On the soapbox this week is our guest, Clare Sudbery – novelist, storyteller, editorial consultant and blogger extraordinaire – taking a break from her popular blog Boob Pencil, to complain about cultural snobbery.
*Thanks to Chris Seufert on Flickr for this image, here representing the fox of popular culture with the lion of literary fiction prowling in the background (both ignoring each other).
In Praise of Popular Culture by Clare Sudbery
I read a book recently called How Not to Raise a Perfect Child, by Libby Purves. Its intention was to reassure: Short cuts are all right, and perfection is impossible. But its effect was the opposite, in one specific area: Popular culture.
She’s not a fan of television, our Libby. Oh no. It’s bad for children. The standard of programmes is abysmally low, and by watching it they become undiscerning couch potatoes, their brains pumped full of facile nonsense and American pap, until they become… I dunno. People like me, I suppose. People who like to watch telly. People who spent large parts of their childhood watching it, when they weren’t visiting museums or beautiful parts of the British countryside. Published novelists with degrees and full cultural lives. People who – in the last week alone – consumed live cabaret, live contemporary dance, live theatre, highbrow literature, lowbrow literature… and a fair bit of telly.
Several measures are suggested in Ms Purves’ book, to temper the evil influence of TV. One is for children to switch off between each programme and use the time to form an intelligent critique. Another is to allow them only one or two “brainlesses” per week.
Coronation Street (a British soap opera) is a “brainless”, apparently.
I love Coronation Street. And one of my favourite TV series is Desperate Housewives.
I also enjoy reading chick lit, and murder mysteries. And recently I re-bought copies of Enid Blyton’s Five Find-Outer And Dog books, in a fit of lost-childhood nostalgia. And I *heart* Maeve Binchy.
I could criticise the books mentioned above. I could slate Ms Blyton for her narrow attitudes regarding race and sex. But I could do the same with Martin Amis. No book is perfect. They all have strengths and weaknesses, but for me excessive verbosity and general up-your-own-arseness is as much a crime as a lazy plotline or cliché-ridden prose. The latter two, contrary to popular (ha!) belief, are not universally present in popular culture. As with the highbrow, some of it is good and some of it is bad, and all of it contains both good and bad.
I find myself defensive about enjoying stories with a beginning, a middle and an end
But I still feel embarrassed sometimes, when admitting to lowbrow tastes. And when it comes to my own fiction, the thing I dream of most is to win the Booker. Or the Orange. Or the Pulitzer. But, you know. Something with weight. The kind of thing proper writers win.
I worry that my own books are, well, not serious enough. Not clever enough. Not enough to get me on Late Night Review or Front Row. My paragraphs aren’t long enough, I haven’t read enough classical literature to fill my writing with cunning literary allusions, my vocabulary isn’t big enough… and so on.
Part of me rejects this. Part of me is proud when people describe my books as “readable”. What’s the point of a book if it isn’t readable? But part of me was offended by the classification of my first novel (by only one person) as “beach reading.”
When I read the really clever books, the ones with the dense prose and interminable descriptions of nothing in particular, or the ones with no narrative structure which end in the middle of nowhere, I don’t enjoy them. I’m happy that other people like them, but I don’t.
Does this mean I’m stupid? Of course not. It’s just not for me. Storytelling, for me, is an ancient art to be cherished, and I suppose what I’m saying – the point of this article, now that I’m nearing the end and need to wrap it up somehow – is that I’m annoyed at how this stuff affects me. It infuriates me that I find myself defensive about enjoying stories with a beginning, a middle and an end. I enjoy reading them, I enjoy writing them. And I think Coronation Street and many other “brainless” TV programmes are well-written, well-acted, contain some stonking good drama, can be very funny indeed and are much better quality than other examples within their genres.
Sometimes – heaven forbid – ordinary people have good taste.
What I’m fighting against is the idea that whole swathes of culture should be written off, purely because they’re popular. That reaction – when someone has a good book recommended to them – of, “Oh no, I couldn’t. Everyone’s reading it.”. What the fuck are these people on? It’s elitism, and means nothing other than, “I refuse to place myself in any majority, because I am better than most other people on the planet, and I want to stay here at the top.”
Sometimes things are popular because they’re good. And sometimes – heaven forbid – ordinary people have good taste. There’s nothing more silly than training yourself to spurn good entertainment, just because it doesn’t require you to furrow your brow for ten minutes before finally announcing, often erroneously, that now you understand. Of course it’s good to tax your brain from time to time, but there’s nothing wrong with having fun. It keeps you young and healthy, and a good story can have many hidden benefits, such as helping you to understand the world. That one with the people in it, just outside your door.
The books I write are neither highbrow nor lowbrow. I don’t fit into any obvious genre such as chick lit, and I will insist on writing about such things as drug use, sexual abuse and non-standard sexuality. Sometimes I get carried away and write whole pages of philosophical meandering or iambic pentameter. But mostly I want to entertain.
And why not? It works for me.
About Clare Sudbery: Links
Clare’s Blog: Boob Pencil
Clare’s Website
Novels:
The Dying of Delight
Dance Your Way to Psychic Sex
Clare’s kids’ book The Secret Cake
For more rants from the Soapbox, click here.
Thanks Clare!
I should just add for anyone worried about the slight anti-litfic bias of the last few soapboxes (with poor Martin Amis cropping up a couple of times as a kind of mascot for litfic) that we have Emma Darwin on the soapbox next week, talking about literary snobbery and putting the case FOR Literary Fiction.
Interesting piece Clare and I agree with a lot of what you say.
You know when I was a child there were various children I knew who weren’t allowed to watch television. I think it’s a terrible thing to do to a child (no, really, I do!). It cuts them off from other kids, it removes points of reference and doesn’t necessarily allow them to be themselves. For me as a kid things like animal programmes were hugely important: Life on Earth, The Living Planet were experiences you really can’t get from a book in the same way (although I had the books too.) The Blue Planet must be the equivalent for children now, surely?
But the other point is, what about television that IS for kids and talks to them about their lives and issues? Surely dragging little whatsit round exhibitions of the early Renaissance is not going to let them feel less alone about being bullied or standing up to peer pressure at school or all the other kinds of issues that kids dramas like Grange Hill or Byker Grove could deal with?
I stumbled across “In the Night Garden” the other day – a real favourite with my niece – and thought it was a really charming programme with a kind of magical fantastical feel that a child is never going to get hanging about with the grown-ups all day. The Teletubbies has also been a phenomenon – tuning in to what kids want in a way we can’t even understand.
I not only loved tv as a child, but I think I actually learnt a heck of a lot of stuff from tv. But then, maybe that was “good tv”. But I also watched a lot of “bad” tv and enjoyed that and had FUN.
But, surely, a lot of this is about humour. Coronation Street is brilliantly humourous, and, as a kid, I adored Carry On Films. I don’t think I even realised the double entendres. I just liked the general all-round silliness and I still love those characters to this day. I also hated being dragged round museums.
