The Ugly Truth - Reading Snobs

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by voracious71

Teen girls who like Twilight don't bother me so much, it's the grown women who squeal over it that worry me.:

I don't actually mind the squealing no matter what age as long as it's not 1ft from my ear with enough decibels to wake up the undead.

I'm prone to a bit of squealing myself but my squeals tend to be quiet whimpers of delight usually brought on by seeing a box from Amazon or Newegg sitting on my doorstep.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

If the earth were about to be hit by an asteroid, and all of mankind's achievements were to be wiped out, whose books would you send into the galaxy, Poe's or King's?

Conan Doyle, E.R. Burroughs, and Doc Smith.
They are a better reflection of real people and their interests.

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

My step-mother-in-law said, when she first met me, that if I didn't read so much (and wore makeup, and dressed differently, and....) I'd be a perfectly delightful person.

As you can tell, we were not close.

Your step-mother-in-law sounds an awful lot like my mother-in-law! I just let whatever she says go in one ear and out the other.

I always excuse myself to read in my husband's old bedroom whenever I am there for any longish stretch of time. I'm sure it drives her crazy

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Latinandgreek

Your step-mother-in-law sounds an awful lot like my mother-in-law! I just let whatever she says go in one ear and out the other.

I always excuse myself to read in my husband's old bedroom whenever I am there for any longish stretch of time. I'm sure it drives her crazy

Don't get me started on mine. We've come a long way in our relationship but when she's in a mood just get away. She doesn't cares who she hurts. When she's happy she can be alot of fun but her moods change at a drop of a hat.

She doesn't mine me reading romance but Harry Potter now I get a earful on how evil that is...

[barutanseijin]

I'm more of a non-fiction reader (particularly in the genres of sociology, philosophy, & economics). C Wright Mills is beach reading for me. When i do read fiction, it tends to be stuff like Gaddis or Faulkner, Woolf, Pynchon or Proust. This brings scorn from people who don't like that sort of thing. My brother for instance, who has a degree in English. Or a crazy bookseller in Milwaukee who went into an endless rant about the Horrors of Literary Fiction when i confessed to not reading much genre fiction.

Yes folks, reverse snobbism is real.

[Latinandgreek]

I've heard a lot of negative comments about my reading over the years. Most of these negative comments were of the "reading so much will make you crazy" followed by a silly anecdote and "grow up, when you get married you won't have time to read because you will have to deal with real life". I've been married for years and I have always made time to read every day - I even got my husband reading! These sorts of comments don't bother me in the least, and I will generally not hesitate to make a snappy remark in return.

I read a very large variety of things - I do a lot of academic reading (mostly related to linguistics or classics), but where fiction is concerned I read and enjoy anything from Homer in the original greek to the latest YA fiction and children's books. As far as genre reading is concerned I prefer fantasy and sci-fi over other genres, which does not mean that I won't read other genre fiction as well. I feel that everyone has the right to read what they enjoy without judgement, and without having to justify themselves and their choice in reading material.

The snobby remarks that I've received about my reading material have pretty much exclusively come from friends who are also graduate students. NONE of these people are big readers (the three book snobs that come to mind are actually quite close friends of mine and have been for years, and we are all well aware of one another's reading habits), reading perhaps one or two novels a year (always very 'serious' novels, and they later tell me that they just don't know what to read anymore...), the rest of their reading consisting of books that are either required readings for a course or are needed for their theses. I always tell them to loosen up, and that they should read something fun once in a while, something that you wouldn't normally find in their book repertoire. It really does wonders for me in times of stress to pick up something lighthearted and enjoy a good read under the blankets.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by barutanseijin

When i do read fiction, it tends to be stuff like Gaddis or Faulkner, Woolf, Pynchon or Proust. This brings scorn from people who don't like that sort of thing.

This brings scorn from "some" people who don't like that sort of thing. I'm sure there's plenty of people who don't like that sort of thing who just don't really care that you do. There is no real Literary vs Genre here; there's only cool people who are perfectly accepting of the fact that other people may like some things they themselves do not... and then there's all the rest of the people who all suck.

[barutanseijin]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

This brings scorn from "some" people who don't like that sort of thing. I'm sure there's plenty of people who don't like that sort of thing who just don't really care that you do. There is no real Literary vs Genre here; there's only cool people who are perfectly accepting of the fact that other people may like some things they themselves do not... and then there's all the rest of the people who all suck.

You're right about the cool vs. non-cool and the imprecision in my language. But you go talk to my brother! Mostly he's giving me a hard time, but somewhere deep down, i think there really is a genre vs. literary fiction issue for him.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by barutanseijin

You're right about the cool vs. non-cool and the imprecision in my language. But you go talk to my brother! Mostly he's giving me a hard time, but somewhere deep down, i think there really is a genre vs. literary fiction issue for him.

Just tell him litfic is just another genre with its own little fomula.
Then watch his blood pressure spike.

[Xanthe]

"Why are you wasting your eyes on those trashy novels?"

How many of us have heard that in our lives?

Well, hell, I wore out my eyes, got new lens implants and I'm good to go again. Thank you, doctors and scientists who were inspired by the science fiction books they read as kids.

[Fat Abe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Great writing doesn't always make great reading.

LITERARY POLICE WARNING: Vee haf ways of making you read great literature.

1. Great writing + Compelling Plot = Great Book

2. Great writing + Dull Plot = Strong Candidate for an English Course

3. Poor writing + Interesting Plot = Average bestseller

4. Poor writing + Indifferent Plot = Non-seller

Admittedly, not many books make it into category #1. Between the next two categories (#2 and #3), the choice is difficult. Purists would rank #2 as more important than #3.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Just tell him litfic is just another genre with its own little formula.
Then watch his blood pressure spike.

