I am a somewhat reluctant convert to this camp--converted, in part, literally by Anna Karenina. But I'm still sympathetic to the opposing view, because people (including me) really struggle to articulate a clear theory what exactly distinguishes good and bad literature. As Henry has noted, a lot of the arguments people make about this are really quite bad!
If you set yourself up an authority on what is good and bad, then you better bring the goods! And if you can't, then prepare to be tossed out like the bum you may be reasonably supposed to be.
Yes some of the arguments are awful and what is really bad is that the people making them are sometimes oblivious to this! V glad to hear that about AK.
I have always, always had immense suspicion for the dis-moi ce que tu manges, et je dirais ce que t'es school of media.
A. It reduces the brain and spirit to nothing but consumption
B. Even as an analogy it fails because it's weird to categorise foods as 'good' or 'bad'.
C. If you are an elitist about genre or type, you are giving up the far far greater privilege of being elitist about specific examples. If you're going to turn up your nose at Regency romance out of hand, for example, you're denying yourself the privilege of being a dick about the Bridgerton books versus Georgette Heyer.
Placing “without any binding constraints of canonical standards” in italics seems to warrant the possibility of approaching the problem without constraints. The idea of a ‘standard’ means to make requirements. Whatever meets the standard will be sheaved together as the volume of work the acolyte is expected to swear by. As the volume is bound together so are the acolytes to the trade (not withstanding the bumptiousness of the lodge meetings.)
Happy you’re reading Isaac! He has been killing it lately.
I’m a fan!
I am a somewhat reluctant convert to this camp--converted, in part, literally by Anna Karenina. But I'm still sympathetic to the opposing view, because people (including me) really struggle to articulate a clear theory what exactly distinguishes good and bad literature. As Henry has noted, a lot of the arguments people make about this are really quite bad!
If you set yourself up an authority on what is good and bad, then you better bring the goods! And if you can't, then prepare to be tossed out like the bum you may be reasonably supposed to be.
Yes some of the arguments are awful and what is really bad is that the people making them are sometimes oblivious to this! V glad to hear that about AK.
I have always, always had immense suspicion for the dis-moi ce que tu manges, et je dirais ce que t'es school of media.
A. It reduces the brain and spirit to nothing but consumption
B. Even as an analogy it fails because it's weird to categorise foods as 'good' or 'bad'.
C. If you are an elitist about genre or type, you are giving up the far far greater privilege of being elitist about specific examples. If you're going to turn up your nose at Regency romance out of hand, for example, you're denying yourself the privilege of being a dick about the Bridgerton books versus Georgette Heyer.
Are all the poetic elites still in a rile because Charles Bukowski made it into the Huntington Library &
they did not 🥸
Placing “without any binding constraints of canonical standards” in italics seems to warrant the possibility of approaching the problem without constraints. The idea of a ‘standard’ means to make requirements. Whatever meets the standard will be sheaved together as the volume of work the acolyte is expected to swear by. As the volume is bound together so are the acolytes to the trade (not withstanding the bumptiousness of the lodge meetings.)