On being a stormy petrel

[fpb]

I don't know. I just cannot seem to stay out of trouble. Time and time again, I encounter viewpoints, even among friends, that I have discarded with contempt long ago - if I ever accepted them at all - and which seem to me to violate all common sense and even basic fairness. And yet they are not only kept, but entertained and fed and honoured like sacred cows. And then there is a kerfuffle.

Case in point. I am reading recent postings from my f-list. One person has an entry in her LJ that seems to want to do nothing more than bash Ann Coulter. Fair enough, I don't much like her either, and I said so before. But this person does not seem to want to even understand whatever it is that Coulter is saying; just because it is like nothing she ever heard before, therefore it is condemned. It is unlike what I and my friends say. I never heard anyone talk like that. Therefore it is wrong, and, what is more, ridiculous. I have no need to understand it - just laugh at it, because she thinks and acts differently from the way my friends and I think and act.

Now, obviously, that sets me off. It is one thing to say that Coulter is ill-tempered, self-satisfied and very poor at arguing; it is one thing to take her points and dismantle them, or point out that she herself does not understand them; or even moderately approve some, with the proviso that her personality and her poor arguing skill make even those moments unloveable. And it is another, quite another, to ask whether "she even means" what she has spent a lifetime and several books to say; as if her ideas were such strange and uncouth things, that no ordinary human could ever contemplate such things. Of course she means it; and just because nobody from your own small circle ever says such things except in derision, it does not mean that they cannot be said and thought by intelligent and honest people. And you are too young to realize it, my friend, but it is you who, by treating ideas not as something to be discussed and refused, but as ordure that decent people do not dirty their hands with, are being dishonest.

Then someone else posts on the subject of JKR getting an award, and finds herself unhappy because JKR is not really that important. And why is she not important? Because she is not clever or original, and because she is successful. At which point I lose it completely. If there is one prejudice I utterly loathe, one false and prevalent idea that seems to me to stand near the core of all the poisonous and evil things that have happened to our culture since the beginning of the twentieth century, it is this crass and totally false opposition between popular and deserving. What underlies it is simple contempt for human beings; because the majority of human beings like something, therefore we have to assume that it is bad. The majority is bad in its tastes, its passions, its political and religious views, its artistic attitudes. If you cannot hear in these assumptions the murderous sound of self-satisfied elites resolving to treat the masses as mere vile bodies on which to practice their own political and intellectual views, in other words, if you do not hear the sound of the crimes and massacres of the twentieth century, you are not listening hard enough. And far from the multitude's tastes being automatically bad, nearly the reverse is true. Almost every one of the really supremely great artists and writers, with the single exception of J.S.Bach, was a huge hit in his or her time. Sappho became famous from one end of Greece to the other. Aeschylus, Sophocles, Eurypides, won dozens of theatre competitions judged by ordinary Athenians. Virgil, who was shy, had to duck into doorways to dodge his fans. Thomas Aquinas received letters on the most absurd questions from all corners of Europe. (One asked whether there really was a Book written up in Heaven with all the good and bad deeds in the lives of men; Aquinas answered, with typical patience, that as far as he could see it was not so, but that the idea could be entertained without damage.) Dante heard his own verses read by literate peasants and workers to their illiterate friends. Shakespeare was so successful that he was able to retire in his forties and buy the largest house in his native village. Cervantes, Moliere, Racine, were stars in their lifetimes. Voltaire's works were read as soon as published from one end of Europe to the other. Goethe spent most of his life being treated as the greatest living poet; not only Beethoven, but Napoleon too, made a point of meeting him - and in each case the meeting had something of a State occasion. Dickens was as popular as JKR, and, as in her case, bookshops had to open at midnight to accommodate eager fans. And the same is true in the other arts. Hell, when Michelangelo completed the Sistine Chapel ceiling, the populace of Rome were let in, and they went in an admiring and enthusiastic procession that lasted for weeks. The only thing as poisonous as the belief that popular equals bad is the absurd overrating of cleverness and originality. The greatest writers are only original in so far as they discover, or rediscover, an universal experience. But we have to deny their claim to greatness, which that every man and woman can see their greatness, in order to flatter a cancerous little presumption that only what the select few like is good - and, by our own singular fortune, we are among the selected few. Can you see why this kind of attitude makes me sick?

And yet... here are two more people, indeed considerably more, with whom I am likely to clash.

Comments

[bufo-viridis.livejournal.com]

Of course the opposite, namely popular=good is also false :)

Recently I found an interesting argument, which for all its apparent "marxism" actually make sense: after the industrial production satied the basic and also many less basic (like entertainment) needs, and in generally there was no shortage of commodities any more, the taste for "unique", "original" and finally "eccentric" was developed to create and keep high the price of the sparce commodity. The price is defined by the scarcity, and since price usually equals quality, the equation turned to scarce=good.
Which is certainly not true as an all-encompassing rule.

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

And again I find that our attitudes are similar.

Good post. Well said, er- written. (You know what I mean.)

