Thread: What is the "literary spectrum"?

Please don't think I am being elitist or trying to create any prejudice in reading (because I hate literary snobishness), but I know there is a "ranking" in literature. For example, someone might consider Stephanie Meyers books to be low down on the list of great literature, whereas the Bronte's might be high on the list.

How much snobbery is there? Also has anyone noticed that Science Fiction seems to suffer when it comes to literature? It seems books of that Genre are overlooked by critics, and I think that is unfair, some of the best books in history have been SF.

I always assumed the snobbery came from professors of English Literature - people who claim to have authority in the world of writing but who never had to make a living by writing and selling books. You know what they say about professors - those who can, do; those who can't, teach. I get the sense that some agents got into the publishing business because they wanted to help produce the next great work of literature, and they resent having to produce commercial fiction instead. Literary critics are the same way. They really want to critique literature, and they resent having to do commercial fiction for a living. It probably starts in school where we all get our first exposure to reading. English teachers at both high school and college level have become so divorced from the real world that the rest of us live in. Business leaders complain about the college graduates they hire who can't write a basic business memo because they were taught to write in a literary style with flowery language. Too many people come out of school believing what their teachers told them about all reading and writing being high art. Too few people realize that most people are not interested in high art. Commercial fiction, by definition, sells because that is what people want to read. Literature as high art, not so much. But people working in the book world probably got there because they love the literature they read in school. JMHO C.M.

It's an interesting topic.

As a lover of reading, I'll try any book. I soldiered through the first two of Meyer's Twilight series because I was told they were brilliant. A lot of the so-called classics are, for me, boring. The writing may be brilliant, but nothing really happens. At least there's a story -- albeit it a poor one -- in Twilight. That doesn't mean it could stand against Jane Eyre or Ulysses in the mind of English professors, but isn't it saying something when people would prefer to read Meyer over Bronte or Joyce? It tells me they aren't interested in reading aesthetic prose. They want a story.

That's where I agree fully with what C.M. has said above. The average reader on the street does not look for books which are written with beautiful prose. If you take a copy of Ulysses and Harry Potter onto the streets and gave people the choice of which one they would like to read, 90% would pick the latter. Most readers want a story which will grip them, and all but the most dedicated reader or lover of language will turn their nose up at prose littered with words above their level.

A good story, told simply and directly, will sell. As I've said many times, most readers don't care about the writing. They read a book for the story. That's why people like Stepenie Meyer and Dan Brown are millionaires. They write stories people want, and will pay, to read.

Snobbery is endemic to society, if it's not books it's it is Air Jordans, if it's not them it is my Porsche your Ford, my Apple your Acer. I have a fantasy where some snob says to me:

"Do you know who my father is?"

To which I hope for the opportunity to reply:

"Try asking your mother, she might have been sober that night..."

Well I'll just say at the outset that I'm probably somewhat of an elitist when it comes to literature, and to be honest that doesn't bother me so much. Some books are worth my time and some are not. I started pretty late, both as a serious reader and writer -- beginning in my thirties -- and the way I see it I only have a limited amount of time here and I don't want to waste my time reading garbage. Also, since I am trying to improve as a writer, I worry that if I fill my head with some of this nonsense it will eventually affect the quality of my work. A you-are-what-you-read sort of thing.

How do I know what is garbage without actually reading it? Reviews from other people mostly. I'll give the popular stuff twenty or so pages to grab me. After that I'm out. Recently I asked a friend to borrow a copy of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo to see what the hype was all about, and the beginning just seemed like it was so loaded down with exposition. Even some of the character dialogue seemed like thinly disguised exposition. Compare that to All the Pretty Horses, which I was reading at the same time (and still am), and the difference in quality is readily apparent. Immediate scenes, fresh and vivid use of language, interesting characters.

Originally Posted by Sam W

It's an interesting topic.

