# In Defense of Ordianary Books for the Masses



## BoredMormon (Jul 15, 2009)

I've noticed it a lot since I've been here. There seems to be a general antognism towards the books that acheive mass popularity. (Twilight, Harry Potter, Earagon... the list goes on). I've heard lots about how they contain bad writing, sales are simply the product of excellent marketing campains, no one with any real literary knowledge could possibly enjoy them and so on.

Why do so many people here get upset by them? At the very worst they encorage people who wouldn't otherwise pick up a book to start reading. That can only widen the market for the rest of us.

And as to the accusation of bad writing, they are all exceptionally easy to read (witness the thousands of 'non-readers'). Wouldn't that indicate good writing?

Just random thoughts. BM out


----------



## JosephB (Jul 15, 2009)

Sometimes I think there's a lot of phony indignation, a need for some to let everyone else know they are above it all. It's just a type of snobbery.

I know a couple of pretty sharp people who enjoy reading _Twilight_. One is my wife's friend who had a full ride at Vanderbilt. She just works her ass off and has two kids to look after --  and she likes to relax with light reading material.

And here's a real shocker: Plenty of really smart people don't read books at all.


----------



## Like a Fox (Jul 16, 2009)

I'm a mainstream dweller. Always have been, and probably always will be. And I don't think I care about becoming a literary genius. I want to make people laugh, and do it en masse. So the mainstream is my target audience. I like mainstream sit coms, mainstream music, mainstream cartoons, mainstream films, and mainstream books. I'm a pretty big Harry Potter fan, I've read the Twilight series a few times, haven't gotten into Dan Brown, but I own the books to read at some point.

I hate snobbery. I'm open to less popular things of course, if I read some little quirky weirdo book, or see a great indie film, or get into an underground Melbourne band, it actually generates a lot more excitement within me. But I see nothing wrong with liking something along with the masses. Passionate non-conformity pisses me off no-end. I just enjoy what I can, and turns out, that's a lot of things for me.

But I don't care if people don't like what I like. I was talking about Coldplay the other day, a lot of musos hate them. No skin off my teeth, I have good memories assosciated with that music. Makes me happy, that's enough for me.

I read a humerous summation of the seventh Harry Potter book online two nights ago.
Gibberish in Neutral: Potterdammerung [Mega-Spoilers]
It was an excellent read. Lots of plot holes were made fun of, the _how convenient_ moments were illustrated, and Harry's pathetic nature was brought into light. (It's also just laugh out loud funny). I loved it, doesn't impact on how I enjoyed Rowling's world. I've always been able to laugh at myself, so laughing at things I love is not really that much of a stretch.


----------



## valeca (Jul 16, 2009)

Define 'good literature' as it would apply to everyone.

It's not really a one-size-fits-all sort of fit, is it?

Why anyone would concern themselves with what others find enjoyable to read is beyond me.


----------



## Robosquad (Jul 25, 2009)

I don't think you'll find a single person wort thier snuff who will completely condemn genre works. Of course they fufill a purpose. They'll always be around, and a few of them even manage to include good writing or lofty ideas.

So, yes, it's ignorant to gloss over an entire fantasy section and call it worthless. But it's equally ignorant to say that anyone who falls outside the mainstream is being a snob.

I _like_ underground music, on the whole, a hell of a lot more than mainstream music. I haven't heard a mainstream artist in years that's done anything for me. I _like_ literature more than genre books. I gave fantasy and sci-fi books a try every once in a while, but inevitably I'd be left feeling like it wasn't enough. When I read, I enjoy getting that emotional kick, getting my mind blown, really thinking about life.

So I don't _like_ a fair amount of mainstream things. But as long as I don't go around calling entire genres garbage, I should be free to avoid them myself. You're not a snob for not enjoying _Harry Potter_, or for pointing out that _Twilight_ is crap writing. At least I hope not, because I've been laughing at hipster snobs for years.


