Active Users:211 Time:20/04/2024 02:09:43 PM
This is where your own rethoric defeats you... DomA Send a noteboard - 23/02/2012 06:38:54 AM
.....there are many better works of art at the Louvre and even better works at the MET and Philly Museum of Art.

Over-hyped to the nth degree here. very underwhelming in person. There is much, much better art than that, so why bother trusting the "experts" or "elites", they are often wrong.

I don't know if you've ever visited the Louvre, but anyone who has will have seen the insane crowd pushing and shoving to catch a glimpse of that tiny little painting, while far superior works are lucky to have one or two people near it at any given time (I didn't even bother to go look at it, myself).

But then, the Mona Lisa's reputation is to a large extent due to popular memory more than the experts' opinion - I dare say most experts would agree that there are better and more interesting paintings than the Mona Lisa, or at the very least that it gets an absurd amount of attention compared to other classic works. It's not the experts' fault if that whole crowd stands jostling in front of that one painting while ignoring everything else.

You brought this up as an example of how the elites hype things that don't deserve to be hyped.

Ask most art experts/critics/historians about the Mona Lisa and they'll roll their eyes and say it's a fairly minor Da Vinci that excite the masses that don't know much about art because of the popular hype surrounding the mysterious smile.

The first thing anyone a bit knowledgeable would tell you about visiting the Louvre is "please don't go wasting time on the Mona Lisa if you don't go there for a few days, there's tons of far more important masterpieces to see".

That's not the elites who hype the Mona Lisa, it's a pop culture phenomenon.

That's much the same with books. You spit on the "literary elites", but you obviously don't know much of what they have to say about books, or by "literary elites" you mean the mass media and their stars critics or the stupid snobs for who it's far more important to be seen reading books and commenting on books than actually reading them, not the actual scholars of literature, and those passionate about literature.

The true elites don't just "hype" classics as if they were masterpieces from page 1 to the last and in every aspects of literature, nor do they recommend books to all readers. Their commentaries have a great deal more nuances than that. All you have to say about this or that great author, they've said before, and better. The difference is that they're able to see why despite obstacles and flaws the books are still important and why they deserve to be still read.

The snobs in the mass media make a sport of spitting on popular literature, but the best scholars in the domain, and the best commentators in the media usually don't. They're as capable as you to tell that this or that popular writer is an excellent storyteller who provides a very good time to his readers even though as far as literary art is concerned, they're worth shit. When they discuss works meant to entertain, they discuss their entertainment value, not their artistic value, at least barely more than mentionning in passing stuff like the quality of the prose is really ordinary.

You sound just as bad and wrong-headed as the worst snob in your "literary elites" when you judge writers like Dostoyevsky not as literary art but strictly on the basis on their entertainment value. This is as stupid as devoting an essay just to bash the prose of Dan Brown or Brandon Sanderson or the shallowness of the psychology of their characters, or the pauperity of their themes. In their works, that's strictly secondary, they work them so they don't get in the way of their storytelling, and most often they're perfectly conscious they're writing for audiences who want their entertainment to be as little literary as possible.

You might be surprised how many excellents authors, classics and contemporary, consider the plot of their novels quite secondary to what they're trying to accomplish stylistically, or thematically, and who even at times keep it as simple and straighforward as possible so that it doesn't get in the way and distract the readers from what they're trying to accomplish with the novel.

You're into books strictly for their entertainment value, and you dislike books that don't provide that, or where the storytelling doesn't follow the standards of entertainment literature, and you find artistic literature mostly boring. So you prefer "fluff", aka fluffy, aka light stuff. That's your tastes, fine. When you go call what you find overdone or heavy-going in classics or artistic literature "fluff" you just sound like a moron.