As a lover of reading, I'll try any book. I soldiered through the first two of Meyer's Twilight series because I was told they were brilliant. A lot of the so-called classics are, for me, boring. The writing may be brilliant, but nothing really happens. At least there's a story -- albeit it a poor one -- in Twilight. That doesn't mean it could stand against Jane Eyre or Ulysses in the mind of English professors, but isn't it saying something when people would prefer to read Meyer over Bronte or Joyce? It tells me they aren't interested in reading aesthetic prose. They want a story.

It certainly is. It says that most people are idiots; something which has been known for a very long time, by what is apparently a very small amount of people. It is also why we have a somewhat decided, albeit varying time period in which things have been deemed 'classic'. That is, anything after it, is, and will continue to be at what is an astonishingly increasing rate-- shit.

Being an elitist isn't a bad thing. Anyone who is convinced that it is needs to re-evaluate their opinion.

Thanks for your great replies. I think CM Aron says what I was thinking, that the snobbery came from acedemia. At school we were forced to read certain choice books, and although they are well written they are often of another time which is hard for youngsters to relate to.

The reason I started this discussion is because over the last year I have been reading some varied books. Recently I finished one that was a spooky pshycological story, it was a fine story but I thought it was terribly written and wondered if this is done on purpose because they want the less read people to read again. I also read some old classics and am currently a third of the way through Hardy's Tess of the Durbervilles, and I can appreciate its style. I have also read some kids books and I also forced myself through the first three Twilight books. On the whole I can appreciate the older classics but I think the snobbery is redundant in our day and age because writing has changed so much since then. The Stephanie Meyer books to me were silly, although I can understand why teenage girls might love them.

Originally Posted by johnM

Well I'll just say at the outset that I'm probably somewhat of an elitist when it comes to literature, and to be honest that doesn't bother me so much. Some books are worth my time and some are not. I started pretty late, both as a serious reader and writer -- beginning in my thirties -- and the way I see it I only have a limited amount of time here and I don't want to waste my time reading garbage. Also, since I am trying to improve as a writer, I worry that if I fill my head with some of this nonsense it will eventually affect the quality of my work. A you-are-what-you-read sort of thing.

How do I know what is garbage without actually reading it? Reviews from other people mostly. I'll give the popular stuff twenty or so pages to grab me. After that I'm out. .

I have thought that too but have noticed that it is only those books that leave an impression that inspire me or comes through in my writing. So if I do read something rubbish I tend not to worry because it is forgotton as soon as it is put down.

I also give books about 20 pages or so before I make my mind up whether to read on.

Originally Posted by philistine

It certainly is. It says that most people are idiots; something which has been known for a very long time, by what is apparently a very small amount of people. It is also why we have a somewhat decided, albeit varying time period in which things have been deemed 'classic'. That is, anything after it, is, and will continue to be at what is an astonishingly increasing rate-- shit.

Being an elitist isn't a bad thing. Anyone who is convinced that it is needs to re-evaluate their opinion.

That is very true. The masses have been dumbed down so much over the last 30 or so years, and the majority seem to go there willingly, without even noticing.

Originally Posted by Sam W

As a lover of reading, I'll try any book. I soldiered through the first two of Meyer's Twilight series because I was told they were brilliant.

I read them because I saw they were selling well. I found the first book ok and understood why it was a hit. But the next two I couldn't appreciate at all. I saw a film in the 1980's called Graveyard Shift about a married woman who argues with her husband, goes out one night and meets a vampire. They fall in love and he manages to turn her into a vampire before the end of the film. It is quite clear Meyer and the publishers are milking the Bella/Edward story.

Originally Posted by philistine

It certainly is. It says that most people are idiots; something which has been known for a very long time, by what is apparently a very small amount of people. It is also why we have a somewhat decided, albeit varying time period in which things have been deemed 'classic'. That is, anything after it, is, and will continue to be at what is an astonishingly increasing rate-- shit.

Being an elitist isn't a bad thing. Anyone who is convinced that it is needs to re-evaluate their opinion.