That's not necessarily true. A thousand years of fiction (starting with Lady Murasaki) can't be said to fall into a single genre or formula even when it was considered popular fiction in its own time. If you use the term genre fiction in the broadest sense (i.e., mode), many works of literary fiction do fall into different genres, but just as many don't fall into any genre which has been defined so far.

Chip Delany once called literary fiction "the tyranny of the subject," but to do so, he had to jump from plot and setting conventions (which normally define genres) to aspect emphasis, which is a fairly broad leap.

I would argue that mere subject matter should never be used as a way to dismiss any novel apart from the actual writing.

I'm not a fan of the western genre (I like Cormac McCarthy, but I can't read a page of Zane Grey), but I have no problem with the idea of a genre western being rediscovered as a great literary work. If that happened a few more times, you'd see professors poring over reams of moldering paperbacks and writing volumes about coded content. And if I happened to stumble onto a western I felt was great, I'd praise it to anyone who cared to listen.

Even so-called genre fiction, when allowed to develop freely, isn't always plot-driven and probably shouldn't be labeled according to subject or setting. Anathem manages to do everything, but certain science fiction novels from the '60s and '70s don't foreground plot at all. The Ticket That Exploded is an obvious example (also for its parody of different genres), but so is Dhalgren. Meanwhile, Cosmicomics and T Zero by Calvino are more obviously plotted than certain SF classics. Ditto for the Ficciones of Borges vs. the detective stories of certain acknowledged practitioners.

I'm also waiting to see meta-genre acknowledged as a kind of genre -- one which often suffers when jumping modes becomes as arbitrary as switching channels, and the direction and concision of the narrative suffer as a result.

A more broad definition might be that literary fiction is fiction which has been deemed to be meritorious. Rather than calling literary fiction a genre, I'd say that genre is often an arbitrary idea.

Genre is frequently used as a kind of lens which brings its own history of usage and conventions. Modern fiction may use different lenses so freely that it can't be said to adhere to an independent genre. Paranormal romance (as self-defined) is a spliced genre, but a book by Robert Coover can be like a theme and variations with a different genre informing every chapter. People call that literary because they don't know what else to call it.

Genres tend to be defined by common characteristics in plot and setting. Certain kinds of literary fiction can be said to have traits in common, but the overriding traits are ones of emphasis, not plot. Better to say that certain readers of so-called literary fiction, like those who read genre fiction, might have their own forms of self-definition and conceptual confinement.

Russian futurist writings often have several traits in common, but I don't think one can accurately refer to a Russian futurist genre.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

I don't actually mind the squealing no matter what age as long as it's not 1ft from my ear with enough decibels to wake up the undead.

I'm prone to a bit of squealing myself but my squeals tend to be quiet whimpers of delight usually brought on by seeing a box from Amazon or Newegg sitting on my doorstep.

This happened to me a few years ago:

I went into a B&N late one evening. I noticed that the store had an unusually large number of people but didn't think too much about it. It should have been near closing, but the store wasn't closing.

I was browsing the shelves when my heart and lungs were clamped with fear. I heard giggling. I heard squealing. I scanned the store. Gangs of young teen girls were running wild. (I think it was a special event for a Twilight release.) I heard conversations about various characters being sooo cute.

Fortunately, I had not yet become a cripple and was able to escape with my life. I was not, however, able to escape the soul-searing dread which haunts me to this moment. Meeting Cthulhu would have been much more pleasant.

[Kirtai]

I've never been particularly bothered by other peoples opinions of my reading.

Though if you want to see real snobbery, try reading comic books in public.

[Pulpmeister]

Literary snobbery has been around for a long time, and will be around a lot longer.

One reason is that there is no objective measure of greatness in literature. All the usual criteria are subjective. (Which is why literary awards are not infallible guides to literary greatness.)

My own view is there is an objective measure of literary greatness--possibly more than one.

The first one, the main measure, is sustained popularity with the reading public over a very long time. By the reading public I mean people who read the books for pleasure, not because it's their job (literary academics) or because they have to (English lit students).

A second, possibly less important, measure, is the impact upon the public outside the circle of readers.

Nobody for a moment would claim that the Sherlock Holmes stories exhibit any of the characteristics much beloved of literary snobs--BUT the books still sell, are still read, and the impact has been great. Millions who have never read a word of Conan Doyle know what you mean when you say Sherlock Holmes.

The Sherlock Holmes stories, taken together, I would argue, are proven "great". (I'm not a particular fan myself, but I'm being objective here.) But Conan Doyle would never get a literary award from literary snobs, not even posthumously.

If anyone has the energy, they can compile a long list of books which sell to a keen and appreciative public year in year out, long after their authors have died. Many show no signs of fading away.

One author who gives one furiously to think is the best-selling author of all time: Agatha Christie. It is not far off 100 years since her first novel appeared; all her books are still in print and selling in vast numbers. And it's no good saying, "but look at those TV series; free advertising"; the TV series arose because the books were so enormously popular. Heaven only knows the current sales figures--I've heard over one BILLION copies. Divide by 80, and you get an average of (counting on my fingers and toes here) something like 12 million plus copies EACH.

There has to be some sort of greatness in those books (well, not all of them I agree--Elephants Can remember--aaaargh!) to sustain that level of interest for such a very long period). She made her name as long ago as 1927 with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.

If, when Agatha's books finally enter the public domain 70 years after her death, they are still selling in outrageous numbers, it could be very hard to deny that she is a great writer.

Literary snobs will of course have no trouble denying it.