You do realize that hating pop culture because you think it makes you sound more intelligent is no better than being a one of the mindless teenyboppers you so despise...right?
I've been wanting to say this for a very, very long time. I'm fed up with the idiotic, stuck-up attitudes that are so prevelant on this board. Obviously, if something's popular, it sucks, right? Because if the masses like it, it's not good enough for you, the elite.
Disliking something because you've examined it and decided you don't like it is one thing, but it seems to me that a lot of you hate anything that has the slightest element of pop culture because you think it's the cool, intellectual thing to do. To me, it looks a whole lot more like insecurity.
-pH
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
This to me falls in the same category as "anarchists" that conform with nonconformity.
I think you made a rather gross generalization there Pearce. I'm sure you're right about some people on some levels(and I have a few in mind myself), but I don't think that this attitude that you mentioned is especially 'prevalent' on the board. I've seen plenty of people admit to liking mainstream bands and cheesy action movies like XXX.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Before this progresses any further, I'd like to say unequivocally that both Lindsay Lohan and Hillary Duff are -- without any thorough examination of their careers on my part -- corporate whores. Their careers are the results of a designed marketing strategy.
Along those lines, I will be the first to cheer when Ashton Kuscher is sent to any given maximum security prison.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm not an elitist... I could find something I like in anything, including 2 Celine Dion songs. The stuff I like is so diverse and random such as- Japanese rock and roll. You know what's really annoying? People who won't give Japanese rock a chance because it's in Japanese. Now that's irratating.
But I did want to start a topic about whether or not I hate a movie, book or a song because it's bad or because it's just not my taste and I just can't feel it. Like some popular movies. I don't hate them just because they are popular. I hate them because they are lame, dull with bad acting and uninteresting plots. I hate some pop music because it's trite, they use the same boring dull beats, the lyrics are not interesting and I just can't... feel it deeply. Some popular books are the same way... But if you look hard enough you can find wisdom and beauty in ANYTHING...
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
When I see a Britney carbon copy peddling her nearly bare self on MTV and showing off her shrill nasally singing voice, I roll my eyes involuntarily. I suppose that means I'm too quick to judge.
I like weird stuff too--except instead of Japanese rock, I listen to Arabic music (www.mazika.com). Funny thing is, most of that stuff is on the pop side of the spectrum .
[ May 06, 2004, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by tt&t (Member # 5600) on :
quote:I think you made a rather gross generalization there Pearce
Yeeeup.
Personally, I like things because I like them. Or not. I neither follow the masses, nor shun the masses because it's the "intellectual/elite" thing to do.
I also think you could have worded your post better.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Who's Hilary Duf and Linsey Lohan?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
But also consider both P. Diddy's career choice and environment. It's more than understandable if she tires of the pseudo-intellectuals snobs that no doubt surround her, chasing after underground bands in desperate hope of affirming their self-titled status of cool.
Personally, if I had to spend a week in her life, I'd be carrying around a boom box on my shoulder and singing along to Justin Timberlake.
Cry me a river, BITCHES!
Posted by tt&t (Member # 5600) on :
Still. I think this
quote: I'm fed up with the idiotic, stuck-up attitudes that are so prevelant on this board.
was uncalled for. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
If you say so. Personally, I'm guessing it's just my abundance of idiocy and snobbishness that, thanks to my incredible charisma, Pearce is mistaking as the universal flaw of the forum.
Totally understandable, personally, if she spends more time thinking of me than the rest of you. I mean, really, you're just commoners.
Posted by tt&t (Member # 5600) on :
Oh Eddie. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Aw yeah, gorgeous.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
pH,
I haven't seen that much of what you're talking about here, but I'm familiar with what you are saying.
I think when a person learns to be critical -starts to develop their own tastes - that they can quickly turn a blanket critical eye on the source they've been spoon-fed from.
