Focus on Reading - Week 49 - Lowbrow & Higbrow

[Booknblues]

Do you consider the book that you read to be lowbrow, highbrow or a mix?

What books do you like which you consider to be highbrow?

What books do you like which you consider to be lowbrow?

[Doughgirl5562]

For highbrow reading, I would put literary fiction and most classics (many of which are literary fiction) into that category and I like to challenge and educate myself with those occasionally. Some have become favorites (Never Let Me Go, The Great Gatsby, Pride & Prejudice, Watership Down). There are others that were more difficult to read - but I'm glad that I did (The Reluctant Fundamentalist, The Things They Carried, Lincoln in the Bardo.

And I am also currently trying to educate myself by reading more non-fiction books that might be considered "highbrow".

For palate cleansers, I sometimes crave more "lowbrow" books - the occasional cozy mystery, romance novel or celebrity memoir. I guess Harlequins might be considered lowbrow?

[Olivermagnus]

I am a huge fan of "lowbrow" books. This year I have been hopelessly devoted to the Black Dagger Brotherhood series by J.R. Ward. Jim Frangione does the audios and he does an exceptional job narrating. I usually don't care for erotic vampire romances but I would kill to meet one of the Brotherhood. Frangione also does the Chet and Bernie audios but his delivery is very different. Dip your toes into the water with Dark Lover.

I think of classics, literary fiction, and non fiction as more "highbrow". I've read plenty of those this year with the two challenges but for fun, I still like a few alien romances, a sad addiction I picked up during Poll Ballot.

[KateNZ]

I don’t like the distinction - reading is reading. Storytelling is storytelling. So I read across the board. I adore a lot of ‘literary’ fiction - so try to follow the Booker Prize nominees for instance - but if its supposed merit is simply elitism or pretentiousness, that’s a real turn-off. I devour easier reads (and can plough my way through entire series with recurring characters who get to be friends over time). But some super-popular authors just don’t resonate with me

[Theresa]

I am a very broad reader, and I don't use terms like highbrow or lowbrow. I also read for many reasons, most often for pure relaxation and fun. I am a mood reader too.

I do call some of my reading however fluff or trashy or escapist or fun or frivolous or other similar terms, but even then there are often elevating aspects. For example, I have been reading Under Locke which some would sniff and say that's lowbrow, trash, a waste of reading time. Well, though I don't consider anything being read as a waste of time (well, except Wolf Hall), it is in some ways a really trashy read, and I picked it up as relief read while reading darker, denser or complex reads. Some of tbe writing is weak and it is way too long, but it is the author's debut. It is also surprisingly quite good and even serious in some ways. The badboy biker tattoo artist and his tattoo parlor are really well done, there are important themes of abandonment, body image, etc. And really smutty sex will be front and center soon. Is that lowbrow?

It has been a great counterbalance to my other reads this week: Oh William! and On Gold Mountain.

As I think about it, I doubt I would consider any book by those 2 terms. Magazines I might.

[Amy]

I love to classify myself as the classic mid brow reader!!!! I rarely go for the low or the high. Always in a cut above the trash, and a cut below true literature.

[Robin P]

I read all sorts. I loved the highbrow Cloud Cuckoo Land, The Goldfinch, In the Distance, and others. On the other hand, I also really like Regency romances, historical mysteries, humorous fantasy, etc. I often give 4 stars to a romance or mystery because it's very good for its own genre. But that is different from 4 stars for a more highbrow book.

On the other hand, I have really disliked a number of books that the literary and book club world loved, therefore highbrow, including All the Light We Cannot See, Beautiful Ruins, and Where the Crawdads Sing. These are books called "luminous" but strike me as long and drawn out with unbelievable characters and situations. Unbelievable is fine in fantasy or Regencies, it's part of the genre.

[Booknblues]

Amy wrote: "I love to classify myself as the classic mid brow reader!!!! I rarely go for the low or the high. Always in a cut above the trash, and a cut below true literature."

You made me laugh! I love it. I think I would classify many historical fictions as mid brow.

I like to do the limbo when I read. I really love to read quite a bit of literary fiction.

I know someone said they occasionally need a palate cleanser and I find that to be true. I sometimes need something light and fun, like a beach read or a cozy mystery to lighten the load.

I do have some which I would consider lowbrow which I love to read. They are my medieval mysteries. I don't care that they have modern sensibilities, I'm not reading them for the authenticity. I didn't live in medieval times but I like to imagine it.

