|
My issue with Dan Brown certainly has a lot more to do with his incredibly simplistic (almost insultingly so) style, same with Stephanie Meyer. I get no enjoyment from that kind of writing. A bad story can hold my attention with amazing writing and a good story can be completely destroyed for me by poor writing. I don't remember liking anything about The Da Vinci Code's story but, like I said, the writing completely ruined it for me.
I think the point of Hazlitt's statement was that people should seek out literature and books that challenge them. You're probably not going to know for sure whether a book holds any value for you unless you read it yourself but you should allow yourself to recognize poor writing vs good writing. I think that's an important skill and that's the point the article was making. If we're more likely to imitate what we write, we should want to read higher quality literature. This has nothing to do with the types of stories a person enjoys but rather the actual writing itself. You won't find me knocking leisure reading because, hell, who in this community doesn't love that? But there should be a line. And why can't more challenging fiction be enjoyable? Shouldn't we strive to teach ourselves to enjoy higher forms of writing? I hate this "just read what you enjoy" catchphrase. Not because you shouldn't enjoy what you read but because it seems to imply this sort of literature hedonism. I think literacy is only a value as long as you allow the skill to mature. There's a reason kids are forced to read certain books in school. It's hoped that they'll be able to recognize good writing and that they'll eventually have an appreciation for it (I think schools mostly do a terrible job at this but that's a different debate). If kids were never forced to eat their veggies when they were young, they would probably grow up with very poor eating habits. I'm sure there are some kids who just love classic lit or broccoli without being forced to do anything (personally, Edgar Allen Poe has been my favorite author since 5th grade and it wasn't anything I was forced to read).
When I say I'm a bit of a lit-snob (and not too much--I did enjoy Harry Potter, much to Harold Bloom's dismay, I'm sure) I only mean that I demand more of myself. It is my opinion that everyone should challenge themselves consistently (not constantly) but I also recognize that people find value in different things. I don't "look down my nose" at anyone for having different reading habits than I. That's just immature. And frankly, I doubt Hazlitt did either. Libertarians are, after all, known for their hands-off, do-what-you-want philosophy (with the caveat being don't infringe on another's right to life, liberty, or property). I don't think there's any need for righteous indignation at comments like these. I have multiple friends who love the Twilight series. They tell me straight up that they know Stephanie Meyer is a bad writer but they like her stories all the same. This totally rubs me the wrong way but I respect that. I didn't say, "Piss off, we can't be friends anymore."
The point being made here is not that there is only one right way to read or that you should only read what the author says is good. He didn't say what is good (at least, nothing mentioned in the article). But if a reader just completely refuses to improve his reading skills or increase his wealth of knowledge through a wide array of literature (like someone who ONLY reads romance novels or ONLY reads fantasy), then there may be room for some appropriate criticism.
|