Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS
I think the point that is implied by the OP is that every judgment of literary quality is a judgment against some standard. So long as the standard against which a judgment is being made is made explicit there is probably nothing wrong with such judgments.
|
Right on, TGS, and I would go further - the standard is always personal and subjective. And
very seldom made explicit.
I'm reminded of a comment by Liberace, a tv personality of the fifties and sixties, who played a grand piano complete with candelabra, dressed in full evening dress. I thought he was a good pianist, and I liked his choice of music but he was reviled by the critics, possibly because he played the popular semi-classical pieces, and possibly because he was as close to being an open homosexual as one could get in those days. The comment I liked was, after a particularly severe criticism: "I cried all the way to the bank." (It might be someone else's but I associate it with him.)
I'm also reminded (by another post in this thread) of P T Barnum's famous comment, and I thought of the abysmal level that main-line tv has reached nowadays. But Barnum was talking about passive entertainment and I think that reading is so much of an active, intellectual pursuit that perhaps Barnum's thesis doesn't hold to the same extent, and possibly not at all.
And at the other end of the scale, one has the Nobel prize in literature, supposedly the ultimate accolade for an author. The Nobel committee has the incredible talent of choosing authors who, for the most part, at least in recent years, one wouldn't give shelf-room to - so much so that, in the reading circle I belong to, we view the Nobel prize as the kiss of death, and were pleasantly surprised this year to find that they had chosen an author who could tell a tale.
And that's the point I think the OP was trying to make. There's a difference between being an author and being a teller of tales, and personally, I prefer the latter. I don't think you can or should apply "The Chicago Manual of Style" to a book by a teller of tales. I've read some Barbara Cartland with enjoyment. My favourite authors are Jane Austen, the Barbara Cartland of her day, and Marianne Fredriksson, whose books set in biblical times turn biblical heroes into mundane, fumbling mediocrities, and their wives into heroines. I've read some indie novelists who would never find a publisher, and others who should have been able to, in a just world. For me the interesting thing is the story, and a misplaced comma or two, a heavy reliance on clichés and even shaky formatting can't get in the way of a good story.
So how do I stand on the OP's thesis? I agree.