Literary Elitism, Part II
Think for a moment: how many best seller writers today actually write literary fiction? Any? Certainly not those in the genres of crime dramas, legal thrillers or police procedurals. I'm quite sure Grisham and Connelly do not set out on a new book project with a goal of burying three or four layers of symbolism, religious or otherwise, into their manuscripts. I am also quite sure that they write for a living, to entertain, and because they love doing it.
Nevertheless, they outsell (by miles) those writers who aim to end up on some lit prof's assignment list simply BECAUSE THEY ENTERTAIN their readers.
Are there authors who have written entertaining classics? Of course! The "hidden" or "deeper" messages within Hemingway's "Old Man and the Sea" and Melville's "Moby Dick" have no doubt floated thousands of term papers or dissertations. I have to submit, however, that these books - as well as many others - became classics BECAUSE of (not in spite of) their entertainment appeal as simple adventure stories. A well-read fourteen-year-old can certainly enjoy following Ishmael or Santiago through their travails without having to worry about the author's inner war with his faith.
So when evaluating your next read, ask yourself, is this book worth only three stars instead of four or five simply because it won't end up getting an English prof somewhere tenure? Or can a work of art - music, painting, statue or book - stand on its merit simply because it pleases the senses? If it can, isn't that enough? If a reader only sees worth in an art form because the subject or subject matter is somehow more tortured than himself, maybe the problem is with the reader, who is unable to appreciate the simpler benefits of life.
Nevertheless, they outsell (by miles) those writers who aim to end up on some lit prof's assignment list simply BECAUSE THEY ENTERTAIN their readers.
Are there authors who have written entertaining classics? Of course! The "hidden" or "deeper" messages within Hemingway's "Old Man and the Sea" and Melville's "Moby Dick" have no doubt floated thousands of term papers or dissertations. I have to submit, however, that these books - as well as many others - became classics BECAUSE of (not in spite of) their entertainment appeal as simple adventure stories. A well-read fourteen-year-old can certainly enjoy following Ishmael or Santiago through their travails without having to worry about the author's inner war with his faith.
So when evaluating your next read, ask yourself, is this book worth only three stars instead of four or five simply because it won't end up getting an English prof somewhere tenure? Or can a work of art - music, painting, statue or book - stand on its merit simply because it pleases the senses? If it can, isn't that enough? If a reader only sees worth in an art form because the subject or subject matter is somehow more tortured than himself, maybe the problem is with the reader, who is unable to appreciate the simpler benefits of life.
No comments have been added yet.
