Why Book Criticism and Literary Culture Needs a Poptimist Revolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ken

Banned
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
11,478
Reaction score
6,198
Location
AW. A very nice place!
Critics are cool. They get it wrong in a way, but they also get it right when many fail too. If not for critics many classics we all enjoy would have vanished into obscurity or never made the limelight to begin with. So I give them a pass. Let them be bookish and disinterested and whatnot. They make up for that in being awesome. IMO.
 

Buffysquirrel

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,137
Reaction score
694
Before I get deep into a demarcation dispute between lit crit and sociology, all I'm trying to say is that trying to analyse the phenomenal success of HP and 50 Shades in terms of their literary merit is to miss the point. You might as well try to analyse a sudden playground craze for yoyos on the basis that the yoyo has exceptional toy merit. Come back in fifty years and if HP and 50 Shades are cash cows, then we talk about literary merit.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Before I get deep into a demarcation dispute between lit crit and sociology, all I'm trying to say is that trying to analyse the phenomenal success of HP and 50 Shades in terms of their literary merit is to miss the point. You might as well try to analyse a sudden playground craze for yoyos on the basis that the yoyo has exceptional toy merit. Come back in fifty years and if HP and 50 Shades are cash cows, then we talk about literary merit.

But literary criticism that focuses solely on literary merit is missing the point.

Which is perhaps what this author was trying to say.
 

CrastersBabies

Burninator!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
666
Location
USA
your opinions are yuck, in my opinion... not that you read for entertainment/escapism... that is your choice and as valid as any other. what is yuck is the implicit mindset that literature does not have the potential to be transformative; which is severely narrow-minded regardless of one's motives and experiences...

I didn't read that post as someone ignoring the transformative qualities of any text. Even when I read for enjoyment, I'm absorbing something: sociological, psychological, political, whatever. It may not always be overt, but it's happening beneath the current. Maybe I'm aware, maybe I'm not.

The relationship a reader has with a book is not a one-size-fits-all thing here.

As for literary merit, feh. 50 Shades has a lot to say about our current society, regardless of whether or not someone calls it "literary" and "worthy." One reader's trash is another reader's treasure. Even when it comes to critical theory.

End Note: Looking up "50 Shades of Grey" on my university journal database brings up 43 entries. (Peer-reviewed journals across the U.S. and Canada.) Many are fandom/audience-studies oriented. Not as many feminist theory articles as I expected. A few on fan fiction & participatory culture. A handful of straight-up critical theory pieces.

327 on Harry Potter.

I don't know if this is helpful. Perhaps it's just that people want to see this in "literary criticism?" Or don't think that lit-classes at university are already looking at these? (hint: they are.)
 

RikWriter

Banned
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
356
Reaction score
24
Location
Central Florida
I've never once had my life changed by any book that would be classified as "literature." Have Space Suit---Will Travel" changed my life because it got me interested not just in science fiction but it started me on the road to a scientific outlook on the world.
Yet I doubt any lit crit would consider the Heinlein "juveniles" as literature.
 

BenPanced

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
17,864
Reaction score
4,638
Location
dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
Used to be criticism was A Thing. If you could get yourself set up in a prominent newspaper or magazine, you had it made. If you were an amazing writer, +10 points to you. Critics at one point had influence and could change the fortunes of a movie. Bonnie and Clyde starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway was on its way out the door when it was championed by Judith Crist. Younger audiences flocked to it in droves and it became a legend. People read Roger Ebert just to see how he would destroy a movie he didn't like. Nowadays? Anybody with a DSL connection and free wifi at Starbucks can set up a Blogger page and claim to be a critic. You really can't name any major critics' influence on the success or failure of a movie (or book or play or TV show) these days, especially in the aftermath of David Manning.

Madonna's album Erotica was only certified 2x Platinum, whereas her previous album Like A Prayer was 4x. Erotica was deemed a flop; Madonna replied, "A bomb? By whose standards?" A TV show gets "only" 3 million viewers on its first episode and is canceled by the second. A movie "only" reaches #5 on the Top 10 box office grosses for the week and is hailed as a mistake. Nowadays, it doesn't matter who says what; if the right people don't make the right amount of money, something's wrong.