There is something inherently "cool" with discovering something new and beautiful. The communication of the discovery can be key - "I found this totally obscure thing and it makes me cooler than your ignorant ass" vs. "I ran across this wicked thing I'd like to share with you and here's why I think you might enjoy it."
fallow
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think the problem lies in just thinking that all quality lies in one certain domain. I know several people who won't watch anything with subtitles. It goes both ways.
I would admit to being guilty of this very thing if it weren't for the fact that I unabashedly listen to Destiny's Child on occasion.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do too. Bootylicious is a funny song. And their videos are not so bad either. I could go from opera to heaven knows what in just one day... It's all good if it moves you...
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
He can't be talking about me. If my brow was any lower I'd have to have a shopping cart to carry it around.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*oils the squeaky wheels on Book's shopping cart*
*slumps shoulders and sighs*
fallow
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: pH,
I haven't seen that much of what you're talking about here, but I'm familiar with what you are saying.
I think when a person learns to be critical -starts to develop their own tastes - that they can quickly turn a blanket critical eye on the source they've been spoon-fed from.
There is something inherently "cool" with discovering something new and beautiful. The communication of the discovery can be key - "I found this totally obscure thing and it makes me cooler than your ignorant ass" vs. "I ran across this wicked thing I'd like to share with you and here's why I think you might enjoy it."
fallow
This is not only the best post I've ever seen from flish, it's also the most coherent.
Which may or may not be synonymous.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
*agrees with Ralphie*
*also agrees with ph*
But I also think, pH, that this board is made up of a lot of self-professed nerds and geeks (me included ) who were ostracized at some point in their lives and therefore associate pop culture with something that has rejected them personally. I know I did for awhile.
Although I may be grossly generalizing.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Wait, so it's cool to not not like pop, now?
*makes mental note*
Does this mean I can start wearing Parachute Pants again?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
That's great and all, Kasie, but it's not an excuse to take it out on the undeserving. If you're pissed off about being bullied in high school, blame the people who should be blamed - the bullies. Period.
And actually, I was also a huge outcast in high school. So?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I'm not offering it as an excuse, just as an explanation.
And yeah...me too.
So who knows.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Hmmm, I think this thread might have been started in response to the backlash about the Friends finale...
So if we're tallking TV, I've watched shows like West Wing which were/are popular and really enjoyed them. It used to be really smartly written TV (I don't know what it is now - I stopped watching after Aaron Sorkin left. Maybe I'll watch it again when the new season gets picked up by Bravo for reruns).
Technically as an elitist snob, I shouldn't watch any TV because mindless TV viewing turns brains to mush from lack of interaction. I suspect that some of those that loathe the popular TV shows are among those who don't watch very much TV (and are prolly better for it) and attack Friends because it's the #1 rated show. I just don't like it because the writing on the show isn't very good. But it does appeal to the lowest common denominator which makes it popular.
I guess you could generalize that to music, films, art, books, entertainment, etc. There's brilliance that is popular because it's just so damn good, and then there's the kind of stuff that is cheap and dirty and easy making it popular (like a lot of fluff).
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: But it does appeal to the lowest common denominator which makes it popular.
It would be nice if you wouldn't insult those who like the show.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Why is appealing to the lowest common denominator necessarily insulting?
Stephen King appeals to the lowest common denominator in a lot of his books. I would say that most of them aren't brilliant. But they are cheap, easy fun reads. I'm not ashamed to say I've read a lot of them. They were fun to read. I don't think they improved my vocabulary at all or had really great themes, though (in re: themes -talking about non-Dark Tower series, non-Talisman stuff).
Action flicks appeal to the lowest common denominator. I go rent the Steven Seagall and Schwarzenegger movies and enjoy them without shame. But they're definitely not great movies and the writing is for crap.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't 'hate' pop-culture, but I also like very little of it. *shrug*
Edit: And I think you're wrong about SK, Johnny. But that's just me.
[ May 07, 2004, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
errrm... What the heck are you talking about? Can't think of anyone here who hasn't heaped effusive praise on one part of pop culture or another. Or anyone who hasn't slammed a portion.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
If you're refering to my comment that friends sucks: I just want to say that I don't like friends because I find it a rather boring and nonsensical show.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I have to admit, I like Friends now and then, but I absolutely loathe the "reality" shows. And also a lot of these "pop" shows.
