Does anyone want to be "well-read?"

[Anke Wehner]

Originally Posted by Poppaea

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

The thing that gives "high literature" a bad taste for me is that I have run into quite a few people who conflate these. They think that if you don't like a classic, you must be too stupid (or ignorant, or otherwise defective) to get it, because if you would get it, you would like it.

Originally Posted by Poppaea

Not too stupid to get it, but maybe not well-read enough to do so.

It is perfectly possible to GET something, but still to dislike it. Have you never heard a joke that you found tasteless or stupid or offensive rather than funny?

Originally Posted by Poppaea

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.

So the more injokes a book has, the better it is?

Originally Posted by Poppaea

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?

I'm saying that there is no objective scale for how good or captivating a book is, because people have different tastes.

Some people love romance. Some people loathe romance. Some people love science fiction. Some people hate science fiction.
Some people think a book that captures the pointlessness of the lives of the new rich in Long Island in the 1920s well is the best thing since sliced bread, some people think that's an utterly boring topic to start with, and lathering on purple prose does not make it better.

I'm put off the whole literature thing by the people who think their taste is an objective measure of how good a book is.

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by bZkindle

There's quite a bit of overlap between books that are 'critically acclaimed' and 'classics', wouldn't you say?
After all, 'classics' are by necessity 'critically acclaimed'.

Again, that wasn't my point and I'm not sure why you're bringing up classics. A book can be critically acclaimed and not be a classic. For instance, a book I mentioned earlier in this thread, Minaret, has been critically acclaimed in Britain and the author, Leila Aboulela, has written critically acclaimed works ranging from short stories to novels. I wouldn't say her works are classics in the sense we're talking about. Maybe they'll become classics but who knows. Also, some works that we consider classics now, weren't critically acclaimed, at least when they were first written. Jane Austen's works didn't become critically acclaimed until long after her death.

It was rhetorical.

Yeah, I got that. It was also insulting and belittling.

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Page 8 of the thread, and the arguments are getting personal and boring. Time to hit the "ignore" button. 'Bye!

Wiser words have never been spoken.

[jedifarfy]

I work at a bookstore and I've probably read NONE of those authors. My school didn't care what we read, so I read sci fi and whatever I wanted. I still read what I want, whether it's teen paranormal or just good science non fiction. Once in awhile I get someone who treats me as though I were dumb when I say I hadn't read Dostoevsky or Hugo, and frankly, I don't care. I find classics boring. I find much of modern fiction sad and boring. I read for fun. I read for enjoyment. I read for enrichment. I don't feel that when I read about death, war, disease, and the lives of those from 100, 200 years ago. If you do like them, great. If you don't, great.

I feel annoyed when people buy giant tomes and demand respect, and yet the people buying romance novels feel they have to hide them. Reading is whatever you want it to be.

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by jedifarfy

I find classics boring. I find much of modern fiction sad and boring. I read for fun. I read for enjoyment. I read for enrichment. I don't feel that when I read about death, war, disease, and the lives of those from 100, 200 years ago. If you do like them, great. If you don't, great.

Yes, it must be utterly enriching ones life to read about werewolves in love. How have I ever managed without this?

I take it you are in the childrens section of the bookshop, as you are obviously not capable to recommend literature in its entirety.

[Freeshadow]

@jed
as it was already pointed out "classics" is far more than Dostoyevsky, Austen, Kafka or Hugo. Far more than a heap of heavily tragical, voluminous folios.
Would you e.g. read some short stories by Poe, you'd find out pretty fast that a lot of the paranormal authors you might like, in fact just go and reinvent the wheel again.

[BenBanned]

Originally Posted by jedifarfy

I feel annoyed when people buy giant tomes and demand respect, and yet the people buying romance novels feel they have to hide them. Reading is whatever you want it to be.

Honestly I think people should feel ashamed of buying (most) romances, it's porn for old ladies.

Throughout highschool I only read the classics with very few exceptions. I must admit though this forum has got me reading lighter material without which I wouldnt enjoy reading as much.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by BenBanned

Honestly I think people should feel ashamed of buying (most) romances, it's porn for old ladies.

[WT Sharpe]

Moderator Notice
Just a friendly reminder that MobileRead is an international, family-friendly, discussion-based community and as such everyone is entitled to share his or her opinion politely and to receive the same in response.

For those who may be unaware, our posting guidelines are located here. Please take a moment to review them and our expectations for posting in our community.

The MobileRead Moderation Team

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

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.

Was it Fraser or Nils?

[bZkindle]

Originally Posted by Poppaea

Yes, it must be utterly enriching ones life to read about werewolves in love. How have I ever managed without this?

As a romance novel loving werewolf myself, I resent that comment!
Mind you, I only read them during full moons; the remainder of the time it's self-help.

[ficbot]

I think the mistake a lot of people make is assuming that literature vs trash reading has to be an either/or proposition. That is, they make judgments about 'people who read romances' (for instance) because they assume that if such people read these books, those are the only books they read. That simply isn't true (at least, in my experience). My mother reads a ton of 'literary' stuff, but also has a fondness for Jodi Picoult and Nora Roberts. She used to buy these pulpy romance novels every year before she went to Florida because they were long enough that she could take only one with her and it would last her the whole week! If you are going into the store with that as your specific shopping criteria, you're going to exclude a lot of stuff you might otherwise read. But buying those books didn't mean she didn't read a lot of more 'edifying' stuff too.

I guess it just baffles me why someone should care what another person reads. I personally hated the Shopaholic books---could barely get past the first chapter of book 1 and finally gave up after 50 pages---but my sister loved them, and judging by how many they sold, many others loved them too. Is this a judgment on my sister as a person? No. Does it mean she is disqualified from reading 'better' stuff now that she has spoiled her mind with this? Of course not. Does it mean she is incapable of reading or enjoying great literature? No again. It just means that she felt like reading those books, she enjoyed them, then she moved on and read something else. Why should anyone else care about that?

[kennyc]

Just ran across this. Thanks for the thread Ben!

Very interesting topic.

[kennyc]

I've tried a number of Saul Bellow works and have never been very impressed. Tell me what you think about The Adventures of Augie March mentioned in the article?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Page 8 of the thread, and the arguments are getting personal and boring. Time to hit the "ignore" button. 'Bye!

And I just got here.