Luke’s comment > Likes and Comments
2 likes · Like
Yes, we want more people to enjoy their reading and especially young people. One problem is that, while we’re pleased to see young people reading – even corporate crap like Harry Potter -- there are a great many people on Goodreads who think this is truly great literature. Many young people grow up continuing to buy and read total shit so much so that they become adult readers in the mainstream who ultimately define our national literary culture because they haven’t grown-up as readers. Consider how much America's literary culture is shaped by best-seller lists. Agents and publishers buy manuscripts they want to sell prolifically so they can make big profits on the books they publish – literary capitalism at work, right? So our best-seller lists are full of books ghost-written by writers for athletes and murderers and the corporations of novelists pandering to the mainstream. Are we sick to death yet of all the goddam vampire and werewolf novels? Best-sellers publish richly and great writers perish in soul killing deaths by obscurity: this tragedy happens constantly in America and is much more the rule than the exception. One of the root causes of our horrendous national literary legacy is blind and tone deaf literary criticism. We simply need a more inspired approach to recognize and recommend truly worthy writing because what now passes for literary criticism is NOT working: it isn't directing people to the best-written work but rather to all the shit at the top of best-seller lists. Look at the many Listopia Lists for "Great Novels" and prepare to be disappointed for what the majority of Goodreaders consider great literature and they should know better. What does the mainstream consider great writing? Best-sellers. It's a national tragedy, people: we can up our game with a better critical system and we need one desperately. Until we find a better way to review and recommend better books, we are destined to suffer on a national level for literary mediocrity. Surely, we can do better. And if improvements can’t come from the intellectual capital that widely resides on Goodreads, then where else is it more likely to emerge?
Dear Stephen,
I stand with you, my brother.
Cordially,
David
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Yes, we want more people to enjoy their reading and especially young people. One problem is that, while we’re pleased to see young people reading – even corporate crap like Harry Potter -- there are a great many people on Goodreads who think this is truly great literature. Many young people grow up continuing to buy and read total shit so much so that they become adult readers in the mainstream who ultimately define our national literary culture because they haven’t grown-up as readers. Consider how much America's literary culture is shaped by best-seller lists. Agents and publishers buy manuscripts they want to sell prolifically so they can make big profits on the books they publish – literary capitalism at work, right? So our best-seller lists are full of books ghost-written by writers for athletes and murderers and the corporations of novelists pandering to the mainstream. Are we sick to death yet of all the goddam vampire and werewolf novels? Best-sellers publish richly and great writers perish in soul killing deaths by obscurity: this tragedy happens constantly in America and is much more the rule than the exception. One of the root causes of our horrendous national literary legacy is blind and tone deaf literary criticism. We simply need a more inspired approach to recognize and recommend truly worthy writing because what now passes for literary criticism is NOT working: it isn't directing people to the best-written work but rather to all the shit at the top of best-seller lists. Look at the many Listopia Lists for "Great Novels" and prepare to be disappointed for what the majority of Goodreaders consider great literature and they should know better. What does the mainstream consider great writing? Best-sellers. It's a national tragedy, people: we can up our game with a better critical system and we need one desperately. Until we find a better way to review and recommend better books, we are destined to suffer on a national level for literary mediocrity. Surely, we can do better. And if improvements can’t come from the intellectual capital that widely resides on Goodreads, then where else is it more likely to emerge?
Dear Stephen,I stand with you, my brother.
Cordially,
David
What is the point of the star ratings? I assume it is to give those considering reading the book a broad view of whether of not they might also enjoy it. It isn't meant to be a literary assessment, as is indicated by how Goodreads tags the stars. I am still stumped as to why 10 stars is superior. It isn't that I can't "handle" 10; I just don't see the need for ten. Nor do I understand how 10 would be more accurate since what is being rated is enjoyment levels, hardly a truly measurable thing. Mortimer Adler would say in seminars never to get into discussions of pleasure or emotional impact created by the work because other than lust, anger and fear, no emotion is quantifiable or even means the same thing to each and every person. While I find that perhaps a bit too stiff, there is a point to his opinion. Yet the stars ask you to weigh what isn't weigh-able. As a quick glance rating, they are handy but an involved analysis of the system strikes me as a tad odd. I would think that a well thought out review of the book would clarify your star rating more so than having a half star option or more stars to choose from ever could.