I also can't stand movies like Sorority Boys. They have to make at least some sense, or I end up hating the movie. If there are too many "that could never happen" moments, my opinion of that movie is pretty shot. Unless you're talking about action. (James Bond)
For the most part, I agree with most of your post, except for this part:
quote: I've been wanting to say this for a very, very long time. I'm fed up with the idiotic, stuck-up attitudes that are so prevelant on this board.
I agree it's insecure and stupid to hate "pop" movies/music because of that label that people put on them. But I disagree that it's prevelant here.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: They were fun to read. I don't think they improved my vocabulary at all or had really great themes, though (in re: themes -talking about non-Dark Tower series, non-Talisman stuff).
So by your rubric, the only good books are those that increase your vocabulary and have good themes? There is so much more to a good book than that, but if you want to be close-minded, I won't stand in your way.
I think Stephen King novels are written just fine. It takes a lot of writing talent to keep people interested. If you think his kind of writing is so easy and it only appeals to the "lowest common denominator," then why don't you go and write some? Why isn't it your name I see on the shelves at the bookstore?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not too fond of Stephen King except for Eyes of the Dragon. I went through a brief John Saul phase back in jr. high school. It's all a matter of taste. Lik for example, I dislike most rap. Rap is monochromatic and boring. This does not make me a snob, it just means I dislike rap, that it isn't my taste. I prefer Laurell K. Hamilton to Stephen king myself, but that's a matter of taste.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
There's nothing wrong with something being fluff. Fluff serves a very definate purpose. When I'm upset or depressed, or just plain worn out, I don't go out and read Faulkner or Chekhov. I read David Eddings and enjoy every minute of it.
Why does something have to be all deep and philosophical for it to be worthwhile?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I believe Ellsworth Toohey once said that the best way to destroy the human spirit is to hype mediocrity to such an extent that no real talent can be recognized.
I don't hate pop culture but I do despise the corporate marketing machine that hypes a great (but not awesome) show like Friends as the Greatest Emotional Experience of Our Time.
If I have to see one more slow motion promo of Ross and Rachel almost, but not quite, kissing with enya background music, I may do something crazy like turning off my TV and actually reading a book or something.
I can't believe I live in a world where singers like Mandy Moore and Britney Spears are considered to be in the same class as Christina Aguilera. Christina is a singer; Mandy and Britney are merely entertainers.
BTW, Hatrack has shown much love to pop phenomenons such as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, POC, Matrix, ER, West Wing, Star Trek, etc.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Personally I check everything I watch/listen to/read before hand, and make sure it's not part of the "pop-culture". I use my "pop quiz" to find out. The pop quiz involves asking some random person on the street, who is clearly part of the masses, if they like the subject in question. If they do, I call them an idiot and go home. If they don't, I call them an idiot and go buy it. The best though is if they haven't heard of it, then I can give them the "you are so ignorant" look.
Hasn't steered me wrong yet.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It doesn't have to be deep and philosophical to be worthwhile, but maybe it has to be deep and philosophical as part of some people's criteria for deciding good?
Different people have different decision mechanisms for this sort of thing, why get ticked off either way... Scratch that, I can understand getting annoyed, but why make it an issue?
*Can't wait to see his Muppet Movie DVD tonight*
-Bok
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I can't believe I live in a world where singers like Mandy Moore and Britney Spears are considered to be in the same class as Christina Aguilera. Christina is a singer; Mandy and Britney are merely entertainers.
I can't stand all of them, but Christina Aguilera is a whole other story. I don't think I could explain my detestment of her image she gives off in a civil manner, so I won't.
quote: BTW, Hatrack has shown much love to pop phenomenons such as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, POC, Matrix, ER, West Wing, Star Trek, etc.