[ani-bester.livejournal.com]

Then someone else posts on the subject of JKR getting an award, and finds herself unhappy because JKR is not really that important. And why is she not important? Because she is not clever or original, and because she is successful

I don't think that actually. I'm sorry if I caused you to think that was what I was saying.

I'm quite happy she's succesful and I fully think she deserves the success. If I didn't I wouldn't be such a hypocrit and contribute to it.

I just don't think she's the greatest Living British Writer and felt that some may have voted for her because they've not read any other British Wrtier. If they have and still think JKR is it, that's fine. I have read others and there are living British writers I would put before her. However, I do think on things like this it is a popularity contest and not an actual merit contest. Kinda like an election really.

I certianly would never want to see an author snubbed because they're popular. I cheered when King got his award and he is the most succesful American witer. I think he has enormous talent.

So my post was not because I felt the JKR was undeserving because she was popular, but because I felt she was undeserving because, in my opinion, her writing is not the best.

And considering people felt that Gaimen or Pratchett should have won . . I don't think popularity is getting snubbed here. Those authors are both huge themselves.

Finally, I do like the stories, and she is one of the better fantasy writers I've read in a long time, but she's simply not, for me, the best writer.

But, anyway, her popularity had no barring on my opinion.

And . . have we disagreed on this in the past? I feel like I'm saying something I've said before here.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

There you go. I do not think that Steven King is all that good. I only read PET SEMATARY and CARRIE, and I found PS rooted in sentimentality, and CARRIE built on a fraudulent view of "crazed Christian" that is a groundless cliche that exists only to please the American majority. Capable writer, no doubt, but no genius. But as for Pratchett and Gaiman, do bookstores open at midnight for them?

[ani-bester.livejournal.com]

Ah I must agree with you on Carrie. I cannnot read that book because I find the mother to be a pathetic stereotype that I can't suspend my disbelief for.

However, I Found his Dark Tower series to be, perhaps, on of the best works I've read. He tends to be very hit or miss. My joke with his books is I will either be unable to put them down, or through them down in disgust half way through.

But as for Pratchett and Gaiman, do bookstores open at midnight for them?

*L* Comic stores do for Gaimen.
Otherwise no, but Halo II got a midnight opening, and after the euphoria wore off, everyone tended to agree that the game was massively subpar. X-Men III also got a midnight opening . . .

[fpb.livejournal.com]

If they do, they must be comic stores I never went to. And given that I have been into comics since the year of the Lord 1980, my experience is wide. I have known Chris Claremont in his glory, Jack Kirby's twilight, all the best period of Alan Moore from beginning to end, and I never saw anything like that. Marvel tried it a few years back with the Jim Lee X-MEN issues, and it turned out to be a stinker. X-Men III and the rest were hype. On the other hand, JKR midnight openings happened because, if they had not done so, people would have begun to steal books from the shops before they opened, so eagerly awaited were they. And it is something that, before JKR, had not happened since Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, and, before Conan Doyle, since Dickens. Such things are rare, and they cannot be made to happen by mere hype; that is something Marvel found out the hard way.

[ani-bester.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm, well I'm in Texas. Have you been to Texas comic stores?

Funny enough, that means we've read about the same period. I was only born in 1981, but my father owned a comic store that I've had access to since I could read and that's pretty much the exact era I liked. It's probably the best Marvel has had. Claremont in his glory wrote amazing X-Men stories. I've never found a Marvel writer I liked as much . . not even Claremont today. I wish Marvle could get it's writing together. They have amazing artists these days, but no inspired writers.

Anyway, ok you got me, I will agree that to warrent the midnight release JKR's books have a popularity that is rare and special. That I can't argue. JKR may not be my number one choice, but I don't deny she has a spark many more technically able writers lack. That actually reminds me of the old art argument that technical ability is nothing unless you can make it interesting.

Again, I'm sorry if it seemed like I was attacking her because she was popular and therefore not good. That's an opinion that I hate as well. Along with "it's sci-fi or fantasy and therefore not good"

I'm also not overly fond though of the idea that liking little known things makes one a snob. It amused me that you kept bringing up Dickens becaue the fact that I liked his works only made me even more of a social outcast in school. People thought I was just reading his works to prove I was better than them. It's unfortunant he is not still as popular as he once was.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I did not realize I had been keeping you up. GO GET SOME SLEEP FOR GOD'S SAKE!! It won't help anyone if you wreck your health.

[ani-bester.livejournal.com]

*LOL* don't worry it wasn't just you. I was also cleaning. It's easiest for me to clean when my roommate's are not around. One is out of town the other one work's the night shift, so I figured I'd clean now.

Besides it was an interesting discussion. It's nice to have a civil conversation with someone I don't 100% agree because you have points (like the book opening) I wouldn't think of.

It's also a rarity for this fandom.
But I am off to bed now. Good Night.

[jennilee.livejournal.com]

His Dark Tower series is his (self-described) magnum opus and to me, definitely a masterpiece. Or if not the books as a whole, the character of Roland. I would love the series to be brought to the screen. I've been thinking for a few years now who I'd like to see play him and the other characters. :P

[becomethesea.livejournal.com]

Aw, THE STAND is one of my favorite books EVER.

