it very intellectual or difficult to read, just boring. I like a lot of different stuff from "Dragons of Pern" to "War and Peace". The Franzen just seemed totally lacking in inventiveness, humour, intellectuality ... just had nothing much of anything (that I like) going for it! You are allowed to differ about what you like, though :)