0 reactions
Classical "Literature" that is pure, wonderful schlock.
I want to preface this by saying I am going to be talking about books I adore here. I read horrible schlock both modern and classical, as well as actual books of value. I don't judge people based on what they read. I also haven't read A Court of Thorns and Roses.
So this was inspired by the "at least they're reading" post. A few comments compared Sarah J. Mass by saying that "nobody thinks she's Jane Austen" and that struck me a bit. There are schlocky classical books too. I would actually characterize Pride and Prejudice as a "low value book" in that way. It got popular back then for a reason, just like ACOTR is today. It's why it's still a popular book. It's an easy, light read and I feel like if someone is acting like it is high literature distinct from modern romances they are missing the point or haven't thought very critically, and just think it has value purely do to being an older book with less common words. Same could be said for Dracula, Bram Stoker explicitly wanted to write a popular book that was a bit shocking. This goes pretty far back in time as well, I wouldn't really describe A True Story by Lucian as "serious literature" It's interesting because of the age of the story, as well as how it is told. I feel like people get way less judgmental/critical about a book whenever that book is very old. I would actually consider other, modern novels "Literature" before those three. Even some very well written, well researched genre fiction might be considered more serious reading than those books. I feel like when a style of writing falls out of regular use, people often automatically assume it's "better" than a modern book, forgetting that most of the time, that was just how people wrote fun novels and the wording was not considered inaccessible.
#entertainment
I want to preface this by saying I am going to be talking about books I adore here. I read horrible schlock both modern and classical, as well as actual books of value. I don't judge people based on what they read. I also haven't read A Court of Thorns and Roses.
So this was inspired by the "at least they're reading" post. A few comments compared Sarah J. Mass by saying that "nobody thinks she's Jane Austen" and that struck me a bit. There are schlocky classical books too. I would actually characterize Pride and Prejudice as a "low value book" in that way. It got popular back then for a reason, just like ACOTR is today. It's why it's still a popular book. It's an easy, light read and I feel like if someone is acting like it is high literature distinct from modern romances they are missing the point or haven't thought very critically, and just think it has value purely do to being an older book with less common words. Same could be said for Dracula, Bram Stoker explicitly wanted to write a popular book that was a bit shocking. This goes pretty far back in time as well, I wouldn't really describe A True Story by Lucian as "serious literature" It's interesting because of the age of the story, as well as how it is told. I feel like people get way less judgmental/critical about a book whenever that book is very old. I would actually consider other, modern novels "Literature" before those three. Even some very well written, well researched genre fiction might be considered more serious reading than those books. I feel like when a style of writing falls out of regular use, people often automatically assume it's "better" than a modern book, forgetting that most of the time, that was just how people wrote fun novels and the wording was not considered inaccessible.
#entertainment
| 4,000 mlx | |
| 5 | |
| 0 |