Popularist or Literati? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Aiwendil · 10-20-2004, 09:30 PM

This is an interesting topic; I have fond recollections of Kalessin's rant and several other similar threads a few years back.

There is undeniably a sort of schism between the two views that Lalwende identified. Certainly there a lot of academics who look down on 'popular literature'. To call them the "literati" just doesn't seem right to me. Tom Shippey mentioned (in Author of the Century) one reviewer who blasted LotR and said something to the effect of "whenever one or two literati get together" they talk about what a sad state of affairs literature is in. Shippey points out first that the reviewer must have meant "two or three" unless the literati talk to themselves, and second that is hard to discern the meaning of "literati" in this context; for obviously the reviewer does not mean literally "the lettered", "those that can read". It must be intended to mean "those who know about literature". But who decides what it means to know about literature? The self-appointed "literati"?

I suppose that I would come down squarely on the "popularist" side - or perhaps "populist" would be a better name. But I think it is equally a mistake to say simply that the literature preferred by the "literati" is not good, and to leave it at that; and it is a mistake to say that popularity is the criterion for artistic value.

The real issue, I think, is not about people but rather about literature itself. I very much dislike the (rather common) view that there are two fundamentally different kinds of literature. I think this is a view that most "literati" and many "popularists" fall into. Essentially, they believe that there is academic/high literature and popular/low literature. They may claim this without going further and saying that one form or the other is better; but I think that it is a mistake to see a fundamental distinction here in any case. I had a professor once who enjoyed Tolkien and Rowling but considered them "consumable" books, to be read merely for enjoyment rather than with serious intent. This, I think is unfair to both sorts of books - unfair to the "low" because it assumes they cannot have real literary value, unfair to the "high" because it assumes that they cannot be enjoyable.

I thought I had more to say, but my train of thought seems to have been interrupted. Perhaps I'll add more later.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

10-20-2004, 09:30 PM	#10
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	This is an interesting topic; I have fond recollections of Kalessin's rant and several other similar threads a few years back. There is undeniably a sort of schism between the two views that Lalwende identified. Certainly there a lot of academics who look down on 'popular literature'. To call them the "literati" just doesn't seem right to me. Tom Shippey mentioned (in Author of the Century) one reviewer who blasted LotR and said something to the effect of "whenever one or two literati get together" they talk about what a sad state of affairs literature is in. Shippey points out first that the reviewer must have meant "two or three" unless the literati talk to themselves, and second that is hard to discern the meaning of "literati" in this context; for obviously the reviewer does not mean literally "the lettered", "those that can read". It must be intended to mean "those who know about literature". But who decides what it means to know about literature? The self-appointed "literati"? I suppose that I would come down squarely on the "popularist" side - or perhaps "populist" would be a better name. But I think it is equally a mistake to say simply that the literature preferred by the "literati" is not good, and to leave it at that; and it is a mistake to say that popularity is the criterion for artistic value. The real issue, I think, is not about people but rather about literature itself. I very much dislike the (rather common) view that there are two fundamentally different kinds of literature. I think this is a view that most "literati" and many "popularists" fall into. Essentially, they believe that there is academic/high literature and popular/low literature. They may claim this without going further and saying that one form or the other is better; but I think that it is a mistake to see a fundamental distinction here in any case. I had a professor once who enjoyed Tolkien and Rowling but considered them "consumable" books, to be read merely for enjoyment rather than with serious intent. This, I think is unfair to both sorts of books - unfair to the "low" because it assumes they cannot have real literary value, unfair to the "high" because it assumes that they cannot be enjoyable. I thought I had more to say, but my train of thought seems to have been interrupted. Perhaps I'll add more later.