But what I am missing is what the anxiety and fear is here. Can you mould kids anyway? If you forcefeed them a diet of museums and encyclopedias, aren’t they as likely to throw it all aside when they grow up and vice versa? People go on about violent computer games but how come most geeks are the gentlest people you’re ever going to meet.
Low culture can be brilliant and wry and knowing and clever and say things and speak to people and have layers. It is just too simplistic to say the highbrow is inherently better and the lowbrow always brainless. But perhaps the lowbrow doesn’t always wear its brain on its sleeve.
What I think is a pity is that people make a distinction between ‘offering entertainment’ and ‘using your brain’. Since when was using your brain not entertaining? The markets for crosswords/soduko/quizzes shows that humans find using their brains a pleasure just as using their bodies in dancing/football/climbing trees is. Some popular culture engages your brain satisfyingly, some doesn’t. But by definition popular culture is ‘accessible’, at least to people who are tuned into it – which isn’t everyone, by any means: you watch your grandfather trying to follow a really fast-moving and allusive pop video.
Some things that engage the brain take a bit more accessing than others… But the rest will have to keep for next week…
Yes, I would have liked to go more into the specifics of TV and how it may or may not affect people, but I ran out of space. So I’m glad you’ve expanded further on that, and agree with what you say.
Children can be incredibly discerning, without it being forced on them by making them write an essay on everything they watch (which seems to me like a very good way of putting them off criticism forever). And a lot of popular culture, and children’s culture, is very good indeed.
A lot of it is rubbish, but even then: If a child enjoys watching rubbish, so what? Does it mean they won’t also enjoy the good stuff? In what way, exactly, does the enjoyment of rubbish cause harm to anyone? If you’re only ever exposed to rubbish, then that’s a shame and means you will miss out. But in ordinary telly there’s a good mix of rubbish and not-rubbish, and as a parent you can also introduce tip-top literature and other art forms to complement the rest.
Still, that’s a slightly different issue, as I would argue that – although there is undoubtedly a lot of rubbish out there – a lot of what is dismissed as rubbish (purely because it’s popular or accessible) is not. Not at all.
There’s also another issue here, which is a more general one of childrearing. Personally I don’t agree that children need protecting from anything other than the most extreme and dangerous aspects of the world. You can’t hide the world from them, they’ll see it sooner or later. And the more you allow them to make their own choices and define their own adventures, the better equipped they’ll be – and the more discerning – as an adult. In the same way (and here Ms Purves’ book mostly agrees with me – I confess I feel a little guilty for quoting her book in a negative light, as it’s mostly rather good) I don’t think parents should attempt to present themselves – or the world – to their children as perfect. Of course they should try and set a good example where posible, but they should also allow their children to see their faults, and to understand that nobody is perfect, and that all human beings have flaws. And that the world can sometimes be a nasty place, but an open enquiring mind and a willingness to embark on adventure can make it a whole lot easier to deal with.
Emma, I wouldn’t disagree that brain-engagement is important and can be very entertaining. Personally I’m a massive fan of crosswords, logic puzzles and, well, most forms of maths. Coming as I do from a family of mathematicians, me and my cousins spent a lot of our leisure time together competing over who was the best at various kinds of puzzle.
But intense brain activity and cultural entertainment don’t have to be entwined. There’s a lot to be said for relaxation, and entertainment has a parrt to play in that. Although I love taxing my brain, I also love to just sit back and be entertained. I went to some modern dance on Sunday night, which would probably count as highbrow. It also may not have been accessible to anyone who isn’t used to it. But for me, who is used to it, it was definite brain-turn-off time. I lay back in my seat and soaked up the music and the visual delights, and didn’t think about it hardly at all. And I enjoy a lot of culture that way – particularly music. I like to let aesthetic experiences wash over me, while my brain tunes into another wavelength.
I’d say that for modern children, the fun of puzzle solving and brain activity comes mostly with computer games, a large number of which contain some form of puzzle-solving element.
But how many of the less-frowned-upon forms of children’s entertainment, particularly books, really make them think? Children’s literature can be sophisticated, but it is nearly always accessible. The best stuff takes them into complex and enchanting worlds and teaches them many lessons about the world, but it doesn’t make them furrow their brow in concentration unless they’re still learning to read, in which case they probably haven’t yet got to the point of really enjoying the process of reading.
I should probably state more clearly that I am not against highbrow literature. I read and enjoy a lot of it. I’m also not against drama of all forms that make you stop and think, and even require a certain degree of concentration.
What I’m against is the idea that only highbrow is good, and that accessible entertainment is inherently bad.
I’d also say that some degree of accessibility is an important factor in ALL good literature, and that includes the most sophisticated. Some writers (mostly unsuccessful, for obvious reasons) make a point of making their stuff hard to understand and see it as some kind of badge of honour. Similarly some readers prefer the idea that what they read can only be understood by themselves and a small group of cohorts. In fact, these readers mostly read non-fiction. Because that attitude, in fiction, is really a non-starter. And why? Because literature is supposed to entertain, and for that you need at least a small degree of accessibility.
Oh dear though, there are so many levels of complexity here. For instance, accessibility is not an exclusive definition of popular culture. A lot of supposedly highbrow culture is incredibly accessible. And accessibility is often as much a function of exposure as it is of anything else. So, for instance, the modern dance s much more accessible to those who have encountered it before, and a lot of people – from both ends of the spectrum – write culture off without even looking at it, thereby ensuring that it will always remain inaccessible to them.
Very interesting points. Particularly the one about dance. Surely a lot of this is about pursuits and what is considered elitist, rather than to do with engaging the brain, as you say. And with some forms, people are very scared not to engage the brain, even if the experience is supposed to be entirely aesthetic and not intellectual at all. I think a lot of this is to do with the perception of the type of person who makes up the audience – accessibility is not just about the work itself but about the environment surrounding the work and the kinds of people who go for it and whether people feel comfortable in that environment and with those people.
:)
______
Also we never consider the other side of the coin – that some “literature” could be bad for people: all those impressionable readers modelling their love-lives on Jane Eyre for example..
Really interesting piece, Clare.
I love popular culture and also write obscure literary fiction. I think it’s not an either/or thing. Many readers seem to enjoy a variety of books, rather than just one genre.
On the question of telly, as writers we’re surely always on the look out for good stories, well told, which is all the justification I need for my current telly-watching schedule (actually, that’s rubbish, I need no justification) the highlights of which are:
Lost, Prison Break, 24, Regenesis, Brothers and Sisters, Supernatural, Reaper, Smallville, Desperate Housewives, CSI (all three), Men in Trees, Star Trek DS9, October Road, the Riches, Breaking Bad, Criminal Minds and many many more! (actually, some of those are on season break at the moment, but I have been known to spend rainy Sunday afternoons curled up in front of back to back Prison Breaks). At least two hours a night we’re watching some American TV programme, and I make no apology for that. I love it.
