What grates me is this idea some people have that the "average reader" is somehow of lesser intelligence or without good taste, and tossing in this idea that literary theorists somehow have a greater appreciation of literature. There was a discussion - and I can't remember if it was here or on another forum - about theme and 'message' in novels. The same sort of thing - the "experts" supposedly could understand theme, even when the author did not deliberately put one in. Mere readers were clueless. This, for me, goes to a distaste for one aspect of the writing community as a whole, where some writers seem to have an obsession with class. MFAs are better than non-MFAs, trade published are better than self-published, literary is better than genre, Genre A is better than Genre B - on and on and on with great vehemence. When I first started joining writing forums, I naively expected that authors would be somehow above that sort of petty one-up-manship. How sorely disappointed I have become...
I'm sure astrophysicists have a greater appreciation of the distances between stars. What makes literature so different? You keep saying that people who criticize the average book also say that the average reader is an idiot. I've said this just isn't the case at least three times, yet you keep saying otherwise. All you seem to do is putting fingers in your ears and say 'No, I'm right, I'm right'.
I totally get where you are coming from. This is what I was trying to say earlier when it was mentioned that the critiquers had the intelligence to discuss the philosophical elements of a book, in essence, break the book down to its bare essentials and try to work out the Chi of the authors and the characters, the meanings behind each move the characters (and the author) makes when actually, the author just wanted to tell a story.
@Lemex I don't think shadowwalker is aiming that solely at you but I understand where he's coming from. There are people out there who like to tell you that they know which books should be read because they have letters after their name, know what good literature is and the average reader doesn't. It shouldn't be like that. Most people don't always want to read a book where they stop after every paragraph and dissect what's written. They want escapism, to live someone else's dream for a while, to be transported to another time/place/era. For a lot of people, it's that simple and those people (and their views) should not be thrown to the wayside because they differ from the ones who have a certificate to prove their intelligence.
I know that. What admittedly narks me is when it is assumed that this how everyone who studies literature acts. It's not true. What narks me is being called names for simply pointing out that not everyone reads a novel purely for the story, that just reading for story can be boring, and some of us want to analyse the story and get more out of it. The more you get out of it I find the more you like it. Also what annoys me if when people call literary criticism pointless pretense just because they neither care about it or understand it. I don't honestly care if people want to read a book just to enjoy it, if you want to do that then wonderful. Go off and enjoy the books you like. But if you call the study of literature pointless, and careful criticism pointless, then you are going to face a challenge to that idea - because this is the internet and it's the marketplace of ideas. Some ideas don't hold water, and so they are criticized for it. To then characterize the people criticizing your position as bullies is frankly pretty silly, especally when you are clearly not listening to what they are saying. As a counter argument it verges on the strawman fallacy. Appeals to some utopian, idealized 'Oh we are writers, we should all live on some Elysian field, separate from the rest of the human race, where everyone is right and no one is wrong' is also wrong. It takes the art out of art.
Seems like it's one of those things that no-one will ever agree on, but then, we probably won't ever agree. But that's what makes for a good conversation. I know I say this a lot but it would be a boring place if we all thought the same thing.
I have never said that dissection of books is useless. I have, throughout this thread, pointed out that the disregard and condescension shown toward the "average reader" is pure conceit, and that one does not have to have a degree to understand and enjoy to the fullest any book one chooses to read, nor do we need to read from the PhD's List of Good Books to prove we have good taste. Believe it or not, there are a great many highly intelligent and intellectually-minded people out there who do not have doctorates. But never mind looking at what I've actually said, or what others have said about the dimness of readers in this thread - continue on with your own version of putting fingers in your ears and saying 'No, I'm right, I'm right'.
You say this, and again, no one has really said the average reader is an idiot. I've even pointed out in a post past this is clearly not the case because of my criminal court judge friend who reads Robert Ludlum and Stephen King novels. You keep talking about stupidity, I've asked what's up with that but you've never answered. What IS up with that? Your reference to my post is cute, but it seems clear that I'm not the one projecting since you wrote this just at the beginning of this thread page: So you either accept the use of critical dissection or you get annoyed when it's pointed out critical dissection is worth more attention on some books than others - which is it? If all you are saying is 'Don't be a bully' then we have no quarrel here. But if you are also saying that someone who really knows the field of literature, and has worked hard to understand it, and his thoughts are just the same as someone who hasn't got the first idea about literature, then we do, because that's just silly.
Talk about strawmen. "someone who hasn't got the first idea about literature" is not your average reader - unless, of course, you really are saying that the average reader is pretty damn dumb. And yes, if you read back in the thread, you will see those sentiments. But go ahead, keep ignoring the statements that back what I've said, keep deliberately misconstruing my comments. But I've grown bored repeating myself, so rest assured, your views henceforth will stand unchallenged by me. Have at it.