Reply to message
Brandon Sanderson plans 36 books in his 'Cosmere' setting - 19/02/2012 11:45:24 AM 4577 Views
Was Sanderson created by the Writng Gods to counter balance GRRM? - 19/02/2012 05:13:07 PM 1380 Views
A modern Moorcock, eh ? *NM* - 19/02/2012 05:39:00 PM 601 Views
I just wish he'd be done with the RJ shit and go back to writing his own books. - 19/02/2012 05:40:59 PM 1311 Views
Agreed on both points..... - 19/02/2012 08:00:41 PM 1274 Views
Well, but he is a "fluff" writer from a literary standpoint - 20/02/2012 02:16:11 AM 1332 Views
Not a fluff writer in my mind..... - 20/02/2012 03:12:46 AM 1270 Views
You don't seem to want to hear what I'm saying - 20/02/2012 03:51:13 AM 1238 Views
And I am saying that storytelling is more important..... - 20/02/2012 04:52:39 AM 1370 Views
Storytelling is crucial... - 20/02/2012 05:59:57 AM 1356 Views
A few comments/replies about your post..... - 20/02/2012 02:57:16 PM 1297 Views
You are correct in one respect: all of this is opinion. - 20/02/2012 07:01:11 PM 1278 Views
You sound like one of those nasty "literary elites"! - 20/02/2012 08:07:13 PM 1224 Views
Literature is subjective - 21/02/2012 12:26:35 AM 1311 Views
Very well said..... *NM* - 21/02/2012 01:12:40 AM 565 Views
I agree with your point about reading Shakespeare from textbooks. - 21/02/2012 03:18:37 AM 1343 Views
Never heard of Thomas Mann and the real Mona Lisa..... - 21/02/2012 03:34:12 AM 1192 Views
Conversely, why should I trust the likes of you? - 21/02/2012 06:19:18 AM 1429 Views
Oh, come now... - 21/02/2012 10:35:18 AM 1356 Views
When it comes to evaluating schema, I'm not going to trust someone who only had English 101 - 21/02/2012 11:26:03 AM 1155 Views
Mostly agreed - 21/02/2012 09:00:51 PM 1237 Views
Mostly true - 21/02/2012 09:27:09 PM 1273 Views
Re: Mostly true - 22/02/2012 12:58:55 AM 1111 Views
Larry = snob - 21/02/2012 05:34:22 PM 1219 Views
Amusing - 21/02/2012 07:49:20 PM 1211 Views
Wow, you lack basic reading comprehension skills..... - 21/02/2012 08:29:24 PM 1192 Views
Uh...Faust is a play. Doctor Faustus is a novel. The former is Goethe, the latter is Mann. *NM* - 22/02/2012 12:00:22 AM 603 Views
D'uh.....notice the smiley face. Good grief! *NM* - 22/02/2012 12:50:23 AM 603 Views
Just checking... *NM* - 22/02/2012 01:07:40 AM 549 Views
Wait, let's look at the gross disconnect between two statements. - 21/02/2012 01:59:34 PM 1320 Views
I have not blindly rejected the literary elites..... - 21/02/2012 05:27:35 PM 1289 Views
So true about the Mona Lisa. - 21/02/2012 07:57:41 PM 1344 Views
Yes, I was at the Louvre and you are right..... - 21/02/2012 08:32:40 PM 1222 Views
This is where your own rethoric defeats you... - 23/02/2012 06:38:54 AM 1205 Views
Slow down - it may not be the current elites that are hyping it..... - 23/02/2012 05:12:47 PM 1052 Views
There's "subjective", and there's "lack of education" - 21/02/2012 08:58:11 PM 1232 Views
Re: There's "subjective", and there's "lack of education" - 21/02/2012 09:23:38 PM 1383 Views
Thank you. That was excellent. *NM* - 20/02/2012 07:01:31 PM 639 Views
Seems like an awful lot. - 19/02/2012 08:11:22 PM 1422 Views
Sanderson is a machine. Also, the books (so far) have been wildly different - 20/02/2012 12:50:41 AM 1347 Views
I thought he was just recycling the name at first. *NM* - 20/02/2012 02:09:57 AM 611 Views
It's likely to stay that way... - 20/02/2012 06:22:50 AM 1349 Views
I think he can actually do both - 20/02/2012 03:31:00 PM 1381 Views
Re: I think he can actually do both - 20/02/2012 06:34:30 PM 1425 Views
I love it. - 19/02/2012 10:00:28 PM 1176 Views
Confirmation on the Mistborn trilogies. I am so happy. *NM* - 20/02/2012 05:38:23 AM 548 Views
I am thrilled to see that there will be more stories about Wax and Wayne..... - 20/02/2012 03:46:37 PM 1103 Views
The one issue I had with that book... - 21/02/2012 06:21:29 PM 1216 Views
Waxillium! *NM* - 21/02/2012 10:47:03 PM 527 Views
WAXILLIUM! *NM* - 04/03/2012 07:39:37 AM 747 Views
Why is that an issue? I think those names are great. - 23/02/2012 05:31:51 AM 1126 Views
Do you not like puns? *NM* - 06/03/2012 01:38:31 PM 623 Views
BS- The Fantasy Stephen King? - 21/12/2012 08:12:21 PM 983 Views

Reply to Message