I also read whatever’s to hand. Most of the time I have no idea what genre of book I’m buying. Things with chicklitty covers, often turn out not to be chicklit. And what exactly is literary fiction anyway? I’m generally unsure about that. I was told my first book was literary fiction, but I’d never heard of the term. Basically, I’ll read and enjoy pretty much anything.
Final point, I’ve yet to find a writer who’s slagged off chicklit or any other popular fiction, but lots of writers seem to dislike literary fiction. Not sure why. Maybe it’s something to do with literary prizes and commercial fiction being under-represented? Or newspaper reviews?
Guilty! Coronation Street is brainless, and I watch less TV than ever because it’s largely rubbish.
But.
I can relate the cultural issue best in my true love, music. I’m always listening to ‘new’ stuff, expanding my horizons, challenging myself and part of that is pure snobbery that chart music (popular music) is rubbish.
But you know what? I ALWAYS get bored of that and end up slapping on some Oasis, Queen, Status Quo… never fails.
I have also read Dan Brown novels, James Patterson novels, and enjoyed them immensely. Midnight’s Children was good too mind you.
Oddly I’ve just finished reading a (long) article about computer games and the advantages that (lowbrow) culture have to offer our society (via Arts & Letters Daily).
I guess I would state that everything you consume has value, and every value is valuable in one way or another. There is as much value to be gained in a short burst of mindless enjoyment (hello Coronation Street!
) as there is in an in-depth investigation of the writings of Plato.
(and there’s a sentence I didn’t think I’d ever write!)
“Dan Brown novels, James Patterson novels, and enjoyed them immensely. ”
I have loved many an Andy McNab novel. Learned a lot too. As a reader and a writer, I don’t judge genres, but I do judge individual books. If it’s good, it’s good. Doesn’t matter whether it be litfic or chicklit or sci-fi or whatever.
I think the problem here is that two different things are being conflated, popular culture/entertaining television and television for children.
I’ll set my stall out here, as I’ve got a few stakes in this one. I’m a former tv producer (of popular factual formats, the kind that get lots of viewers, go out on BBC1 and are slated for being trash). I am writing a novel which is literary fiction – with just the kind of long descriptions that Clare doesn’t like. And right now, I don’t let my infant daughter watch any tv at all, and when she gets older, her viewing will be restricted.
I agree with what Clare says about popular television, it is storytelling, sometimes of a very high order. And, like writing a block buster novel, it’s actually a great deal harder to get right than an artsy documentary about Salman Rushdie. Or something.
But a great deal of television isn’t just popular – I’m thinking here of documentaries mainly as that’s what I do, it’s also destructive. It ridicules people, makes fun of their looks and beliefs; it tells people that it’s better to be the girlfriend of a footballer, or on Big Brother, than to make something, be useful in the world. It says envy, plastic surgery, conformity, are good. As a producer, I found it harder and harder to find programmes that I wanted to work on, that weren’t exploitative, unpleasant, mean, that actually gave something back to the viewer. I don’t want my daughter to just take this world view as given. If she watches these programmes and talks about them with us, fine; I just don’t want them to go to her unchallenged. (and yes, I’d far rather she based her life on Wuthering Heights or Jane Eyre, it never hurt me…)
But right now – she’s only 18 months old, so it’s a while yet before I have to worry too hard about her body image – what I don’t like about television is that it’s passive. It hypnotises her, stops her from finding out about the world, makes her passive. She should be interacting with me, the cats, the fluff on the sofa instead. There’s a fairly substantial body of research which says that tv before the age of two is a bad thing, and too much tv after that is also not good. For me, I also resent all the merchandising that comes with children’s programmes; I don’t want to have to buy a rubbish picture book, just because it comes with characters from the Night Garden or whatever.
And – for what it’s worth – I think that tv can also fulfill that function for adults too. Yes it’s great to relax in front of Corrie, but if you’re watching it four times a week, and believing in these people’s lives more than those of your neighbours, is this an entirely harmless way of spending your time? Like so many treats, it’s great, but not as the whole menu.
I have to say that I agree with a comment from ‘vonsudenfed’. I used to work in marketing and advertising and I know how that world works. And that is part of the reason why I don’t like television. We don’t have a television in our house or at least not one that’s hooked up and I have four children. That’s not because of some high principles of mine, it’s mainly because we moved house two years ago and I kept meaning to sort out getting the cable or whatever but never got around to it. The chidren never ask for it (although my husband is starting to make noises about the Olympics).
Television teach children to become good little consumers and ask for all the right brands. My children play with each other, play on the street with friends, are crazy about drawing and art and talk to me instead of being stuck in front of the telly. I think we have a bit of reverse snobbery here. I have never criticised a parent for having a television or letting their children watch it but somehow it’s OK for other people to criticise my choice.
It’s the same for me with books. Personally I like to read books that exercise my brain. But I don’t criticise anyone for choosing to read entertaining, fluffy books. For me, all books are not equal, the difference being just a question of taste, just as not all restaurants are not the same and all wine is not the same (even if each may be of a high quality within its category)
I have to agree with vonsudenfed and Mary on this one. Clare’s soapbox raises several interesting points, but I do think that it also conflates several issues which probably deserve to be treated separately.
I’m from something of a tv media family – tv presenters, foreign correspondents, newsmen – and one of my burning ambitions is to one day produce a documentary. However, my own (hypothetical) kids will not be introduced to tv until they are old enough to make informed choices about what they watch and why. I find the sight of a two year-old transfixed by the sight of a tv screen – that glazed expression, that complete disconnect with what is going on around them – really quite scary. It’s a passive activity – apparently your brain does less work watching tv than it does when you’re asleep! – and I think the problem is not so much what kids watch, as the fact that they’re engaged in such a mind-numbing (literally) exercise. Opium for the masses, and whatnot.
As for the distinction between literary and commercial fiction…I’m beginning to think that this is something that preoccupies writers far, far more than readers. Will the woman who’s devoted to Mills and Boon ever fall in love with Milan Kundera? Will I ever manage to get beyond page five of The Da Vinci Code? The answer to both questions is, probably, no. But does it really matter?
“Opium for the masses, and whatnot.” God yes, give me some of that!
For me TV is relaxing escapism, and it’s free (well, almost). I live in the middle of nowhere, I’m skint and TV opens up worlds for me that I’d otherwise never see. Plus, I’m a sucker for a good story. I don’t watch much British TV, and I never watch adverts.
I don’t have kids, and I’m sure that if I do ever have them, my television time (and other leisure time) will be out the window. Don’t know enough about the subject, but I’ve read some scary research about tots in front of televisions. Up to each parent to make their own decision on that.
Really agree with this:
“As for the distinction between literary and commercial fiction…I’m beginning to think that this is something that preoccupies writers far, far more than readers.”