Hasn't Hatrack liked things before they were popular? Lord of the Rings, for example. Popular for most people older than 30, but I had never heard of them until my mom bought me the books for my birthday years ago. That was when they said, "Soon to be a motion picture epic by New Line Cinema!" I read through those and loved, them and nobody my age ever heard of them.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Harry Potter is some deep and good stuff. It frustrates me a little when I try to convince people to read it and they say, "It's too popular." or something like that. It has some of the best themes ever. Friendship, loyalty, standing up for what's right. That's what I love about it. Not because millions of people read it, but because it really does move some deep part of me that needs stuff like that. Now, what I hate is stuff that has no redeeming quality or purpose to it. People with no talent or mediocre talent getting mega popular when they cannot act or sing or dance or write. Stephen King can write. Shawshank comes to mind. It's such an excellent story. What I'm tired of is shows about people on some island that have to marry a millionaire who turns out to be a janitor from some small town and they have to choose between eating scorpions for 100,000 dollars and marrying him for 2,000,000 dollars if they can just convince their family that he isn't gay or obnoxious. That just makes me sick.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I agree completely with Synesthesia.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
I feel that often people who already dislike something may dislike it even more if the majority of other people like it and obsesse over it, kinda like chris's article. Also the same thing can happen when those people act like you're wierd if you don't like it.
For example I have never liked basketball, but I dislike it even more when everyone I met assumed I liked it because everyone just had to like basketball, and they considered me wierd when I said I didn't like it.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: I can't believe I live in a world where singers like Mandy Moore and Britney Spears are considered to be in the same class as Christina Aguilera. Christina is a singer; Mandy and Britney are merely entertainers.
Yes Christina is an artist for sure. That song "You're Beautiful" was inspirational, and not hypocritical in any way what so ever. Oh and "Dirrty" was clearly a master piece.
Posted by Kabederlin (Member # 6304) on :
I like the reality shows that are similar to game shows: The mole, survivor, the amazing race. I think it's because I think of them as a competetion that includes a variety of challenges. But all those dating and living together ones are extreamly boring.
Also I don't know about anyone else, but I have no clue on what some people's facsination with the olsen twins are. To me they look rather ugly, and they suck at acting.
Edit: sorry bok, I meant people when i said guys'
[ May 07, 2004, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: MEC ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I delayed reading Harry Potter for a couple years because I didn't want it to unseat my favorites kids novel, The Phantom Tollbooth.
Thankfully, they are both very different (TPT is still my favorite ), and I enjoy them both.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
MEC, no males have any official fascination with the Olsen Twins, for the record.
BTW, when do they turn 18 again??
-Bok
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I really like Beautiful.
I love Christina's voice. And if enjoying her songs means I also have to endure her nudity and blatant sexuality then goshdarnit that is just the kind of sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
How the heck did so many people get into my ivory tower?
I've gotta stop locking my doors when I go away for the weekend. Darn squatters.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Anyway, I do know what Pearce is saying and yes, I've noticed it on this board as well. Tell me none of you can remember a conversation that goes like this:
*****
Scene: The Card's living room. A group of friends are relaxing when one friend brings up a popular new television show, "Show x".
Stevie: "I like Show x"
Belinda: "I can't stand it so I never watch it."
Dustin: "What's Show x?"
Paula: "I don't really know about it because I don't have cable."
Brad: "I don't even have a TV!"
Cayleigh: "I don't have a TV *and* I destroy them at every opportunity"
Roger: "I don't own a TV and I bustigate them AND I've been known to beat up famous TV personalities."
Jordi: *weak voice* "I like Show x"
CURTAIN
*****
*shrug*
There's always competition for who's the most ignorant, who had the worst housemates, who's job is the worst, etc. Not just at Hatrack, in general. I do it all the time (and it bothers me to no end).
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
They should have a tv smasher competition tv show...
[ May 07, 2004, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: MEC ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
*hugs his TV*
I lub you. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I can't stand that BtL guy.
