Does anyone want to be "well-read?"

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by Anke Wehner

What really gets on my nerves is the attitude of "if you don't like this book, you are just too stupid to get it". Because the opinions of critics and scholars are absolute truths, and someone who doesn't agree with their tastes is defective, apparently.

Not too stupid to get it, but maybe not well-read enough to do so. I already explained there are different layers in good literature that you won't grasp without any knowledge. This can be philophical ideas not entirely spread out but only hinted to or puns about other books, many things are possibly hidden in a seemingly dull book. The more you read the more you recognize.

And scholars and critics have read all those ancient texts we are to lazy to bother with. So for them getting these undercurrents is normal and perhaps they do assume anyone else will see it, too. But this is not claiming absolute truth it is maybe just a little lack of phantasy.

I am sure none of you has shunned the youth classics like Treasure Island or The Count of MonteChristo, but am bold enough to bet you loved them as a kid.

So why do you bash the other classics? Do you really think they can't be equally captivating?

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by faithbw

+1

Me too! It's such an elitist attitude and yet people who think this way will become very angry if you point this out. We tend to treat literary critics' opinions as being 100% completely objective truths that we must never, ever disagree with.

If you think literary snobs are bad, then whooboy, you need to get a load of music snobs. Especially opera snobs.

There was a book snob here at MR who thought her opinions are the only correct opinions. Nobody cared.

[PG4003]

I used to work with a guy who always made fun of the books I read. He used to tell me I was going to turn my mind to mush from reading Stephen King's books. Oh well, to each his own. He told me Shogun was the best book he'd ever read, I bought a copy and could not get into it.

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by PG4003

I used to work with a guy who always made fun of the books I read. He used to tell me I was going to turn my mind to mush from reading Stephen King's books. Oh well, to each his own. He told me Shogun was the best book he'd ever read, I bought a copy and could not get into it.

That is a bonus of using ereaders because no one can see a book cover, whether it be a bosom-heaver or technical manual.

BTW ... King vs Michenor? That was his acceptable pop culture? Pot calling kettleblack?

[bZkindle]

Originally Posted by faithbw

+1

Me too! It's such an elitist attitude and yet people who think this way will become very angry if you point this out. We tend to treat literary critics' opinions as being 100% completely objective truths that we must never, ever disagree with.

You're entitled to your own taste.
That however, does not make a classic any less of a classic.
I have my own taste and there are plenty of classics that I don't like but I still recognize them as classics and see their literary value.

[elcreative]

Rather King vs Clavell... but your point still valid...

Originally Posted by DixieGal

That is a bonus of using ereaders because no one can see a book cover, whether it be a bosom-heaver or technical manual.

BTW ... King vs Michenor? That was his acceptable pop culture? Pot calling kettleblack?

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by bZkindle

You're entitled to your own taste.
That however, does not make a classic any less of a classic.
I have my own taste and there are plenty of classics that I don't like but I still recognize them as classics and see their literary value.

Amen to that! I despise Victorian literature, but lovemodern poetry and things Elizabethan or older. Whenever I say that Jane Austen bores me senseless and all of her stories are just alike, I am burned in effigy. Just watch, in only a few posts, someone will invariably call me a Philistine.

[elcreative]

No, you're OK there... you come from Birmingham Alabama and I'm pretty sure that isn't in the Middle East where the Philistines come from...

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Amen to that! I despise Victorian literature, but lovemodern poetry and things Elizabethan or older. Whenever I say that Jane Austen bores me senseless and all of her stories are just alike, I am burned in effigy. Just watch, in only a few posts, someone will invariably call me a Philistine.

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by elcreative

No, you're OK there... you come from Birmingham Alabama and I'm pretty sure that isn't in the Middle East where the Philistines come from...

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Anke Wehner

What really gets on my nerves is the attitude of "if you don't like this book, you are just too stupid to get it". Because the opinions of critics and scholars are absolute truths, and someone who doesn't agree with their tastes is defective, apparently.

I'll stick to genre-fiction, thanks. I haven't been labelled stupid for disliking one of those yet.

@Sweetpea: Wiktionary says, "a building up, especially in a moral, emotional, or spiritual sense; moral, intellectual, or spiritual improvement; through encouragement and instruction".

+1

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by bZkindle

You're entitled to your own taste.
That however, does not make a classic any less of a classic.
I have my own taste and there are plenty of classics that I don't like but I still recognize them as classics and see their literary value.

Hmm, well in that post you quoted, I wasn't actually referring to the "classics" or contesting their status as "classics" (which brings us back to the issue of what is a classic and whether all classics are intellectually stimulating, etc.). There was another poster who made a good point that "classics" isn't necessarily a genre. The question of what we mean when we even say "classic" literature is an interesting one but it actually doesn't have anything to do with the post your quoted.

I was simply agreeing with the Anke Wehner's opinion that not "getting" or liking a book doesn't necessarily reflect on one's intelligence or even whether a person is "well read" (which should also be defined...although I think ultimately we would all have a hard time defining what that means).

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by elcreative

No, you're OK there... you come from Birmingham Alabama and I'm pretty sure that isn't in the Middle East where the Philistines come from...

[bZkindle]

Originally Posted by faithbw

Hmm, well in that post you quoted, I wasn't actually referring to the "classics" or contesting their status as "classics" (which brings us back to the issue of what is a classic and whether all classics are intellectually stimulating, etc.). There was another poster who made a good point that "classics" isn't necessarily a genre. The question of what we mean when we even say "classic" literature is an interesting one but it actually doesn't have anything to do with the post your quoted.

Right. I see your point and the distinction.
Still, insert 'critics choice' instead of 'classics' and my point still stands.

Originally Posted by faithbw

I was simply agreeing with the Anke Wehner's opinion that not "getting" or liking a book doesn't necessarily reflect on one's intelligence or even whether a person is "well read" (which should also be defined...although I think ultimately we would all have a hard time defining what that means).

Can we all agree that studying the ingredients labels on soup cartons will not make someone 'well read'?

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by faithbw

I was simply agreeing with the Anke Wehner's opinion that not "getting" or liking a book doesn't necessarily reflect on one's intelligence or even whether a person is "well read" (which should also be defined...although I think ultimately we would all have a hard time defining what that means).

Not liking it is a matter of taste. Not getting it is a matter of not being well-read.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by elcreative

No, you're OK there... you come from Birmingham Alabama and I'm pretty sure that isn't in the Middle East where the Philistines come from...

Actually the Philistines came from the Aegean. They invaded the Middle East, but that wasn't where they came from.