The thing I hate about the genre debate is that I always feel like I’m being requested to take a side, but I like all sorts of books. In the same way I like all sorts of films. Two films I’ve really enjoyed recently are No Country for Old Men (from the novel by Cormac McCarthy) and P.S I Love You (Cecelia Ahern) Why should that make me a walking contradiction? I want to sample good fiction and good films. I don’t care what genre they fall into. Why should I?
I’m 100% with Clare. There is much in popular culture, including TV, that should be celebrated. I’m quite happy to read heavy duty books, as long as they’re well-written and not just self-congratulatory rambling, but equally I can celebrate a superb piece of TV pop culture like Joss Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which works on a surprising number of levels.
I’d also stand up for Coronation Street (maybe as a northerner!) – there are times when you do want just to collapse and enjoy something that’s low challenge, especially after a hard day, and Coronation Street provides for this need superbly. It’s facile to say that such entertainment doesn’t involve using your brain – quite clearly untrue from a biological standpoint – it simply uses different aspects of the brain.
Of course there’s rubbish on the TV – there’s plenty of rubbish in bookshops too (some of it on the ‘literary’ shelves). But I think it’s very sad if we feel it necessary to remove a stimulating source of entertainment from anyone’s lives – children or adults.
“we never consider the other side of the coin – that some “literature” could be bad for people: all those impressionable readers modelling their love-lives on Jane Eyre for example”
I didn’t really explore the argument that some culture is bad because it presents bad examples to people of how they should behave, but that’s a very good point. For me, the best fiction – in all formats – is that which is true to life, and which explores the depths of passion and behaviour present in real life. Which necessarily includes bad behaviour, and that’s just as true in high art as it is in low art. Many great classics contain myriad examples of behaviour which shouldn’t be emulated. Shakespeare, for instance. I simply don’t believe that bad behaviour is caused by the examples people see in popular culture. I think culture acts as a mirror, and if someone goes out to commit murder or rape, they have a hell of a lot more wrong in their lives than simply watching bad telly.
“as writers we’re surely always on the look out for good stories, well told”
Absolutely. I often find myself making notes when I spot a good example of drama, characterisation, whatever in all cultural formats. And that definitely includes the soaps.
“I’ve yet to find a writer who’s slagged off chicklit or any other popular fiction, but lots of writers seem to dislike literary fiction. ”
How odd. I’ve come across many writers slagging off the former! But I need to reiterate: I am not slagging off literary fiction. I like it. According to some sources, I write it. I don’t always like the extreme end, but I accept that some people do. What I object to is the notion that anyone should be considered superior on the basis of their literary tastes.
“Coronation Street is brainless”
I don’t agree. It’s very well written, contains some good drama and some good humour, and even makes you think from time to time.
“everything you consume has value, and every value is valuable in one way or another. ”
I’d broadly agree with this. Obviously people can make valid judgements about some things being better than others, but there is no objective right or wrong.
“I don’t judge genres, but I do judge individual books.”
Me too.
“it tells people that it’s better to be the girlfriend of a footballer, or on Big Brother, than to make something, be useful in the world. It says envy, plastic surgery, conformity, are good. … I don’t want my daughter to just take this world view as given. ”
Right. You see, I think this is a problem not with television, but with the world we live in. Those values are also espoused in magazines, books, films, in the playground, EVERYWHERE. You can’t protect your child from the world in this way. If you do, they’re in for a rude shock at some point. I don’t want my son to take this world view as given either, which is why I always challenge such views when they come up in the places that matter, i.e. in conversation, in his attitudes to other human beings and in their attitudes to him. In fact exposure to television is not the defining factor in whether children will take these views on board. What they pay most attention to is the example set by the behaviour of the real people around them.
“what I don’t like about television is that it’s passive. It hypnotises her, stops her from finding out about the world, makes her passive”
I don’t agree. My son is not passive, and neither am I. And yet we watch a lot of television. People do in fact interact with their televisions all the time, by shouting at it, etc. But do they interact any more with the books they read, or the plays they see at the theatre? If so, how? Consumption of culture is nearly always a passive event. But there’s a lot else that happens in an average life which is not passive.
“My children play with each other, play on the street with friends, are crazy about drawing and art and talk to me ”
Um, yup. My son does all this stuff too. And so did I as a child. But as WELL as that, I – and my son – watch quite a lot of telly. It doesn’t have to be an either-or thing.
“I think we have a bit of reverse snobbery here. I have never criticised a parent for having a television or letting their children watch it but somehow it’s OK for other people to criticise my choice.”
Surely it’s valid for people to criticise each other on the choices they make? You may not have criticised anyone for allowing their children to watch telly, but there are plenty that do. It’s rather hard to discuss the merits of either approach without at least implying some criticism. In fact, it’s a minor issue. It hardly ranks up there with child abuse. Like most parenting issues, it’s not a massive deal. Both approaches are valid and have good arguments in favour. But I can’t pretend I don’t disagree with the idea of banning children from watching telly. So we disagree with each other. Personally I think that’s a good thing! I love a good debate, and how boring it would be if we all agreed about everything.
“all books are not equal, the difference being just a question of taste”
Yup. That’s just it. It’s a matter of taste. Which means there’s nothing wrong with preferring one form or the other, or indeed liking both.
“I’m beginning to think that this is something that preoccupies writers far, far more than readers.”
Hmmm. It’s an issue which has always got me hot and bothered, since I was a teenager. But I only started writing when I was in my 30s. I think there are plenty of cultural snobs out there who are not writers. But I do accept that inverse snobbery also exists, and want to reiterate yet again that I like highbrow AND lowbrow.
“Will the woman who’s devoted to Mills and Boon ever fall in love with Milan Kundera? Will I ever manage to get beyond page five of The Da Vinci Code? The answer to both questions is, probably, no. But does it really matter?”
No, it doesn’t matter what people like. That’s what I’m saying. Although you might be surprised how many people there are out there who enjoy both Mills and Boon AND Kundera…
“I always feel like I’m being requested to take a side, but I like all sorts of books.”
No. No sides need to be taken. You don’t have to choose one over the other. We should all be free to like whatever the hell we want. And the more open you can allow yourself to be, the more enriched your cultural life is likely to be. Which means, as you do, not writing anything off because it is either too popular or not popular enough.
I think I was misleading by talking about lengthy prose and description, etc. That’s my taste. I prefer books with a story, and unless the description is truly stunning and moves on well from the action, I tend to get impatient with too much of it. But that’s just my taste. I also happen to love lyricism, metaphor, and clever use of language. I’m sure there are some people who get equally impatient with that. I enjoy huge swathes of “highbrow” fiction. What annoys me is that I feel that some people think literature just doesn’t count unless it is dense and opaque.
“No, it doesn’t matter what people like. That’s what I’m saying. Although you might be surprised how many people there are out there who enjoy both Mills and Boon AND Kundera…”
Agree with this.
““all books are not equal, the difference being just a question of taste”
Yup. That’s just it. It’s a matter of taste. Which means there’s nothing wrong with preferring one form or the other, or indeed liking both.”
