Prev
Next

Well read-head: Throwing the book at literary snobs

Leigh Sales

by Leigh Sales

10 Sep 05:45am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Books, Internet, Literature, Media, Reading

60 comments

One recent evening, my husband posed the question: If you only had three months left to live, what would you choose to read?

The discussion was travelling along perfectly well until he raised a name guaranteed to set me on a rant: Harold Bloom.

Bloom is a professor at Yale University and the author of many books including How to Read and Why.  That title alone makes me want to employ the great Dorothy Parker quote: “This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly.  It should be thrown with great force.”

Bloom’s advice is basically that one shouldn’t waste one’s time reading anything other than the classics of literature – Shakespeare, Chekhov, Joyce and their ilk.  Impending death means one can only squeeze a relatively small number of books into a lifetime.  We’re all reading against the clock.  Therefore, only worthy material is allowed.  In other words, next time you’re tempted to read Harry Potter, slap yourself over the wrist and pick up Hamlet instead.  When it comes to popular fiction, Bloom has declared J.K. Rowling clichéd and Stephen King an “immensely inadequate writer”, although both have probably sold more books than the hairs on Bloom’s head.

The whole thing calls to mind a scene from the film Dead Poets Society in which the teacher has the students rip out the foreword to a book entitled ‘Understanding Poetry’ by the fictional Dr J. Evans Pritchard.  The offending section reads in part:

If the poem’s score for perfection is plotted along the horizontal of a graph, and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness.  A sonnet by Byron may score high on the vertical, but only average on the horizontal.  A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both vertically and horizontally, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great.

To me, dictating the ‘worthy’ books that people should read is literary snobbery that reduces reading to crossing items off a To Do list.  Surely the best way to develop a genuine love of reading is to read organically, to just go wherever the mood takes you.

You might think that’s a little rich coming from somebody who (a) is not a Yale professor and (b) produces a fortnightly list of recommended reading items.  The difference between Bloom and me is that I don’t imagine my list represents anything other than my own prosaic interests.  If you like my taste, well come along for the ride.  If you prefer to go and read a comic book, suit yourself.  As long as you’re having fun.

The author John Birmingham, one of Australia’s best writers in my opinion, has been a victim of the Bloom style of critique.  His writing ranges the full spectrum, from serious non-fiction essays in The Monthly to popular thrillers, such as his new book After America.  Reviewers have asked why Birmingham bothers with mass fiction when he’s obviously capable of capital L Literature.

“There is something magnetic about watching a first-rate prose writer deny his better angels,” The Australian’s review of After America noted. 

Birmingham himself told me that the question about why he bothers to write ‘genre’ when he can write ‘Literature’ came up in almost every single interview about After America.  Back in 2004, Birmingham was asked to react to Time magazine naming his novel Weapons of Choice one of its top ten trashy reads for the summer. 

“That doesn’t bother me at all,” Birmingham told his interviewer.  “I eat these novels like M&Ms mate, and I have been doing it secretly, shamefully for years.”

How refreshing to hear somebody admit that, given how many of us would gleefully indulge in a trashy book from time to time.  One of my favourite books so far this year has been Kitty Kelley’s Oprah biography just for the sheer fact that it was fun, effortless, gossipy and engaging.  I described it on twitter as “the literary equivalent of Burger Rings”.  Most people took that to be a negative comment but let’s face it – who doesn’t crave a packet of Burger Rings once in a while?

To end where we started, my answer to the question “What would you read if you only had three months to live?” is that I doubt I’d read anything I’d not read already.  I’d go for old favourites.  I’d choose nostalgia and comfort.  Some might be classics.  Some might be trash.  But I certainly won’t be on my death bed, madly ticking off the tomes that the taste police dictate.

Having said all of that, put down your Shakespeare and take a look at this fortnight’s list of things to read, watch or listen to:

1. Not to get all Harold Bloom on you, but Chekhov’s The Lady with the Little Dog is quite possibly the perfect short story. 

2. In which case, that makes the world’s second most perfect short story The Bear Came Over the Mountain by Alice Munro.  (It was turned into the film Away From Her.)

3. In 2008, the Harry Potter author JK Rowling gave a brilliant commencement address at Harvard University about the value of failure in life and also the usefulness of imagination.

4. Christian Bale IS Kermit the Frog.

5. Thanks to Chas Licciardello from The Chaser for this great story on science unlocking the mystical secrets of male dancing (he’s @chaslicc on Twitter).

6. In the words of Salon, “Andrew Cohen penned a cringe-worthy article on his ex-girlfriend’s wedding day – and then the real drama started.”

7. The editing on this video is sensational.  Apparently all movie dance sequences can be performed to ‘Footloose’  (via @corrine_grant).

8. Todd Levin in GQ on writing for the comedian Conan O’Brien.

9. A solidly argued piece by Tom Switzer on The Drum about his view that the Iraq War exposed the folly of neo-conservatism.

10. As President Obama’s approval ratings continue to slump, Andrew Rawnsley in The Guardian puzzles over why, arguing that Obama has achieved more in half a term as US President than most Presidents achieve in two.

Leigh Sales anchors Lateline on ABC1 and is on twitter @leighsales.

Most commented

60 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Dan says:

      06:14am | 10/09/10

      I agree with Bloom; life is too short, which is why I don’t read any of his work. His views on JK Rowlings, arguably one of the best and most creative fantasy writers of the past 20 years, are absurd.