What exactly am I misconstruing? I was using two extremes - that's not what I think of the average reader. To me the average reader is - as I said in a previous post - more like an amateur astronomer. An amateur doesn't know as much as a professional - that's just life, it's how the world works. Now I'm sorry if you feel offended by that fact. If you can actually point out examples where someone has said the average reader is an idiot (aside from one on I think the first page) then please show me. If you do run away from this challenge I'll assume you can't. It's something you've asserted time and again, been challenged on time and again, and never once provided proof.
I wanted to add a couple of points to this debate. Not as definitive statements, but to point out a couple of subtleties that perhaps make the academic vs popular dichotomy less clearly a binary situation. First, I don't think food is at all good analogy for literature. Book prices are pretty much the same whether we're talking about Stephen King or James Joyce. McDonalds is very much cheaper than a good New York Strip in a high end restaurant. McDonalds is popular because it's cheap and quick. I bet a lot of the customers, if there was no difference in price, would prefer the New York Strip. However, things are further complicated when you include the more avant guarde restaurants, which may need an acquired tastes to appreciate. But let's face it, there can be something of an elitist aspect to these restaurants: only the wealthy can afford to go, and only the wealthy can afford to acquire the taste. And the wealthy (some, not all) like to be seen to be going to these restaurants. There's a social social status associated with it. Do some (not all) people read James Joyce for social status reasons? I'm pretty sure some people do. Second, I don't think academics are always good arbiters of taste. I may be wrong, but I believe the first works of the French Impressionists were very poorly received when they were shown in Paris. I'd be willing to bet there are works of literature now considered 'great' that similarly had a poor reception by critics. All that being said, personally I firmly believe it's important to have academic institutions that explore art and culture.
In other words, (just for a laugh) have Homer's Iliad, Socrate's Essential Thinkers and Sophie's World on the coffee table for all to view but on the hidden bookshelf in the other room, have the well read, dog-eared EL James, Sophie Kinsella, Sue Townsend, Dan Brown, Anthony Horowitz .... Sounds like my bookshelf ... Do you think we worry too much what other people will think of us if we admit to reading/liking certain books/authors?
I couldn't personally give a damn about what people think of what I read. I'll happy admit I've read every book Dan Brown has put out, that I'm a fan of Stephen King, and I didn't think Twilight was all that bad. Sure I read writers like Dante and Homer, my copy of The Iliad is well-worn, but you know what? So is my copy of Dan Brown's Inferno. I also like non-literary stuff. It's often a lot of fun.
@Lemex and @shadowwalker : I think this disconnect in the conversation lies within the difference in assessment. @shadowwalker : You seem to be addressing the average reader quite well, saying that the average reader is pretty up to snuff. I'd say that you are too generous to the average reader. I am not saying that an informally educated reader can't be equally or more intelligent than a formally educated Ph.D toter; however, the average person with a Ph.D in some related literary field has more knowledge, and thus, more information to draw from in terms of literary analysis, than the average Joe-reader. Sure, there are exceptions, but then we are not talking about averages anymore. Possessing a Ph.D does not give your (I am returning to general speaking) analysis more weight, but a person with a Ph.D is a person who has the average reader's ability. To boot, the person with a Ph.D has field-specific knowledge to draw from as well. In terms of formulating an analysis, a person with a Ph.D can offer more perspective, on average.
But would that perspective only be fully understood by other holders of PhD's? I'm not, for one moment, saying that Mr. PhD should be listened to over Mr. Average Joe. I think they both have equally important thoughts about certain books that different people will appreciate, they both have validity within their own group.
Certainly, it would all be about personal decision. If an average Joe wants an average Joe's opinion, then average Joe is likely best looking to average Joe. However, in assessing who is likely able to produce the more complete opinion, average Joe is, on average, gonna take second. The Ph.D perspective wouldn't require another of equal perspective to understand, necessarily. I would say that greatly understanding a work and criticizing it takes more knowledge than reading a piece of critical analysis, since reading a piece of critical analysis is usually more straightforward and aims for a certain amount of clarity. Sorry for the reversed answer; I re-read the message and realized that I hadn't read it entirely the first time around. I would say that they both have thoughts are have the potential to be important. Equality and amount of importance is about the individual making subjective judgement. I'm not sold on the idea that one can objectively weight things such as "good" or "bad," or "important" or "unimportant." I think there are simply more comprehensive subjective analyses and less comprehensive ones. As well, I don't think all opinions are equally important or valid.