Clare, I think you might have misunderstood me here. I am saying the opposite, that it’s not just a matter of taste. I can see now that I phrased it badly but I was writing in a rush. Personally (and I know this is maybe not a very politically correct opinion) that there is a real, objective difference between books that has nothing to do with the individual taste of the reader. As an analogy; McDonalds may be a very good quality restaurant in its category (whatever quality means in this sense; efficiency of service, hygiene, consistency etc etc) but objectively, in terms of cuisine, it could never be qualified as serving ‘high-quality’ food. In most areas it’s the same thing: wine, music, painting, design etc etc.
I know very little about classical music but I know there’s something special there because I can sense it and I can see it in the faces of those people who have made the effort (and yes, I believe that most things worth having in this world require effort) to understand it. Despite my own lack of knowledge I would never presume that Bach is in the league as the Spice Girls irrespective of my own personal preferences. Why should books be different?
Crumbs – go out for five minutes and there’s a huge barney breaking out WITHOUT ME!!!
Umm.
“My children play with each other, play on the street with friends, are crazy about drawing and art and talk to me instead of being stuck in front of the telly.”
Yes, I did all that too. But, you know, telly also introduces children to values that the parents DON’t have and I think that can be a very good thing. Being a rebellious sort I hate the idea of being controlled and moulded. Bring up someone with character and I don’t see what harm a bit of trash tv is going to do.
And being fairly elitist in my own idiosyncratic way I don’t agree with this either:
““all books are not equal, the difference being just a question of taste”
Yup. That’s just it. It’s a matter of taste. Which means there’s nothing wrong with preferring one form or the other, or indeed liking both.”
Well, there is nothing WRONG with liking stuff but I don’t believe all books are equal. Although I do think there is a distinct and special pleasure in the “it’s so bad it’s good” kind of thing. I think there are good books and bad books in literary fiction, commercial fiction, the lot. And the same goes for tv. I spend a lot of time watching BBC4 because of the old dramas which are brilliant and the occasional new dramas and some of the documentaries. But I also love The Apprentice. And I think of all of those, The Apprentice is the least passive. Me and The Geek bond over it, laugh at it, chat to other people about it. This kind of interactivity that telly creates is, I think, a lot to do with the success of Big Brother (although I got bored of BB after the first series.) It is like going to the theatre. And for all those who will say how much better theatre is for you – I would agree there is nothing as good as theatre when it is good but I’ve seen one hell of a lot of bad theatre in my time and would prefer bad tv to bad theatre anyday because at least you’re in a comfy chair.
Sorry but I have to reply. Why this extremism? I do not ‘control and mould’ my children. Neither have I ‘banned’ television for them. We just don’t have one because I didn’t hook it up. And if they go to friends houses they often watch TV and I have no problem with that. They are happy, balanced children with LOTS of character and they don’t even ask for TV. Each to their own, I say.
I also agree that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with liking stuff. I tend to have strong opinions about most things BUT I also think that just because I like it (or don’t like it) that doesn’t make it ‘good’ in the objective, quality sense of the term.
Actually, I wonder if ‘the lady doth protest too much’
I think that Rosy and Clare are using the word “passive” in a different way from what I and a couple of others had meant. Of course, to have a discussion about something one has seen on tv is an active experience, exercising rational and communicative parts of the brain. But the act of watching tv itself is, literally, mind-numbing. Compared to reading a book, in which the participant has to do quite a lot of work (imagining scenery, filling in the gaps, connecting ysmbols and metaphors and themes, etc.) – even though, much of the time, it might not *feel* like work.
“I know very little about classical music but I know there’s something special there because I can sense it and I can see it in the faces of those people who have made the effort (and yes, I believe that most things worth having in this world require effort) to understand it. Despite my own lack of knowledge I would never presume that Bach is in the league as the Spice Girls irrespective of my own personal preferences. Why should books be different?”
I do agree. And I don’t think that this is a remotely elitist viewpoint, either – anyone who’s willing to put in a little extra work can reap the rewards.
In England 20% of the population are illiterate, 50% don’t use libraries (both figures from MLA), over 25% live in rural areas (DEFRA), 3.5 million children live in poverty (Government figures reported by Save the Children), and 40% of people have no Internet access at home (Ofcom). For many of these people, TV will be their main or only form of access to culture. This alarms me, particularly in the context of vonsudenfed’s, marygm’s and trilby’s comments above (thanks, you three; I learned some new stuff from those). I feel alarmed, not because I’m a snob about TV – I would describe some aspects of it as dire, for sure, but I wouldn’t dismiss it as a whole – but because I would like to see people making choices about their cultural preferences on the basis of wide experience. Like you’ve done, Clare. You’ve been able to combine, compare and contrast your TV-watching with ‘visiting museums or beautiful parts of the British countryside’ as a child and consuming live cabaret, live contemporary dance, live theatre, highbrow literature and lowbrow literature (in the last week alone) as an adult. This range of, and ongoing access to, cultural experiences, enables you to choose when you want to watch TV and when you want to do something else – and I’m sure you’re passing this ability on to your son. But my work takes me into people’s homes, so I’m aware of how many people have the television on ALL the time, even when ‘the funeral lady’ visits. And it’s their lack of ability or willingness to choose that worries me. That, and the difficulty some people have in distinguishing between reality and fiction. You know – the ones that send condolence cards and wedding presents to bereaved or engaged soap opera characters? Not actors – CHARACTERS. I find that very scary; it leaves me thinking that, in some people’s lives, TV has too much power. I think the advertisers know this too. It’s not the case in everyone’s lives; not in the lives of those who can distinguish between reality and fiction and hype and rhetoric and spin, in advertising and documentaries and news broadcasts and so on as well as in stories, and can teach their children to deconstruct the messages they receive. But not everyone has that kind of support. I think watching TV as a genuine choice is absolutely fine. But I don’t think TV should have the power to dominate anyone’s life.
“Why this extremism? I do not ‘control and mould’ my children. Neither have I ‘banned’ television for them.”
LOL – sorry Mary. I didn’t mean you. I was talking in a general way about my reactions to things as a child and also of my experience of friends who weren’t allowed to watch telly etc. Not that the parents aren’t the best-intentioned or indeed not brilliant parents, only my experience is – for example – that anything I’ve been pushed into for “my own good” like cello-playing etc I’ve thrown to one side at the earliest possible opportunity. Whereas things I saw as my own – drawing and painting and writing etc – I have continued to have a passion for.
Obviously I wouldn’t have been able to do those things without materials and encouragement, but I feel a lot of fondness for the tv I watched as a child. I don’t like the idea that arts always have to be “good for one” I find that idea a bit patronising. (Just to reiterate quickly I am not saying that you are being patronising at all – I don’t even know what you think about that – just it’s an attitude that I have come across and it can kill genuine engagement in my view.)
