![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Book snobbery
Jan. 28th, 2007 09:43 pmThis post was prompted by one ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
the_marquis put up earlier, about a survey by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. This survery listed the top ten books that people claim to have read in order to impress people.
I've read just two books on the list, and I've never claimed to have read any of the others. But the thing about the two I have read is that I am surprised they appear on a list of books people lie about to appear intelligent, since they are both books that I've always thought of as derided by intellectual types - The Lord of the Rings and The Da Vinci Code.
Was I wrong about that?
Not about The Lord of the Rings I think. Arty-farty literati types still seem to detest it and fantasy literature in general. Then there's the perception that it's for kids (or specifically teenage boys). From personal experience, I know quite a few clever people that wouldn't be particularly impressed by my being a fan (although that wouldn't stop me from telling them - I'm confident enough in my own cleverness to think that I'm clever, so if I like something then it must have intellectual merit). And if you ever saw LoTR winning the BBC's 'Big Read' competition (where the public voted for their favourite book), you would have seen all these Guardian-reading literati being really nasty about the book and its readers, even to the point of ganging up to try and get Pride and Prejudice enough votes to win. Having read some of Tom Shippey's work, I've long suspected that this Lit prejudice about Tolkien's work was just a continuation of the Oxford Lit / Lang wars, but that is probably just a conspiracy theory.
Which brings me to...
The Da Vinci Code. I like a good conspiracy theory. I like a good hoax (for me, Pierre Plantard is the real hero of the plot). I have something of an interest in the history of the early Christian church (slightly unusual for an atheist I know). I'm familiar with the general premise of the book (from no end of National Geographic documentaries, Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the computer game Gabriel Knight 3. It took me a while to get around to reading it - it often does. But when I did, I really liked the book.
In fact, I thought it was great. A good read. A real page-turner (useful cliche).
Now most people I know who have read it thought that it was great too. But I'm aware that it was not well received by critics. Or at least I thought it wasn't. I did a bit of digging, and the book got a lot of very good early reviews in America from most of the important daily newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post etc).
But some point later (and by the time it crossed the Atlantic), the literary reviews became very bad. Something happened.
And now I know people who dismiss it out of hand as "an awful book" (that's someone I'm related to), or would express surprise that I would even admit to having read it (an old friend).
So, what is going on here?
1. These people are christians and are dismissing the book because they are offended by it, even though they wouldn't say that to me because, well, because I might laugh at them.
2. It really is that bad, and all these people like me are deluded.
3. The book starting selling well after the first, positive reviews and so subsequent reviews had to be bad because no serious literato could be seen to like anything so popular.
4. The Vatican really is as influential as it appears in the book.
It obviously can't be 4, since if the catholic church had that much power we wouldn't need to have this fuss over homosexuals adopting vulnerable children...
As for the other reasons, I suspect 1 and 3.
the_marquis put up earlier, about a survey by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. This survery listed the top ten books that people claim to have read in order to impress people. I've read just two books on the list, and I've never claimed to have read any of the others. But the thing about the two I have read is that I am surprised they appear on a list of books people lie about to appear intelligent, since they are both books that I've always thought of as derided by intellectual types - The Lord of the Rings and The Da Vinci Code.
Was I wrong about that?
Not about The Lord of the Rings I think. Arty-farty literati types still seem to detest it and fantasy literature in general. Then there's the perception that it's for kids (or specifically teenage boys). From personal experience, I know quite a few clever people that wouldn't be particularly impressed by my being a fan (although that wouldn't stop me from telling them - I'm confident enough in my own cleverness to think that I'm clever, so if I like something then it must have intellectual merit). And if you ever saw LoTR winning the BBC's 'Big Read' competition (where the public voted for their favourite book), you would have seen all these Guardian-reading literati being really nasty about the book and its readers, even to the point of ganging up to try and get Pride and Prejudice enough votes to win. Having read some of Tom Shippey's work, I've long suspected that this Lit prejudice about Tolkien's work was just a continuation of the Oxford Lit / Lang wars, but that is probably just a conspiracy theory.
Which brings me to...
The Da Vinci Code. I like a good conspiracy theory. I like a good hoax (for me, Pierre Plantard is the real hero of the plot). I have something of an interest in the history of the early Christian church (slightly unusual for an atheist I know). I'm familiar with the general premise of the book (from no end of National Geographic documentaries, Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the computer game Gabriel Knight 3. It took me a while to get around to reading it - it often does. But when I did, I really liked the book.
In fact, I thought it was great. A good read. A real page-turner (useful cliche).
Now most people I know who have read it thought that it was great too. But I'm aware that it was not well received by critics. Or at least I thought it wasn't. I did a bit of digging, and the book got a lot of very good early reviews in America from most of the important daily newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post etc).
But some point later (and by the time it crossed the Atlantic), the literary reviews became very bad. Something happened.
And now I know people who dismiss it out of hand as "an awful book" (that's someone I'm related to), or would express surprise that I would even admit to having read it (an old friend).
So, what is going on here?
1. These people are christians and are dismissing the book because they are offended by it, even though they wouldn't say that to me because, well, because I might laugh at them.
2. It really is that bad, and all these people like me are deluded.
3. The book starting selling well after the first, positive reviews and so subsequent reviews had to be bad because no serious literato could be seen to like anything so popular.
4. The Vatican really is as influential as it appears in the book.
It obviously can't be 4, since if the catholic church had that much power we wouldn't need to have this fuss over homosexuals adopting vulnerable children...
As for the other reasons, I suspect 1 and 3.