Originally Posted by Robdemanc

That is very true. The masses have been dumbed down so much over the last 30 or so years, and the majority seem to go there willingly, without even noticing.

It's incontrovertible that, relatively speaking, most people aren't intelligent, because by definition they couldn't be. However, I'm afraid that I must pronounce the idea of 'dumbing down' as drivel.

Classic works are deemed 'classic' because they age well; they retain their relevance and meaning over time and so are worth keeping around. Books do not automatically gain 'Classic' status merely by being old, otherwise we'd have endless halls of Classic Literature, instead of the relatively small and yet still enormous collection that we do. The idea that all works written before a certain time are intrinsically better written and somehow more meaningful is ridiculous, especially after considering that a factor in deciding literature's worth is the reader's ability to relate to it.
People haven't been dumbed down; in fact, the generations alive today are the most intelligent in history. The only things that have changed appreciably are language and technology, and technology has only freed people (blogs, social networking and the like). The perceived decline in language is little more than an irrational attachment to a form of English which is no longer spoken and the idea that it is 'better' or more 'proper English', which again, is ridiculous. Language inevitably evolves to suit the needs of society, and so deeming that inevitable change as a slump in people's state of mind is only going to impede you.

Now, concerning the topic, I'd say that there definitely is snobbery, chiefly because I fight it every day. Whenever I pick up a Stephen King, despite the fact that I know that the story will be expertly crafted and written, and that I'll have a ball reading it, there's always a tiny voice in the back of my head which tells me to hide it from fellow shoppers. Additionally, finishing something supposedly 'great' never ceases to give me a little smile, smug and disgusting.
Perhaps one day I'll be able to cure myself of it. I suspect not.

As a Texan, I remember Larry McMurtry's essay many years ago where he attempted to tear down Texas writing icons like J. Frank Dobie. I saw it, and still see it as literary snobbery. A lot of "Texas" writers have become defensive, although overall I think the overall quality if writing here has improved considerably.

I still like Dobie, but have a hard time with McMurtry. I guess is if that makes me one of the great unwashed ignorant masses, so be it.

Doghouse Reilly

Originally Posted by felix

It's incontrovertible that, relatively speaking, most people aren't intelligent, because by definition they couldn't be. However, I'm afraid that I must pronounce the idea of 'dumbing down' as drivel.
.

When I say dumbing down I mean in a general sense, not specific to literature. Technology allows it to happen, calculators remove the need for mental arithmatic, film and television remove the need to read a story.....from listening to senior people it sounds like they had to use their heads to entertain themselves, now people only have to switch on a box or place a disc in a drawer. Maybe it is a case of pros and cons, because computer games can be quite challenging to the brain (if you buy the right ones).

I think intelligence is a human trait, we are all intelligent at certain things. It is difficult to pin down what we mean by it. But education is something different, and I think the general education of people is going down hill.

In a general sense or not, people aren't dumbing down. The fact that calculators have rendered extensive skills in mental arithmetic obsolete and the fact that people now have access the creative output of the world in different and new medias by no means indicates a decrease in people's intelligence. Yes, children today can't rival their grandparent's addition skills, for a good reason; they have no need for a skill like that. Yes, people now sit in front of the television/computer/stereo and watch or listen to music, TV or film, which is only an improvement. The idea that those alive several generations ago were better off because, aside from theatre and novels, they had to sit in a chair and attempt to entertain themselves in a silent room every day is drivel.
Every successive generation believes that it's living at the edge of a golden era, and elderly people alive today are no different. You'll feel that way, and so will I, but I'm it's just a failing of human beings.

Originally Posted by felix

Whenever I pick up a Stephen King, despite the fact that I know that the story will be expertly crafted and written, and that I'll have a ball reading it, there's always a tiny voice in the back of my head which tells me to hide it from fellow shoppers.

What's embarassing about reading Stephen King?