Also – just to say – I do like litfic too. It’s just the idea that something is “better for you” I react against. If you see what I mean.
Just to add a different angle, I was brought up without a TV or (largely) radio, which wasn’t so rare among our extended family, but was very rare indeed by the 1970s in the world at large. I choose to have one for my children, as neither of my sisters do, because in some ways I’ve never really got over the feeling that I don’t fit in the ordinary world, and I don’t want that to happen to them. In my childhood and much more importantly in my adolescence most of the world was absorbed by, talked about, referred to, a whole culture – pop music, tv, gossip, I had virtually no knowledge of, because anything that didn’t make Radio 3 or The Times simply wasn’t on the domestic radar.
Yes, I probably read much more as a child than I would have otherwise, but I’m not sure that’s necessarily a full compensation. Large numbers of my less good life choices have been made from a hard-wired and always futile desperation to fit in. But then, that’s what makes a writer, isn’t it? That sense that you’re ususally standing on the edge of things? (It also makes me write hist fic because I really don’t feel qualified to comment on the contemporary world.) But as I’ve said elsewhere, much of what makes a writer isn’t necessarily particularly sane or healthy or balanced.
Eek, I’m trying really hard to approach this comments box in small doses only, otherwise I’ll spend all day in here!
It’s great that my piece has generated such a lively debate – I’m chuffed about that. I’ll come back later and read / respond to everything properly, but I couldn’t resist a quick peek just now, and Zinnia’s post above about how TV dominates some people’s lives has demanded my attention, so here’s a response:
Zinnia, none of what you say negates my argument, which is this: TV is not inherently evil, and nothing is to be gained by banning people from watching it. Yes, many people lead culturally impoverished lives. Many people lead impoverished lives, full stop. Without money or resources or motivation to offer their children varied and interesting choices, and without the education to be discerning or critical about many aspects of life, including TV. But you can’t blame that on telly itself. What would your proposed solution be? To ban television altogether? Do you think poor people in the days before telly had richer cultural lives? Hasn’t a good broad spectrum of culture always been something that vast sections of society have missed out on? I would argue that NO culture is good if that is the only culture anyone is exposed to. But I think that, even in the households where TV is consumed in the manner you describe above, there will be some cultural gains.
I would never suggest that TV should be the sole cultural diet for anyone. What I would suggest, however, is that TV in and of itself causes no harm. It’s what surrounds it that matters.
Clare, I do understand your argument, and I wasn’t trying to negate it, but to add another dimension to the developing debate. I certainly wouldn’t want to ban TV. I know it offers benefits, and I agree that it causes no harm ‘in and of itself’ – but, as you say, TV doesn’t exist, and isn’t watched, in isolation. I think, therefore, that it doesn’t make sense to discuss it in isolation either.
I don’t have an easy solution, only an ideal: that everyone should have access to a range of cultural experiences, and the necessary support and input to make the most of them – which, for me, includes the ability of each person to decide what they, personally, like and don’t like. I agree with Trilby that it can take some effort to understand cultural experiences, hence my plea for support and input to be offered alongside those experiences. Further, I would argue that this can apply to ‘popular culture’ as well as whatever the other pole in the dichotomy is (logically it should be ‘unpopular culture’!).
Hi Clare. Really enjoyed the piece.
Can’t help feeling that you’re aiming at quite a small group of people, though. Surely not many (if any) people would refuse to read a book because “everyone’s reading it”. And those that do aren’t into literature anyway; they’re into fashion.
“”I know very little about classical music but I know there’s something special there because I can sense it and I can see it in the faces of those people who have made the effort (and yes, I believe that most things worth having in this world require effort) to understand it. Despite my own lack of knowledge I would never presume that Bach is in the league as the Spice Girls irrespective of my own personal preferences. Why should books be different?”
I do agree. And I don’t think that this is a remotely elitist viewpoint, either – anyone who’s willing to put in a little extra work can reap the rewards.”
It’s practically the definition of an elitist viewpoint! Though I don’t think there’s anything wrong in having an elite. (It’s elitist because: (a) it’s just *assumed* that Bach is better than the Spice Girls, despite knowing “very little” about it. This is rather like a peasant doffing his cap to a passing gentleman; and (b) you think that *anyone* who wants to, has the wherewithal to understand Bach if only they put in “a little extra work” (a phrase that practically gives off waves of elitism)).
(To carry the analogy forward, would you say that classical music is in a loftier league than pop music?)
The article does sound a bit like protesting too much. But I do think that if there is literary snobbery going on (and if by snobbery you mean being excluded from the Broadsheets and Hay Festivals and suchlike, then there probably is) the cause might be better served by roundly singing the praises of genre-fiction (for an article titled ‘In Praise Of’ there was very little praising going on!) than by all the defensive, though nicely argued, articles we’ve had of late. It might just be me, but I think people are more likely to be persuaded by a positively-argued case than a negatively-argued one (cf. negative campaigning in elections, for example).
Oooh where to start? Rosy, sorry, didn’t mean to take your comment personally, I know now it was just a general one. But all the same it is hard to argue with hypothetical people whose opinions I haven’t actually heard.
It’s true that the ‘popular culture’ camp is being a bit defensive. Nobody has suggested that TV be ‘banned’. Even Livvy Purves who started the whole thing off talks about ‘tempering the influence’ of TV. Zinnia only pointed out that too many people depend on TV exclusively for their entertainment/culture. The problem with TV is that it’s the easy option that requires no effort on the part of the watcher so all too often people don’t actually bother to do anything else. But, before anyone jumps in here, that does NOT mean I think TV should be outlawed with nothing less than capital punishment for anyone caught watching Big Brother (6 or 7 lashes of a whip should do the job there)
And Sam, yes I do believe that Bach is better than the Spice Girls on any objective measure you might like to choose. But that it not the same thing as saying that ALL (I’m not shouting by the way, just don’t know how to do italics
) classical music is better than ALL pop music. What I mean is that the tools required to assess classical music are more difficult to acquire than those required to assess pop music. But that said, it’s perfectly feasible that a piece of classical music could be much worse than a pop song.
(PS I’m finding your openmindedness here a bit disconcerting, Sam
)
Hi Mary
Bach may well be better than the Spice Girls on any objective measure, but my point was that (I thought) you said that Bach was better ‘despite my own lack of knowledge’ [of Bach]. Which isn’t very objective. Just sounded like plain cap-doffing elitism to me. And I never said that you’d implied that ALL classical music was better etc. I just asked the question. I liked your answer. Though, in respect of:
“[T]the tools required to assess classical music are more difficult to acquire than those required to assess pop music.”
I would say that: it depends. Sir Simon Rattle might find it very easy to assess – oh, eyeano – Bach in D Flat Major ++ Canon Fugue (or whatever), but he might have a harder job getting to grips with hyphy on a piece of East Coast DnB. For example.
“Nobody has suggested that TV be ‘banned’.”