-Bok
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Whenever I see the letters BtL, I think Bachman Turner Overdrive, even though there's a typo.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
I think of BLT or bacon, lettuce, tomatoe.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
No, really. If I saw BtL, I'd give him a noogie.
Or an indian sunburn.
-Bok
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> You do realize that hating pop culture because you think it makes you sound more intelligent is no better than being a one of the mindless teenyboppers you so despise...right? <<
That's only true if you aren't actually better than everyone else.
Therefore I am an exception to this rule.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
To clarify: I didn't start this merely in response to people not liking "Friends." It's something that has bothered me for quite some time, as Lalo and others will tell you.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:I can't stand that BtL guy.
I don't really know who BtL is cause I don't have Hatrack.
[ May 07, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
You don't have _Hatrack_? It's, like, my favorite-ist forum!
You aren't a snob, are you Ralphie? I hate snobs, and their snobbish snobbery.
I do like the word snob, though. It has a nice texture to it.
-Bok
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
There's a difference between "good" and "enjoyable."
One refers to having certain qualities, for example, literature should make us think about something in a new light. "Enjoyable" refers to the aesthetics of something.
Music, to be "good" has to meet certain musical standards. Your music is not "good" because you sell 10,000,000 records. It means its popular, and aesthetically pleasing... so yeah, its aesthetically good, but not necessarily good music. And I do believe that distinction is important.
"Aesthetically good" is the goal of popular entertainment, at all times in history. The idea is to entertain... not to produce quality music or movies or books or gladiatorial combat.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
I agree 1000% with Paul Goldner's post.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
My mom has, for many years, referred to some of the stuff I read/watch as "mental bubblegum" -- little or no "nutritional" value, but tastes good.
*chews with relish*
*blows bubble*
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Nick-
Again, we argue. I don't think you're getting my points; you're just seeing an attack on an author you like.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They were fun to read. I don't think they improved my vocabulary at all or had really great themes, though (in re: themes -talking about non-Dark Tower series, non-Talisman stuff).
So by your rubric, the only good books are those that increase your vocabulary and have good themes? There is so much more to a good book than that, but if you want to be close-minded, I won't stand in your way.
How am I close-minded if I've read a lot of SK's books? I bet I've read more of his books than you have. I read everything from Carrie up to Bag of Bones, including the Bachman books, the Dark Tower series (up through Wizard and Glass), the Different Seasons collection, the 4 Past Midnight collection, his short story collections, etc., etc. I think reading so many of his books allowed me to see how formulaic he can be at times, and how much less satisfying they were than a "good" book. But they were still enjoyable or I wouldn't have read so many.
Having words that increase your vocabulary and have good themes are just two of the characteristics that I think can be found in great books. A book does not need to have good vocab words to be great (e.g. Hemingway's works), but if a book did increase my vocabulary I would be getting more out of it than just the cheap, easy thrill of your average SK book, or bestseller thriller. Again, it might just be a semantic difference we have between "good" and "enjoyable" (to steal Paul Goldner's terms).
quote:I think Stephen King novels are written just fine. It takes a lot of writing talent to keep people interested. If you think his kind of writing is so easy and it only appeals to the "lowest common denominator," then why don't you go and write some? Why isn't it your name I see on the shelves at the bookstore?
I think it takes a basic writing talent to keep people interested. Take the bestselling romance novels, for example. They keep a lot of people interested, but do you think it takes a lot of talent to write them? Do you think they're great? If not, why aren't you writing them?
I never said this type of writing is easy. I said, "...they are cheap, easy fun reads." An easy read for me is something I can read quickly because the themes don't make me stop and think - I can just read on, totally entranced in the book. It's an escape. EG by OSC seemed a perfect blend of the two, IMO, because it was an easy fun read, but it wasn't cheap. I got good themes out of the book and it made me think while it entertained me.
Books on the shelf are more than just writing. It's whether editors think your stuff will sell, whether the timing is right on the topic of the book, whether the book's different and can carve out a niche or whether a publishing house is ready to pick up another author just then. Writing a book is only half the battle.
quote:Paul Goldner wrote: One refers to having certain qualities, for example, literature should make us think about something in a new light.