However.

If the "wrong" people make too much money, the system is broken and we're all going to hell in a handbasket. If the "wrong" book or the "wrong" movie or the "wrong" TV show or the "wrong" album make #1, somebody paid somebody off/the accountant's are all smoking crack/Hollywood is just an immoral cesspool/the music industry is obviously run by incontinent chimps. Case in point: 50 Shades of Grey. For every negative review of the series, there are at least 10 fans lined up to buy the books.

NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT REVIEWS OR CRITICISM ANY LONGER.

It's all relative. Taste is subjective. Christ, if I had a dollar for every Letter To The Editor I've read from some pissed off suburban housewife or angry teenager that began with "Your critic obviously didn't attend the same __________________ (fill in the blank: Neil Diamond concert; performance of Cabaret put on by the local nursery school's wine-tasting society; latest tour of Cirque du Soleil)", I'd have a mountain of money. Even critics have wondered if their days are numbered since everything's measured in how many butts are in the chairs to bring in the cash (doesn't help show biz accounting is pretty much in Martian [compared to regular accounting, which might as well be]. For primary examples, look up Art Buchanan's lawsuit over the movie Coming to America or the Broadway show Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark).
 

TheNighSwan

Banned
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
398
Reaction score
54
Location
France
It's all relative. Taste is subjective.

If you trully think that, does that also mean you put no effort whatsoever in your writing, in the belief that it would not result in any objective increase of quality nor would make any difference in readership?
 

Samsonet

Just visiting
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 5, 2012
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
184
Location
See my avatar? The next galaxy over.
To some groups, it really doesn't make a difference. If they like the story, they'll praise it no matter how bad it is.

Personally I think there is a point where things can be objectively bad... but I have such a hard time describing where that point is.
 

BenPanced

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
17,864
Reaction score
4,638
Location
dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
If you trully think that, does that also mean you put no effort whatsoever in your writing, in the belief that it would not result in any objective increase of quality nor would make any difference in readership?
No, it means not everybody's going to like everything. To that end, I put the effort into my work so that the people who are interested in it are going to read it and, hopefully, continue to buy my work as it's released. If I don't produce the best work I possibly can, what's the point?
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
841
Location
Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
Website
atsiko.wordpress.com
If you truly think that, does that also mean you put no effort whatsoever in your writing, in the belief that it would not result in any objective increase of quality nor would make any difference in readership?

No, it means that you do the best you can in the way that you prefer with the knowledge that some people will like it and some won't, and a lot of the time it has very little to do with some objectively analyzable aspect of the book. Like, Edward and Bella have an incredibly shitty and yucky relationship by objectiv standards, and yet millions of people idealize their romance. Or an incredibly written book came out two weeks after a shittier book with many similarities and drowned in wake of it.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
841
Location
Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
Website
atsiko.wordpress.com
Honestly, this article is no different than tons of other articles out there that whine about how something isn't being done to their personal specifications.


I do agree with what seems to be the main point that some prestigious literary criticism is insular, but I don't agree with the suggestion that no one is out there doing what this person wants them to do. Just look at the internet. There's a thriving book review blogging community, with it's own "prestigious" members slogging right alongside newbies and niche venues. Many of these people aren't afraid to criticize books for their bad aspects while praising them for their successes, and tons of them extol the transformative value of literature alongside the escapist, or philosophical, or eploratory, or even the masturbatory (as the article refers to many romance works, in a surprisingly un-pejorative way).



On the subject brought up about books changing lives, I think they can. But I don't think that either seeing the forest or seeing the trees first necessarily blocks out the other view. I've rolled through books for the entertainment and only later seen the transformative value and vice versa. That goes for genre fiction, where LOTR is what made me decide to pursue linguistics as my main field of study (at least at uni) and Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End made computer science and augmented reality another passion of mine, and literary or mainstream fiction that drove me into a devastating existential crisis I'm still not out of, or helped me to conceptualize some aspect of human character I had been unable to put into words. Also, fantasy literature is what turned me into a student of history and culture.


Plus, I mean, look at AW. We've had wonderful threads on thousands of topics ignited by a book someone read and the questions it raised for them.