There’d be a fricking revolution if it was. Give us our opium, goddammit
“The problem with TV is that it’s the easy option that requires no effort on the part of the watcher.”
Ah, see now, keeping track of the hundred weird and wonderful subplots of Lost is a mission in itself. It has a more complicated plot than any book I’ve ever read, sets off all sorts of discussion in our house (like whose memory is better. Mine is. I remember Season 1 as if it were on telly yesterday… ) and it’s kind of lovely to cuddle up on a sofa and be told a story. Love it. Maybe my mother read us too many stories when we were children and got me hooked
Incidentally, I hardly watched any TV as a child.
Isn’t one of the Spice Girls writing books now?
“It’s elitist because: (a) it’s just *assumed* that Bach is better than the Spice Girls, despite knowing “very little” about it.”
I’m not assuming that Bach is better. I *know* that Bach is better. You could arguably compare a Beatles song to, say, a Schubert song cycle and conclude that both have their merits – but Bach vs the Spice Girls, for anyone who actually knows about music, doesn’t leave much room for debate. There are cultural absolutes, whether we like it or not. It’s our attitude to these absolutes – should they be exclusive, should we place value judgements on people based on what they listen to, etc. – that lies within our control. In that sense, I do agree with what Clare says.
And that’s pretty much all she’s saying, from what I can tell: ie. ‘litfic and commercial fic both have their place; tv isn’t evil but not ideal in overdoses’. Hardly earth-shattering stuff. Did anyone ever suggest otherwise?
I just think it’s a bit pointless and not at all relevant to compare Bach and Spice Girls. I think some things are better than others too. (Although you could argue Bach would lose if the criteria was looking good in a union jack mini-dress)
But I thought what Clare was saying was that she is made to feel bad for enjoying popular culture. That it is judged/looked down on as an activity. And made to feel insecure about wanting to entertain as a writer. Just like some people think certain popular television is bad for people. I do think there is immense snobbery surrounding the arts and it is a lot to do with people using it as a badge about themselves.
But that, I always think, is a bit separate from the work itself.
Anyway, don’t worry. As I said, there are many more soapboxes to come from different angles. We have had a few swipes at litfic recently on the box – but all will all be set to rights next week with Emma Darwin’s piece.
What a fascinating discussion. I agree, mostly, with Clare.
My grandfather, a village doctor, used to watch Blind Date, Coronation Street and other ‘low brow’ tv programmes. Said he learnt from them as well as enjoying them.
I do think, however, that watching tv is a passive thing but that doesn’t necessarily make it bad. Watch East Enders,if that’s your thing, but turn off the next programme if it isn’t.
On not having a telly. Fine when your children are at primary school but you’ll be making their lives even harder if they can’t access one when they’re secondary school age. Being an individual is a choice for the individual and you can’t make that choice for your children – IMHO:).
TV’s like a lot of other things. It’s as good or bad as you choose to make it. Excessive and brain-dead TV viewing – the ‘moving wallpaper’ scenario – isn’t necessarily just a cause of problems, it’s also a symptom.
While I don’t necessarily agree with some details of what Clare says, I do agree with the general drift of her complaint … that there’s a too prevalent, sneery attitude to popular culture. You can almost feel the word ‘oxymoron’ hanging in the air.
I don’t, it has to be said, watch much television but when I do, it tends to be either documentaries or fairly lightweight and undemanding dramas, preferably with a hunky male lead (may as well be honest here … my current viewing of choice is NCIS … Mark Harmon …. mmmm ….).
Same with my choice of reading … it’s nearly all non-fiction, as most regulars to VL will doubtless have noticed. When I do read modern fiction it’s not the heavyweight stuff. That’s not because it’s beyond me intellectually, it just has little interest for me. In fact, until I joined VL I’d never even HEARD the term ‘litfic’. (Mind you, I’d never heard of book blogs, either …) )
My life and work are such that I neither need nor want to be intellectually challenged of an evening or weekend. I want to be entertained and distracted – and there is nothing in the world wrong with that.
Judging people by what they read and what they watch on television can be extreme misleading. Looking down on them because of it is just downright nasty and probably a sign of massive insecurity.
Rosy’s comment about people using ‘culture’ as a badge is spot on.
I would just point out that there is, of course, such a thing as reverse snobbery … but that’s a whole other soapbox …
Interesting piece, Clare. Thank you.
Yes, Fiona. See my earlier post about children needing to learn to make informed choices
It’s a shame that Clare has been made to feel bad for enjoying popular culture. I watched “Briain’s Got Talent” last night, and although I tolerated the usual ribbing from my b/f (who refuses to watch anything involving Simon Cowell) I certainly wasn’t made to “feel bad” about it. (And once the tv was off, I flipped open a 400-page saga about the social implications of the c19 poppy trade – easy peasy!)
Trilby, you may well *know* Bach is better, but you said in the paragraph I quoted that you *agreed* with Mary when she said that she – rightly or wrongly – said she’d assume Bach was better despite knowing “very little” about his music. It would be good if you could be clear what is your agreeing with when you say you agree with something.
(Rosy, I don’t think anyone is really comparing Bach to the Spice Girls; they’re just being used as a *metaphor* – lovin’ these asterisks.)
Hello again. Apols for the delay, it’s a time-consuming thing answering all these comments. Double apologies if I’m the only person left reading this webpage. Although of course if that’s true, there’s nobody there to apologise to…
“I would never presume that Bach is in the league as the Spice Girls irrespective of my own personal preferences. Why should books be different?”
They’re obviously very different beasts, and can’t be compared in many ways. Which would mean, I would say, that it’s pretty pointless trying to argue which is better. To someone who has only ever heard classical music, the Spice Girls would be pretty confusing, hard to access, and indeed hard to assess. There is probably more complexity in a Bach piece, but does complexity equal quality? And again, how do you measure it? There are all sorts of complexities involved in sound recording and production techniques, not to mention layers of sound, in an average Spice Girls track. you might also argue there was a great emotional impact. Or you may not. Personally I would say that Spice Girls was at the lower end of quality where pop music is concerned, but that there are also examples of extremely complex pop music, which are definitely comparable to Bach (indeed a lot of modern electronic music gurus (Luke Vibert, for instance) use maths in a similar way to the way that Bach did, and are of comparable intelligence) – who was after all the popular music of his time.
I really don’t think there’s anything to be gained, though, from comparing different genres and claiming one to be of higher quality than another. Genres are in themselves so broad and contain so much variety as to make such a comparison pointless. Much better, I think, to compare the qualities of different works within a particular genre. Particularly when the genre – i.e. “pop music” – contains so much within it as to be pretty unhelpful in the context of a discussion like this.
“I think there are good books and bad books in literary fiction, commercial fiction, the lot. And the same goes for tv.”
Yeah, fair enough. It’s not just about taste. Indeed, I said in the original piece that some forms of popular culture are better than others. Cornotation St being, in my opinion, of much better quality than most daytime soaps. Although of course, because of individual taste, there will never be agreement on any kind of objective standard of measurement.