I think this is so true. Compare the canon (James Joyce, Melville, Hemingway, Ayn Rand[some of you may disagree with me on this one], etc.) with SK's works or some other authors. Hopefully, you might see the difference to which Paul referred.
Rakeesh-
Thanks for disagreeing with me. All this is just my opinion as well.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Don't get me started on Joyce and Hemmingway...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*gets you started on Joyce and Hemmingway out of curiousity* I've never read either.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Oh sure...dump on Hemingway and Joyce for being pop writers
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
blah blah blah...
blah blah blah GINGER blah...
blah blah blah...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Joyce and Hemingway are great. So's Beckett.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
pH,
This thread rocks! Thanks for starting it. I wish I had a time machine to go back and post a response to some of the questions raised. So much...
cheers,
fallow
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:You do realize that hating pop culture because you think it makes you sound more intelligent is no better than being a one of the mindless teenyboppers you so despise...right?
This is 100% correct, whether it's music, literature, art, or philosophy. Rebeling against the "in" thing simply for being "in" does not make you intelligent any more than it made you cool in middle school.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Again, we argue. I don't think you're getting my points; you're just seeing an attack on an author you like.
You want to know something funny? My point didn't have anything to do with Stephen King. I have actually never read any of his novels. I just thought that things you listed were the only thing that make up a good book.
Paul,
quote: Music, to be "good" has to meet certain musical standards. Your music is not "good" because you sell 10,000,000 records. It means its popular, and aesthetically pleasing... so yeah, its aesthetically good, but not necessarily good music. And I do believe that distinction is important.
And who says what those "standards" are?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
whoa. nickolicious?!
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
OSC himself has written several articles on this subject....though I can't remember them. He used the word "elitist" to describe people that turn up their noses at popular art just because it's popular. One of them was in Storyteller in Zion and he's mentioned it in other places as well. You guys have brought up similar points and scenarios and it seems to go both ways.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: whoa. nickolicious?!
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Nick,
As they say... "when in Zion, do as the zionists do."
nick fallow
j/k
fallow
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Posted by amira tharani (Member # 182) on :
Just out of interest, what do you think about Joyce and Hemingway? I've never read any Hemingway, so I'd be interested to know.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
JohnnyNotSoBravo,
quote:I think reading so many of his books allowed me to see how formulaic he can be at times, and how much less satisfying they were than a "good" book. But they were still enjoyable or I wouldn't have read so many.
I've probably read as much or more SK as you have...but I can't help but think it strange that you call much of his work 'formulaic', but continue to read it.
quote:but if a book did increase my vocabulary I would be getting more out of it than just the cheap, easy thrill of your average SK book, or bestseller thriller. Again, it might just be a semantic difference we have between "good" and "enjoyable" (to steal Paul Goldner's terms).
That's one way to put it, if you insist on stating as fact that SK books are not 'good'.
quote:An easy read for me is something I can read quickly because the themes don't make me stop and think - I can just read on, totally entranced in the book. It's an escape. EG by OSC seemed a perfect blend of the two, IMO, because it was an easy fun read, but it wasn't cheap. I got good themes out of the book and it made me think while it entertained me.
SK's stuff doesn't make you think or reflect? If you've read all the SK you've mentioned, and you haven't reflected on anything in it (which I frankly doubt, since you've read so much of it), then you either weren't paying attention or decided beforehand, "This is brain candy. I won't think about it."
quote:Writing a book is only half the battle.
In the short run, yes. Over decades and millions of dollars across a variety of subjects and media, no.
quote:I think this is so true. Compare the canon (James Joyce, Melville, Hemingway, Ayn Rand[some of you may disagree with me on this one], etc.) with SK's works or some other authors. Hopefully, you might see the difference to which Paul referred.