----------



## Leyline (Jul 25, 2009)

Robosquad said:


> I don't think you'll find a single person wort thier snuff who will completely condemn genre works. Of course they fufill a purpose. They'll always be around, and a few of them even manage to include good writing or lofty ideas.
> 
> So, yes, it's ignorant to gloss over an entire fantasy section and call it worthless. But it's equally ignorant to say that anyone who falls outside the mainstream is being a snob.
> 
> ...



Your reading in speculative fiction has obviously been shallow and superficial. Theodore Sturgeon, Fritz Lieber, Jack Vance, Harlan Ellison, Ursula K. LeGuin and Jeffery Ford are some of the finest writers ever to put pen to paper and they write _literature_ in the finest sense. Their big difference is that they use the devices of the unknown and the unknowable to illuminate the human condition.

And they do so spectacularly.


----------



## mi is happy (Jul 26, 2009)

Often when I go to sporting events I hear avid fans screaming about how they could play better than the athletes. Even if their statement were true or not, the fact is that they are envious that someone other than self is in the lime light. The athlete has to be perfect or every wanna be will be breathing down their throats. Let's face it no one is perfect.
A lot of people think they can write, but how many can actually do it? Those authors got popular for a reason. Maybe their work isn't the best, but it got published and is well liked. Try to figure out why and maybe you're stuff will be more widely excepted. Other than the envy, I think people try to be "non-conformist" by hating these books. A friend of mine admitted to me that she won't read Twilight because everyone else loves it.
These books aren't exactly the worst things out there. Trust me. The young adult section is filled with it. Eragon did get very redundant, but was fine to read when one has nothing better to do. Twilight was ok because it pleasantly surprised me. I was expecting some dumb novel about a gothic girl with no friends falling for some ancient vampire that is way out of her league. Bella hardly wore black. The Host, also written by Stephanie Meyer, was much better, but was slow to get into. Harry Potter was great up until the ending. Though Rowling ruined it by bringing Dumbledore out of the closet. (Never a good plan when the character has an odd obsession with a little boy. It was all just a failed publicity plow anyways)
My theory on this is, just read and stop complaining. If it sucks, it sucks. Get over it and don't send the author hate mail. (Not saying that any of you do)


> I'm a mainstream dweller. Always have been, and probably always will be. And I don't think I care about becoming a literary genius. I want to make people laugh, and do it en masse. So the mainstream is my target audience. I like mainstream sit coms, mainstream music, mainstream cartoons, mainstream films, and mainstream books. I'm a pretty big Harry Potter fan, I've read the Twilight series a few times, haven't gotten into Dan Brown, but I own the books to read at some point.


Got to agree with this post here. That and the Harry Potter parody is funny.


----------



## Robosquad (Jul 26, 2009)

Leyline said:


> Your reading in speculative fiction has obviously been shallow and superficial. Theodore Sturgeon, Fritz Lieber, Jack Vance, Harlan Ellison, Ursula K. LeGuin and Jeffery Ford are some of the finest writers ever to put pen to paper and they write _literature_ in the finest sense. Their big difference is that they use the devices of the unknown and the unknowable to illuminate the human condition.


See, I don't have a problem with that. I'd just call it literature with genre elements, and I actually think that's pretty cool.

It's just that when people talk about genre, it's usually to refer to very black-and-white, plot over theme stories. You know, fluff. "Read this because it's fun." Only I'll never be able to find that sort of thing fun.

Bottom line: If it's well written and meaningful, I'll enjoy it no matter what its setting or elements are. If it's all about a quick thrill, then it's not for me.  But I understand why that sort of thing is published and why people need it.


----------



## Dakar (Jul 26, 2009)

I think part of it is that said books attract a huge following, and everybody hates fanboys. So people have a backlash not because of the 1,000 people who liked the book, but the 10 people _who never shut up about it_.

Also, Twilight deserves the snobby backlash, as it's basically saying "Falling in love with an abusive monster is ROMANTIC!"


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Jul 26, 2009)

> There seems to be a general antognism towards the books that acheive mass popularity.


That's not necessarily true. Books that achieve mass popularity are going to get a lot of people who like them, and a lot of people who don't. With the increased mass popularity, the antagonism increases as well as the love.


----------