The other and often they are not well written are slow travel, running, walking, swimming, canoeing, kayaking, riding horses, bicycling(you get the idea). I've found that I always learn something from these and I really appreciate the opportunity to be a voyeur in there travels.

[Joy D]

I do not generally think in terms of "highbrow" vs. "lowbrow." I don't like the terms since they imply some sort of judgement. I consider myself an eclectic reader.

If I were forced to pick one, I generally gravitate to literary fiction, which would be considered mostly "highbrow." I like character driven and thought-provoking books. I like reading about other countries' cultures and environments. I enjoy complexities, ambiguities, and books where the author does not feel the need to spell out everything for the reader. Having said that, I also like a thin thread of a story that holds the piece together and tend not to like what is commonly called "experimental fiction." Is there such a thing as "medium-highbrow?" That's probably more my niche.

As far as "lowbrow" I tend to use it sporadically as a break. I see these books as the author in control and the reader along for the ride. Much is spelled out, with little left to the reader's interpretation. These can be a lot of fun. There is a time for this type of book, and I try to fit them in periodically. I especially like to read books that have somehow captured the public's attention. I tend not to enjoy thrillers with lots of twists and turns and books filled with gratuitous sex scenes, which seem to be in vogue right now.

I have a philosophy of "live and let live," and I am glad everyone has different tastes. I agree with KateNZ - "reading is reading." Better to read "anybrow" books than none at all!

I should also add that I read a great deal of non-fiction, so I'm not sure where that would fit, but I love it!

[Amy]

Me!!!!! I am The one who said the fluffy stuff is like a palate cleaner between heavier and more thought provoking reads!

[Rachel N.]

I don't classify books in this manner at all. If it sounds interesting to me I'll read it. I don't care what anyone else thinks of my reading choices as long as I'm enjoying them.

[Joanne]

I am with you Rachel. And also with Joy on being an eclectic reader.

I will pick up just about anything if it strike my fancy at the moment.

I would probably be in the "mid-brow" group when it comes to fiction, literary reading is not my cup of tea, Perhaps I would be classified in the highbrow for my excessive non-fiction reading and the low brow for my obsession with fantasy. However, there are fantasy writers who should not be classified like that.

I rarely read "trashy" but I love reading the reviews ( I miss Nicole's romance reviews).

[Tracy]

To paraphrase my dad: a good book is a good book. I like my books and music eclectic. I tend to shy from “lowbrow”, but that’s because I burned out on them when my boys were little.

To me, highbrow is a textbook- or a novel that is so smart, it’s impossible to understand.

[Robin P]

Amy wrote: "Me!!!!! I am The one who said the fluffy stuff is like a palate cleaner between heavier and more thought provoking reads!"

I think of it that some books are like candy, for instance light romances. They are great once in a while, but if I have a steady diet of them, I get tired of them and don't enjoy them as much.

[Charlie]

I’ve always separated books into “serious” vs “for fun”. Serious books tend to be History, Non-Fiction or Literature while For Fun are things like Thrillers, Mysteries, Fiction (vs. Literature). I know this is stupid and that all books are just books. I think this is my Catholic (Jesuit mind you) guilt that nags me to always be learning, growing, thinking and that reading too much just For Fun is failing myself. I strive to read a balance of both and as I’ve aged I’ve found that I enjoy and grow reading both.

[Joanne]

Charlie wrote: "I’ve always separated books into “serious” vs “for fun”. Serious books tend to be History, Non-Fiction or Literature while For Fun are things like Thrillers, Mysteries, Fiction (vs. Literature). I ..."

haha! Yes, perhaps it is the Catholic upbringing (IHM nuns for me) that leads me to so much non-fiction history!

[Theresa]

Joanne wrote: "Charlie wrote: "I’ve always separated books into “serious” vs “for fun”. Serious books tend to be History, Non-Fiction or Literature while For Fun are things like Thrillers, Mysteries, Fiction (vs...."

Hah! Nope! Not this Catholic school girl- nuns not Jesuit. But a college boyfriend did become a Jesuit - history professor who never admits to reading fiction ever. I tease him mercilessly about that. Yes we are still friends.

Give fiction please! But then I was very rebellious and got D's in religion from those nuns. Questioned too much. As in ev3rything else mind you.