I'm going to be rather blunt, while not apologizing for doing so: you're sounding like a literary snob. And I always find that so ironic-people said the same sort of things about Charles Dickens as you are about SK. 'Doesn't make me think' 'forumulaic' 'not high literature' 'enjoyable, but not "good" '.
History, readership, and legacy determine a 'good' writer from an 'enjoyable' one. Stephen King has already made history, his readership is enormous and diverse, and all that remains to determine whether he was good or merely enjoyable is legacy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hemingway's a literary populist. He draws a lot on his own experiences, and plays up the everyman in them.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:History, readership, and legacy determine a 'good' writer from an 'enjoyable' one. Stephen King has already made history, his readership is enormous and diverse, and all that remains to determine whether he was good or merely enjoyable is legacy.
Jonny has a bit of a point -- there's entertainment reading, literature, and high literature. Don't tell me you'll compare King with, say, Melville.
King has yet to pass the test of time. He's popular at the moment, and probably will remain thus for several more decades, but I doubt he'll be remembered as one of the greats. No more than, say, Crichton will. Both are immensely popular, but to equate them with the true greats due solely to their wide fan base? Why not apply the same generalization to music and declare Britney Spears on the same tier of greatness as Mozart?
Now, that said, I don't entirely disagree with you -- King isn't necessarily a bad author because he's popular. Just be aware that as popularity doesn't invalidate the worth of a work, neither does it validate artistic merit.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"And who says what those "standards" are?"
"Who" doesn't say what the standards are. Music is a medium involving harmony and melody, working together in a mathematical format.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think most of King's work is destined for the trash heap. There were plenty of literary contemporaries to Dickens that nobody reads any more, remember. However, a small group of King's works will probably remain popular, is my guess.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I've reflected for quite some time on quite a few themes from Eddings' books, and I don't think anyone, me included, would consider them anything other than fluff.
On the other hand, I won't read a book if it isn't enjoyable. I don't read very much 'literature,' because if I have to force myself to read it page by page, it's not worth it to me.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I find that I am 'elitist' merely by taste. Although, less than I used to be. I like many extremely mainstream things; Harry Potter, LOTR, PiratesotC, for example. However, I have trained myself to have my own tastes, so popular music (or much of it) I find extremely repellant. Same goes for many television shows, I just got used to other types of television.
*shrug* It's just how I am.
EDIT: Oh! This is my 1111st post! How exciting.
[ May 08, 2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:"Who" doesn't say what the standards are. Music is a medium involving harmony and melody, working together in a mathematical format.
If nobody says what the standards are, and if whatever makes the most enjoyable music does not determine the standard, how do we know which standard is correct and which others are not?
It seems to me that whatever this standard is supposed to be is pretty arbitrary if it's not producing the most enjoyable music. I mean, wouldn't we rather have enjoyable music than "good" music? What's the point of "good" but unenjoyable music?
I suspect that the idea that there is some other standard is just a fiction created by intellectual elitists and taught to people so much that people come to believe it's true.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Paul, that mathematical format doesn't have to be followed. That's how jazz came about.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Jazz still follows basic rules about tempo, even if it doesn't sound like it at first. If it didn't, it would be too dissonant to be catchy.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm talking about intervals, not tempo. And traditional African music also has plenty of elements that don't match the usual mathematical standards.
[ May 08, 2004, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: pH ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Music is a medium involving harmony and melody, working together in a mathematical format.
And who says what that mathematical format is?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It depends on what the definition of "is" is. Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I see what you're saying, but it doesn't quite apply. You're talking about a definition, I'm talking about musical standards. They are not related.
Yes, Mozart was famous because he created the Sonata Form. Most songs you see today have some relationship to that form. It is seen as the standard. But can songs be good without following that? Absolutely.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Nick wrote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, we argue. I don't think you're getting my points; you're just seeing an attack on an author you like.
You want to know something funny? My point didn't have anything to do with Stephen King. I have actually never read any of his novels. I just thought that things you listed were the only thing that make up a good book.
