Popularist or Literati? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

radagastly · 10-20-2004, 12:15 PM

I've often found this particular conflict to be frustrating. When I was in college (many years ago), I had a number of "literati" friends who embraced material that no one else would possibly like, and as often as not, that was simply because no one else would like it. These same people never seemed to understand my appreciation of Tolkien, most often because they like disagreement for it's own sake and had never read any of Tolkien's work. More than a few of these are now college professors themselves, more's the pity.

Are all good books popular? No. But all great books eventually are. Unfortunately, the authors of these great books rarely live to see that happen.

Are all popular books good? A qualified yes. They all have something genuine to offer or people wouldn't buy them and (supposedly) read them.

Are all books popular with the literati good books? No. As proof of that I offer three words: The Great Gatsby. I could offer many others of similar ilk, but those will do as a summary.

Fordim: Of the three titles you mention, I noticed Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. This brings up to me a related dilemma that has bothered me for years for some reason. It's clearly a pet peave of mine, and perhaps it's the actor in me, but I have never understood the need for students of literature to co-opt certain pieces of drama and call them literature so they can be studied as such. To me, a play on paper without actors and a stage is no more a work of art (good or bad) than a blueprint is a cathedral or sheet music is a concert. I was wondering if this is the one you think is "not good" (quite awful!)?

10-20-2004, 12:15 PM	#4
radagastly Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Washington, D. C., USA Posts: 299	The "business" of fine literature I've often found this particular conflict to be frustrating. When I was in college (many years ago), I had a number of "literati" friends who embraced material that no one else would possibly like, and as often as not, that was simply because no one else would like it. These same people never seemed to understand my appreciation of Tolkien, most often because they like disagreement for it's own sake and had never read any of Tolkien's work. More than a few of these are now college professors themselves, more's the pity. Are all good books popular? No. But all great books eventually are. Unfortunately, the authors of these great books rarely live to see that happen. Are all popular books good? A qualified yes. They all have something genuine to offer or people wouldn't buy them and (supposedly) read them. Are all books popular with the literati good books? No. As proof of that I offer three words: The Great Gatsby. I could offer many others of similar ilk, but those will do as a summary. Fordim: Of the three titles you mention, I noticed Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. This brings up to me a related dilemma that has bothered me for years for some reason. It's clearly a pet peave of mine, and perhaps it's the actor in me, but I have never understood the need for students of literature to co-opt certain pieces of drama and call them literature so they can be studied as such. To me, a play on paper without actors and a stage is no more a work of art (good or bad) than a blueprint is a cathedral or sheet music is a concert. I was wondering if this is the one you think is "not good" (quite awful!)? __________________ But all the while I sit and think of times there were before, I listen for returning feet and voices at the door.