The dead white guy comment at the end of the thread seems to be another point the author considers of paramount importance. Consider, then, the tempestuous debates in the spec fic community on the need for diversity in literature and how to deal with cultural appropriation that have been going on the last ten years or so. A friend of mine took a fantasy literature course and the majority of the reading list was non-Western-European settings by non-white authors. Or by women. Or by both.



This article is nothing we haven't discussed a hundred times before on AW, really.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I may worship because it made me feel something though. Making it resonate right here *thumps chest* that's what a book is for. Tp help me see through other eyes, to empathise with another life.

This. I'm reading a book where the reader got me to cry over a character I haven't even been all that fond of. That's the kind of skill I admire. When people ask me to name books that have changed my life, I scratch my head. What does that even mean? My education changed my life. Meeting my husband changed my life. Adopting my dog changed my life. Losing my dad changed my life.

I've read some books that have stayed with me ever since I read them. But have they changed my life? I guess what you mean by changed.

I read for entertainment and escapism, and also for a chance to play with and empathize with imaginary friends and to feel things I might not have felt otherwise. I think I'm a different person as a consequence of all the reading I've done, but I can't say I can point to any one book and say, "That one changed me so profoundly that I count my life as me before I read that book and me after I read that book."

Critics aren't all the same. I like the ones on public radio. They even make me want to read literary books sometimes.
 
Last edited:

Buffysquirrel

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,137
Reaction score
694
But literary criticism that focuses solely on literary merit is missing the point.

Sure, merit is only part of it. But the text is the object of criticism, not the tulip-bulb-buying mania that surrounds it.
 

TheNighSwan

Banned
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
398
Reaction score
54
Location
France
I don't understand; if objective quality doesn't exist, if it's all a matter of opinion and taste, what does "doing the best you can" mean? Best compared to what? How does making more effort make something "better", if there's no such thing as a valid comparison scale?

If there's no such thing as quality, putting more effort into your work doesn't make it better, it just makes it ponderous and bumbling.

You say you're doing it for the readership. But works with no efforts put into them can evidently have a readership too. Does that mean some readership is better than other? That it's better to have some readers than others? So quality doesn't exist, yet some readerships are more prestigious than others? How does that work?
 

Hapax Legomenon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
22,289
Reaction score
1,491
I don't understand; if objective quality doesn't exist, if it's all a matter of opinion and taste, what does "doing the best you can" mean? Best compared to what? How does making more effort make something "better", if there's no such thing as a valid comparison scale?

If there's no such thing as quality, putting more effort into your work doesn't make it better, it just makes it ponderous and bumbling.

You say you're doing it for the readership. But works with no efforts put into them can evidently have a readership too. Does that mean some readership is better than other? That it's better to have some readers than others? So quality doesn't exist, yet some readerships are more prestigious than others? How does that work?


There is not objective quality but there is certainly taste of the time period. Read some classics and realize there's no way stuff with that sort of pacing or language would be published today. Prestige is a certain norm right now that is not the same as the mainstream norm. It has its own norm.
 

buz

edits all posts at least four times
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
2,040
I don't understand; if objective quality doesn't exist, if it's all a matter of opinion and taste, what does "doing the best you can" mean? Best compared to what? How does making more effort make something "better", if there's no such thing as a valid comparison scale?

"It's all subjective" does not mean "it has no value."

The value of life is subjective; i.e. different people have different takes on how meaningful or valued certain lives are, depending on species, behaviors, group-belonging, and any number of other criteria. That doesn't mean that the value of life is nonexistent.

I don't like sushi; this doesn't mean that there are no parameters for what makes good or bad sushi.

I don't like jazz; this doesn't mean there are no parameters for other people liking or disliking certain jazz compositions.

Because there is a whole world that exists beyond my individual perceptions and my likes and dislikes.

If I write my ridiculous story about a kobold who develops a romantic relationship with a murdering she-skeleton, I know that whether or not people are interested may have a lot to do with whether they like the premise, the writing style; or if it's all too stupid for them, which I get. Some people just don't like that kind of ridiculousness, that kind of tone, that kind of worldbuilding, etc. But I try to pretend I'm writing for an audience that *does* and try to take that into account when I'm judging pacing or character and so on.