Curses! Well at least I was 2/3rds right in that quoted part. And of course it's all about being "right" so I can "win!" [given Nick's past problems deciphering whether something is humorous, I reluctantly add ]
quote:Rakeesh wrote: I've probably read as much or more SK as you have...but I can't help but think it strange that you call much of his work 'formulaic', but continue to read it.
I made a distinction between "enjoyable" and "good" above. But maybe you think something can't be formulaic and enjoyable? Hmmm, let me try to expound. Routines can be very enjoyable, familiar. Especially if you have done something different in between doing the same routine. If I read nothing but SK books, I imagine that I would find many of them less enjoyable. But I read more than those. He's not as formulaic as say, a Scooby Doo cartoon (which I still occasionally find enjoyable), but I think he still follows a pattern, especially regarding the paranormal in his books. IMO.
quote:Rakeesh wrote: SK's stuff doesn't make you think or reflect? If you've read all the SK you've mentioned, and you haven't reflected on anything in it (which I frankly doubt, since you've read so much of it), then you either weren't paying attention or decided beforehand, "This is brain candy. I won't think about it."
Well obviously if it made YOU reflect then it must have made ME reflect if I was thinking about it at all, because you know me so well. Oh wai-
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Exactly, Nick.
And it was an ancient philosopher who first came up with these mathematical relationships for music and what was "pleasing" and what wasn't. I don't remember the name right now, though; my brain is fried.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
People were saying the same sorts of things about Dickens. If Dickens were alive today and writing, there are several people here who would be saying, "He's entertaining."
quote:Just be aware that as popularity doesn't invalidate the worth of a work, neither does it validate artistic merit.
Thanks for the tip-I am well aware of it. Johnny's point seemed to be that SK wasn't 'good' but rather 'entertaining', because he (SK) didn't make JNSB think about lofty stuff.
quote:But maybe you think something can't be formulaic and enjoyable?
I was just commenting on the fact that you complain (criticize? Remark?) about SK's formulaic styles and plots...yet you've read `em all. The conclusion I reach when faced with that statement is, "Well the formula works."
quote:but I think he still follows a pattern, especially regarding the paranormal in his books. IMO.
What pattern is that? I am curious, because I've noticed drastic diffences in characters and plots in some of his books.
quote:Well obviously if it made YOU reflect then it must have made ME reflect if I was thinking about it at all, because you know me so well. Oh wai-
*shrug* You're allowed to label an author 'enjoyable' (which is, let's face it, calling him 'adequate'), so I say that maybe you're not thinking about it as well as you say you are.
--------
Fugu,
quote:I think most of King's work is destined for the trash heap. There were plenty of literary contemporaries to Dickens that nobody reads any more, remember. However, a small group of King's works will probably remain popular, is my guess.
You're quite right. Just because he is popular and Dickens was popular does not mean he is as good or will be popular as long as Dickens-that's a fallacy, of course.
My point, though, is that if someone is going to say that SK won't be, they should have a higher caliber of ammo than "he's massively popular" and "he's formulaic". I could as well toss aside Dickens because he writes about poverty so frequently.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Alright, so popularity neither guarantees nor excludes the possibility of quality. Neither does lack of popularity. In truth, I think that probably the majority -- possibly the overwhelming majority -- of art (whether music, film, sculpture, painting, or whatever) produced in the world is not that great, popular or otherwise. There just aren't that many artistic geniuses in the world.
::shrug:: Whatever, I don't feel bad about liking the George of the Jungle movie and I also don't feel bad about disliking the work of Thomas Kinkade.
Edit: I should also say that I don't feel bad about liking the works of Nabokov, Marquez, Wolfe, and Neruda, and at the same time don't feel bad about writing a negative review for The Shape of Things.
[ May 08, 2004, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Lalo,
Small thought. In terms of pulp to pop music comparisons, where does Madonna come in? Who is the novelist most fitting for comparison? Will Madonna be remembered as a "great"?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) who were ostracized at some point in their lives and therefore associate pop culture with something that has rejected them personally. I know I did for awhile.![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)