Have you read it?

[camillofan.livejournal.com]

Don't forget-- the masses also loved Dan Brown and his infamous book. They keep the ratings high for a lot of really garbage-y television programs (here in the US), pour more than $100 million into the box office for "Mission Impossible" movies, and so on. One doesn't want to be sentimental about the tastes of the many, or to overrate the ability of the majority to love only what is good.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Did they beat down the walls to have it? I think there is a difference between extent and depth. The success of Dickens, Conan Doyle and JKR - and also, I will admit, of Claremont in his great days, Alan Moore, and Neil Gaiman - is measured not just by sales but by the eagerness of readers to have the last issue and their impatience till the next. I doubt whether Dan Brown has anything like the same impact. It reminds me of the death of Princess Diana, long ago. Because the centre of London became carpeted with flowers, everyone became convinced that something serious and important was happening. But what really was happening was that several million people had spent a few pounds each on flowers; which did not change the landscape much. On the other hand, if you think of the first We Are The World concert, in 1985, something important really did happen; people not only poured avalanches of money where it would have the most effect (not necessarily always the right effect, but at least clearly intending a definite benevolent purpose), but altered permanently the attitude of masses and political elites to Africa. From then on, it was simply no longer permitted to allow large numbers of Africans to die without help; not even when their own government wanted them dead (as effectively was the case with the unfortunate Ethiopian peasants in 1985, murdered not by drought but by their loathsome government). The effects of that may be seen in the situation in Darfur today, where Sudan is not being allowed to merrily murder its own citizens. Twenty years ago it would have been different.

[camillofan.livejournal.com]

It's hard to see JKR and Harry Potter as important, though. In terms of fandom, I worship at the altar of Conan Doyle, and I'd be hard-pressed to make the claim for him, either.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Answer to this coming in essay form - I cannot go on adding long answers to obscure threads, they would miss 90% of the people who could make a valid contribution.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

To be honest, Ann Coulter serves really only one purpose for me: if someone is a fan, that's a useful sign for me to never discuss politics with them. It's not so much her views (I admire plenty of people whose political views differ from mine even more than hers do) as the fact that I find her manner asinine at best and sickening at worst.

I totally agree with your opinion about JKR, though (I'm not sure I'd pick her as Greatest Living British Author, but I hate making lists like that anyway). She's definitely the most entertaining "children's author" since E. Nesbit.

[rosedemon.livejournal.com]

Excuse me while I lurk...

Interesting post. We do tend to lump success into hack. It seems artists need to starve or cut off ears to be considered great. Dali and Picasso, artists who were wildly successful during their lifetimes, both were harshly criticized for being too flippant with their talents.

I am not sure I would have named JKR the greatest British writer alive, although she would have certainly made it into the top five. I think labels like these are more or less ways for the reading public to say thanks. In ten years will she still be there or replaced with someone who has thrilled the public in a new set of novels? Probably.

As far as King-he can and is a great writer when he wants to be. The Stand, The Shining, Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption, Delores Claiborne are all marvelous novels and short stories. The Tommy-knockers and It are examples of King at his worst. Yes, sometimes he writes for the mortgage payment. But when he does write for the spirit he can turn a tale like no other.

Back to the lurk...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

My blog is open to anyone so long as they show some basic manners (otherwise I reserve the right to cut and ban without argument). You are welcome to lurk and comment to your heart's content, and should you ever want to friend me, I probably would friend you back.

[derringdo.livejournal.com]

I am not an expert on Bach's life by any means, but surely anybody who was a fairly successful breadwinner for twenty children and wrote such vast-seeming quantities of music, had to be reasonably popular in his own time, even if his patrons were not so kind to him?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Bach was mainly successful as a virtuoso on the organ and violin. His improvisations became legendary, as Hofstaedter has shown in the opening pages of "Godel, Escher, Bach" - even Frederick II of Prussia, who was an accomplished amateur and should have known better, ascribed to him the impossible feat of improvising an eight-part fugue. But as a composer, he was only really appreciated by a small number of other musicians. It is said that when the Passion according to St.Matthew was firmed performed, a female member of the audience stopped her ears and exclaimed aloud: "My God, help, help, this is surely some kind of opera!" It was not until, I think, 1843, that a famous concert conducted by Mendelssohn made J.S. a success with the public - till then he had been overshadowed by his own sons, such as C.P.E and Wilhelm Friedemann. Curiously enough, among the musicians who appreciated him were Mozart and Beethoven's Bonn teacher Neefe, but not, apparently, Beethoven. Neefe had the young Beethoven learn The Art of Fugue and other Bach works, but Beethoven wrote a large and angry question mark next to a statement that Bach was a genius best appreciated by other musicians (or something of the kind). Later, when musicians across Germany were asked to help for a charitable fund for Bach's last living daughter, Beethoven made a public contribution and a statement that Bach was "not a Bach [stream] but an ocean of compositions" - the kind of neutral statement that public figures learn to do, which sounds like praise, but really says nothing about quality. Beethoven's hero was Haendel.