What resonates with some people does not resonate with others, and vice versa.

I don't think you can objectively judge quality. All you can really have is some consensus within a certain group, and certain metrics for aspects of execution which a group may find more pleasant. Sort of like beliefs within cultures, you know. How do we gauge when it's ok to kill someone; how does an ancient Greek; how does a Quaker; how does a Kaiabi; how does a Sureno gang member? You're not going to have a measure that spans all human cultures ever that definitely says when it is or is not ok to kill someone--but WITHIN the groups you can find some agreement.

...Um, so. Gauges within groups, I think, is what I was talking about. Got a little off track, maybe...

Anyway.

So how do I put more effort into my novels? I shoot for the ideals of a "group"--mostly, the type of reader I am myself. I like a good pace, I don't like a ton of description unless it's interesting, I enjoy an odd and quirky voice that doesn't kill the story, I like drama and a bit of darkness, I like some humor, and I like weirdness and reading something that seems fresh. I then ask for feedback from a bunch of other people who might share the same sorts of proclivities and see if what I've written might be something they want to read.

This doesn't give me, or anyone, an absolute answer, but it gives me an idea of whether or not the book I've written resonates with the target audience, which, I think, makes it "good" in the working sense. ;)

/ramble

If there's no such thing as quality, putting more effort into your work doesn't make it better, it just makes it ponderous and bumbling.
I don't follow your logic. "Effort" does not equal "word count."

You say you're doing it for the readership. But works with no efforts put into them can evidently have a readership too.
Like what?

Does that mean some readership is better than other?
No, but people differ.

That it's better to have some readers than others? So quality doesn't exist, yet some readerships are more prestigious than others? How does that work?
I don't think anyone said this.
 
Last edited:

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623

Lillith1991

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
5,313
Reaction score
569
Location
MA
Website
eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
I don't see the misogyny. Because it's mocking a book that mostly women like? The author was pretty scathing about the men mentioned as well.

No, it's the fact it constantly brings up the inteligence, or lack there of according to the author of the women who enjoyed the books. It's like a neverending scolding session focusing on the, yes, mostly women who who made it a phenomanon. I hate Twilight, but I'm not going online and insulting the inteligence of everyone who enjoyed it. And yes a majority of Twilight lovers also happen to be female. There in lies the misogyny in the article. The author had no need to constantly question the I.Q of both the author and her audience, a scathing review/examination could have been done without him doing that.
 
Last edited:

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,981
Reaction score
6,933
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
Sometimes I can enjoy a slice of superfatted criticism. Sometimes literary dissection is an oddly rigorous head-sport, and I'm all humid and out of breath after a bout of stretching and reaching to get their point, but happy in the end that I did it.

Sometimes I'm not in the mood.

I wouldn't task any reader to filet their experience of a book or poem if he wasn't inclined to do so. Liking it or not liking it is enough and I don't think a homework assignment book report is a requirement of expressing your satisfaction of a read. I'm perfectly happy that there are venues out there where readers can add one star to the average estimation of a book in that forum, or five, or however many celestial bodies they think the read was worth. With or without commentary, or with or without commentary of depth and far-reaching resonance, it's fine. You read. You have an opinion. I think it's nice to have a place to talk about books from toes-deep to way in over your head.

As far as books changing my life, I can't love a book if it didn't. I don't even know if I can like one without feeling it, but as has already been said, some changes are profound and some just wiggle your compass a little. I think this is an argument of definitions. What is change?
 

RedWombat

Runs With Scissors
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
327
Location
North Carolina
Website
www.ursulavernon.com
This. I'm reading a book where the reader got me to cry over a character I haven't even been all that fond of. That's the kind of skill I admire. When people ask me to name books that have changed my life, I scratch my head. What does that even mean? My education changed my life. Meeting my husband changed my life. Adopting my dog changed my life. Losing my dad changed my life.

I've read some books that have stayed with me ever since I read them. But have they changed my life? I guess what you mean by changed.

QFT.

