What a snob!

[dumbledore11214]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen" <alexisnguyen at ...> wrote:
>
> md:
> > can someone post a link that works? This one won't for me.
> 
> Ali:
> Try this:  http://www.good.is/post/the-dan-brown-diversion/
> 
> I don't know if it'll work better, but it's worth the shot.
> 
> Frankly, I think the author has a valid point beneath that thick layer
> of snobbery.  Coverage of the Dan Brown, Stephanie Meyer, JRK, etc.
> books of the world do overshadow the fact that there are tons of great
> books being put out (the author citing Pynchon and Doctorow, both more
> more accessible than the author's ivory tower/liberal arts veneer
> might indicate).  It's not that the Brown/Meyer/etc books aren't
> infinitely readable and accessible pop fiction (I own some of these
> very books; heck, I have an entire over-flowing bookshelf dedicated to
> romance novels) nor that the particular authors seems to have managed
> to capture a giant reading audience in a time when everyone seems to
> be bemoaning the fact that no one reads anymore, but it's hard to deny
> that the coverage of them is at the cost of coverage of other books,
> with names like Doctorow being relatively known without having the big
> fame of a Dan Brown (though Doctorow is certainly a better writer than
> Brown, that hack - and I read and liked Da Vinci Code).  Now, it's not
> necessarily anyone's fault, but it doesn't make Anne Trubek (the
> original article's author) any less valid, pretty much like we don't
> go dismissing all the medical knowledge that came out of the Nazi
> doctors' human experimentation just because said doctors were
> terrible, wretched, horrible human beings (too many adjectives?).
> 
> And just to really cover myself, I do not mean pop fiction in any
> denigrating way.  Both Shakespeare and Dumas, pere, were pop
> phenomenons in their days, and I very much enjoy both their bodies of
> work.  :)


Alla:

Well, what do you think her point actually is? Because if it is just to inform the public that certain books get massive news coverage, I would say sure, she has a point, I would even tell her DOH. 

However it reads to me as if her point is that it is a very **bad** thing simply because **better** more serious books get overlooked and to that I have several things to respond to.

First of all, I think readers will decide which books will stay for ages and which books will not and whatever is called pop culture these days, people leaving several centuries later may call classics.

I mean, okay, she is dismissive of  Brown, Rowling, Meyers, how about exploring in more depth WHY people like these books better than many "serious" ones?

And believe me, just as you are, I read all kinds of genres and books, including serious ones lol, as I mentioned more than once I have a very serious obsession with my beloved russian classics and no, they are not easy books to read, good books, but mass culture is not very fond of them, me thinks.

So I believe I had earned the right to say it - I think critics looking down upon mass culture is well, how to put it? I roll my eyes when they do it.

If you explain to me why you do not like specific book of mass culture, sure I will listen and will probably respect your opinion, may or may not agree with you.

I do not care much for Dan Brown, you know? Liked Da Vinci and all that, but I am not going back to reread it ever, and did not buy Lost symbol (this is the name, right?)


I think Stephenie Meyer tells a good romance story, but I think she is a pretty bad writer.

JKR? Well, I love the books, but again I know her limitations as well, even  though I certainly think she is the strongest one of the three.

But you see my point? People who like these books will not necessarily like all of them and may like one or two for different reasons.

I think they get coverage, because media finds them newsworthy and media finds them newsworthy because readers enjoy them.

Rowling books are commercial empire now, nobody can deny that, but I will never forget that what initially sparked their popularity was the word of the mouth.

If any of the books on the list is that good, I think the word of the mouth should know.

As you said, Shakespeare and Dumas were pop culture in their times and I love them both and I would LOVE to see the critic who would dare to insult Shakespeare now as something not worthy the time of academia. 

And Duma to me is one of the most beloved classics ever.

I am rambling and I am now not sure what my important point here is, but I think it is probably this - I did not like this author's article much, or to be more precise I did not like it at all.

However, Homer and Langley sounds super cool and I am going to go and order it now :)

Alla