“Sorry but I have to reply. Why this extremism? I do not ‘control and mould’ my children. Neither have I ‘banned’ television for them. We just don’t have one because I didn’t hook it up.”
I don’t think I’m being extreme. I’m not saying that all those who ban television are terrible people who should be vanquished from the earth. Nor am I accusing everyone who doesn’t like TV of therefore being in favor of banning it. I don’t think it’s a good idea to remove TV from a child’s life, or even to restrict it very much. Some people have suggested this. I disagree. But my main argument is that TV is not an inherently bad thing. That’s all.
“But the act of watching tv itself is, literally, mind-numbing. Compared to reading a book, in which the participant has to do quite a lot of work (imagining scenery, filling in the gaps, connecting ysmbols and metaphors and themes, etc.)”
See below. Some TV is mind-numbing, some isn’t. Some requires a lot of concentration, some less. Most dramatic TV requires someeffort of the imagination, to fill in the gaps. Otherwise it would be tedious in the extreme. When the TV is just on in the backgroudn and nobody has bothered to turn it off, the experience in many households is that nobody’s really watching it anyway, and people are doing other things at the same time.
“everyone should have access to a range of cultural experiences, and the necessary support and input to make the most of them – which, for me, includes the ability of each person to decide what they, personally, like and don’t like.”
I agree.
“Surely not many (if any) people would refuse to read a book because “everyone’s reading it”. And those that do aren’t into literature anyway; they’re into fashion.”
Well, actually, yes. I’ve come across this attitude many times. I used to spend a lot of time on a forum which started out as being a music forum but ended up being a general cultural discussion place. I came across this view there several times, in relation to several different books. And it’s not just about fashion, it’s about making an active judgement that there’s something inherently inferior about that which is popular.
““[T]the tools required to assess classical music are more difficult to acquire than those required to assess pop music.”
I would say that: it depends. Sir Simon Rattle might find it very easy to assess – oh, eyeano – Bach in D Flat Major ++ Canon Fugue (or whatever), but he might have a harder job getting to grips with hyphy on a piece of East Coast DnB. For example.”
Yup. I agree.
““The problem with TV is that it’s the easy option that requires no effort on the part of the watcher.”
Ah, see now, keeping track of the hundred weird and wonderful subplots of Lost is a mission in itself. ”
LOL! Good point.
“‘litfic and commercial fic both have their place; tv isn’t evil but not ideal in overdoses’. Hardly earth-shattering stuff. Did anyone ever suggest otherwise?”
Not earth-shattering? Well to be fair, how much on a site such as this is likely to be generally earth-shattering? Does that mean it doesn’t warrant discussion? But yes, people do suggest otherwise. All the time.
“But I thought what Clare was saying was that she is made to feel bad for enjoying popular culture. That it is judged/looked down on as an activity. And made to feel insecure about wanting to entertain as a writer. Just like some people think certain popular television is bad for people. I do think there is immense snobbery surrounding the arts and it is a lot to do with people using it as a badge about themselves.”
Yup. Exactly.
“there’s a too prevalent, sneery attitude to popular culture.”
I agree.
“I would just point out that there is, of course, such a thing as reverse snobbery … but that’s a whole other soapbox …”
Indeed there is. To reiterate once more, I enjoy both highbrow and lowbrow, and don’t look down on people for liking either one or the other. But I know you weren’t suggesting otherwise. Snobbery in all forms is bad. Judging people for their tastes and / or leisure pursuits is bad.
Clare, I agree with much of what you say. I’m no lover of literary fiction (sorry Emma). In fact, I’ve just seen on the news that Rose Tremain has won the Orange prize and to be honest, I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
I find literary fiction boring – it’s not entertaining *for me*…..but I do understand that others mind find it good. Some people like lots of description about nothing, or want to be challenged and I wouldn’t want to deny them. But it doesn’t make that better. In fact I admire more a writer who can keep me up until 2am reading their book because I can’t put it down…
However, I kinda disagree with you about TV. There are some really good TV programs, but IMO 99% of what is on TV is rubbish. Add to that, there is little choice. Look at all the “same old same old” stuff that is on now…talent shows, reality TV…thats about it.
I believe that TV on demand rather than the current scheduling is the way forward – let people watch when they can – don’t make them wait for specific times of the day. By the way, some of the best TV I’ve ever watched have been episodes of Eastenders….
Here’s the thing though, Clorinda. Isn’t talking about “literary fiction” as boring just as big a trap to fall into as dismissing popular culture offhand? There’s so much diversity within both. I think what’s crystal clear from Clare’s piece and the debate around it is that there’s no sense in thinking in generalisations when it comes to culture.
An interesting point kirsty, however, I have tried various literary books for the last 17 years but have only found one that I enjoyed and finished. (Angela’s Ashes), and I think the only reason I engaged with it was because the writer is exactly the same age as my father and I found it interesting to read about his childhood in Ireland compared to my fathers in England.
I find aspects of popular culture extremely boring and well as literary(reality tv, celeb worship, biographies written by people who are mildly famous, I could go on…)
I confess I’m getting a little worried that I’ve been cast as anti-litfic. I like it, I read it all the time, there are examples I don’t like (and for me, yes, long descriptive passages are a turn-off, but that’s just me). But I’m really not anti-litfic. I’m just pro-nonlitfic.
But the important thing is that people don’t *judge* others for their tastes. Clorinda, litfic is not to your taste, and that’s just fine. You’re not saying that those who like it are somehow lesser beings. That’s what I would object to.
I also never said all TV is good. I just said all TV is not bad.
I’d like to pick up on Gordon’s comment ages back about music, that he likes to listen to challenging stuff but then comes back to Queen or Quo or whatever. I find myself taking the same line as Clare with her modern dance: who says you can’t relate to the “challenging” stuff in a brainless way (or that it would be bad if you did)? There are plenty of pieces of classical music I enjoy listening to in a turn-up-the-volume-and-lose-yourself-in-sound manner, without any kind of analytical processing going on. The facts that (a) these are often pretty complex pieces and (b) I’m quite capable of being analytical about them when I want to be, make no difference. I enjoy having my brain fried by Mahler or Stockhausen as much as having it fried by Black Sabbath. I’ve always thought ot a shame that people feel that they have to understand classical music in an intellectual way in order to enjoy it. Hell, no. take Wagner operas. Only a very small fraction of the people who enjoy Wagner would claim to have a grasp of what’s going on musically in those enormous structures, nor (I’m sure) would Wagner have expected them to. It’s music that stands or falls by its appeal to the emotions. If you get to the end of “The Valkyrie” without blubbing then you’ve probably missed the point. If you get to the end of “The Mastersingers” without laughing out loud several times you’ve definitely missed the point. And I write as someone who’s played the whole of both.
Oh, and Black Sabbath’s on the stereo as I write.