There are books I loved, books I reread when I'm sad, books I hated, books that I remember bits of years later. Did they change my life? Insomuch as everything I've done changes my life a teensy bit, sure. As in "picked up my life and dropped it into an entirely new channel"...ah...hmm...

Okay, yeah, "Noah's Garden" got me a new cause and a new hobby--but it's a gardening book, not a literary work. I was educated about the plight of native plants. It changed my shopping habits. So yes, I guess there's a case that book changed my life in a real and material fashion, but it wasn't because it was transformative literature.

We probably need a benchmark for what qualifies as "life-changing." Sol Yuckmeister, how much does a life have to change in order to count?
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I can definitely point to a specific movie and say I'm a different person before and after having watched it. I admit I can't quite do the same to that extent for books, though certainly many have impacted my life. Does that mean film is more transcendent than written fiction?
 

RikWriter

Banned
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
356
Reaction score
24
Location
Central Florida
No, it's the fact it constantly brings up the inteligence, or lack there of according to the author of the women who enjoyed the books. It's like a neverending scolding session focusing on the, yes, mostly women who who made it a phenomanon. I hate Twilight, but I'm not going online and insulting the inteligence of everyone who enjoyed it. And yes a majority of Twilight lovers also happen to be female. There in lies the misogyny in the article. The author had no need to constantly question the I.Q of both the author and her audience, a scathing review/examination could have been done without him doing that.


Is it that the author thinks most women are stupid or is he just saying that the people who enjoy 50 Shades of Grey are stupid and most of them happen to be women? There is quite a difference there and the second statement isn't necessarily misogynistic.
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,981
Reaction score
6,933
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
My favorite bits of change are often only a sentence long, or maybe a paragraph. Even if I can't commit it to memory, I know then when my real life intersects anything is the same zip code as what was pointed out in the book, my mind will go back there.

It's about setting touchstones and benchmarks in my head, most often.
 

CrastersBabies

Burninator!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
666
Location
USA
I'm not sure what "life-changing" has to entail when reading a book. Books have impacted me greatly, but I can't remember one that made me rethink my life is a massive way. Enough to run out and join the peace corps, or, become a political activist.

I imagine it happens, though, but I don't think anyone should be telling a writer, "This is your goal--to change lives." That may come with the content and subject matter, sure, but when does it happen overtly? Unless we're talking about nonfiction.

I also agree that this conversation has been had before on AW, multiple times. That said, I'm always up for a fresher take on it.

And finally, the "war" between what is literary and what isn't (and how that makes us awful consumers or benevolent consumers depending on what we read) is very old. Wasn't Dickens considered a pulp "hack" in his day?

Yes, there is a means of gauging quality in creative writing. Word choice. Sentence structure. Someone can point to a poorly-written paragraph and tighten it up, make it smooth, make it shine. And there is the bare minimum to get the point across. (I think of books like 50 Shades or Dan Brown's work.) The sentences there work. They go in order. We can read them and understand them. But, people aren't reading those books because they want to be changed forever by some great social undertaking. They read them for boobs and butts and mystery in a museum and finding out "who is who" or "what is what?" And romance. And thrills. And action. Some people can't read it. (I couldn't.) But I get my thrills and action in movies and in television. Or, maybe some people don't get thrills and action at all because that's how they like it.

Even though Dickens wasn't exactly hailed as a literary genius back in the day, we can still read into his work and get a good picture about what was important "back then," and what mattered. What was going on in society and in politics.

What will 50 Shades say about us as consumers in 50 years? Probably a LOT. Might not be considered "great literature" in 50 years (who knows, really?) but literary criticism encompasses a great deal more than "what's good/bad."
 

Lillith1991

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
5,313
Reaction score
569
Location
MA
Website
eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
Is it that the author thinks most women are stupid or is he just saying that the people who enjoy 50 Shades of Grey are stupid and most of them happen to be women? There is quite a difference there and the second statement isn't necessarily misogynistic.

I know. As far as I can tell he seems to think the people who like 50 Shades are stupid because they're women, which I would class as definitly misogynistic in nature. I was only able to get through half of it though, because I found his attitude was just too much for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.