      But what really makes me not care what he thinks is when he criticises Stephen King. Calling King an “immensely inadequate writer”,  whom IMO is one of America’s greatest ever writers, shows that so-called literary experts like Bloom simply do not realise that genre fiction (even fantasy/horror) can be as wonderous, as extraordinary and as deserving of valuable time as any classic. Not to mention that genre novels like Frankenstein and The Big Sleep are now classics, and that Shakespeare himself features elements of horror and fantasy.

      He also seems to think that only books which sell less than a hundred copies can be considered great. So King is ‘just’ a popular writer. It’s nonsence of course, as greatnes can not be determined by how many copies have been sold. If it were, Dickens (a popular writer in his day) would not be considered great.

      Ultimately the greatest measurement of greatness is probably time. I have a strong suspicion that Stephen King will be remembered long after his death, the same perhaps for JK Rowlings (Dan Brown I’m not so sure about).

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      12:26pm | 10/09/10

      The writers who are still being read 50 years down the line more often than not are the popular ones.  That’s because, unlike the intellectual snobs who call themselves Writers, they have an understanding of how people work which readers relate to, and they know what interests people.  Popularity still has a decent correlation with durability (as opposed to “greatness”, which IMHO has been hijacked by Literature Folk.)

      Will Dan Brown still be remembered after his death? Give the man his due: Da Vinci Code is seriously crap on its facts, but it is a masterpiece of pacing.  Put it on the same shelf as “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, perhaps.  Let’s remember Jules Verne and HG Wells also still get read even though they were outlandish as well.

    • Crash says:

      11:31pm | 11/09/10

      While i agree with most of what hass been said here, to call JK Rowling ‘one of the best and most creative fantasy writers of the past 20 years’ is a bit ridiculous.  Every single thing she has written is derivative of so many thigns that have come before.  Don’t get me wrong, I’ve read and enjoyed all of the Harry Potter books, but by no stretch of the imagination could they be called ‘creative’

    • Dan says:

      02:47am | 12/09/10

      Crash, I think they are creative. What makes them so is more what she does with them; I think she adds a really fresh take to it.

    • Eric says:

      06:31am | 10/09/10

      Re #10 - The reason is that, while Obama has achieved many things, almost all of them are bad things. Record deficits and record debt, mass unemployment, weakness in foreign policy and divisiveness at home, to mention just a few. This much should be obvious, but then Guardian writers tend not to be very bright.

      Reply

    • Barry says:

      09:13am | 10/09/10

      The recovering alcoholic George W Bush, who told lies, started disastrous wars and could barely speak english,  is largely responsible for the bad stuff you mention. This much should be obvious.

    • Chris says:

      07:35am | 10/09/10

      One of the funniest and most erudite demolitions of Bloom’s How to Read and Why came from the Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton in The Observer. You can read the full review here http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2000/aug/20/classics

      Here are some highlights:

      “Harold Bloom was once an interesting critic. In the 1970s, he developed an extravagant theory of literary creation for which all authors were locked in Oedipal combat with some mighty predecessor. Literature was the upshot of rivalry and resentment, as poets beset by what Bloom called the ‘anxiety of influence’ sought to triumph over some ‘strong’ precursor by rewriting his or her text as their own. All literary works were a kind of plagiarism, a creative misreading of earlier efforts. Wordsworth tried to kill off Milton and Shelley had it in for Shakespeare. The meaning of a poem was another poem.

      This theory, as Henry Fielding observed of the belief that the good will get their reward in this world, had only one drawback, namely that it was not true. But it was original, audacious and exciting and a spot of wild implausibility did it no harm at all.”
      ...

      “We are exhorted to chant a particular poem out loud repeatedly, and advised in an arresting flash of moral insight that ‘in Raskolnikov’s Petersburg, as in Macbeth’s bewitched Scotland, we, too, might commit murders’. We are also instructed that ‘irony broadly means saying one thing and meaning another’ and is much to be commended, though this portentously self-important book would collapse at the faintest whiff of it.”

      Further on:

      “‘We read,’ he suggests, ‘not only because we cannot know enough people, but because friendship is so vulnerable, so likely to diminish or disappear, overcome by space, time, imperfect sympathies and all the sorrows of familial and passional life.’ It sounds as though Harold is a bit short of mates and reads to make up for it. Perhaps he alienates them by his repeated chanting of excessively long poems.”

      Reply

    • bec says:

      10:38am | 10/09/10

      I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of Eagleton’s political views but as someone who has studied his books and articles he is an excellent - and very drily funny - writer with a beautiful turn of phrase. Also - far more accessible to undergraduates than Bloom ever could be.

    • Thursty says:

      08:06am | 10/09/10

      Oh my goodness. You started off well, and then your whole point collapsed at the end with your 10 items list.

      I agree that people need to read what they feel comfortable with, and they will read pulp blissfully unaware of some other great writers observation of humanity because that reader, does not have a similar observational capacity.

      To each his own!

      Reply

    • Ray H says:

      08:27am | 10/09/10

      “Reviewers have asked why Birmingham bothers with mass fiction when he’s obviously capable of capital L Literature”

      I’ll give you a hint; it rhymes with ‘dunny’ but you don’t spread it on crumpets.

      And out of idle curiosity, who are the taste police against whom you are so passionately fulminating?  Perhaps I’m out of touch, but I hadn’t previously encountered large swathes of the community insisting that only entrants in the canon should form part of one’s dealy reading. Perhaps now, even as I write commuters on the Sydenham express are travelling from carriage to carriage loudly pronouncing on the various merits of the books being consumer by their fellow travellers. Dare we dream that on some No 86 Tram an unreconstructed Leavisite is yet still railing, railing against an acolyte of CP Snow?

      As for JB, anyone who read the Tasmanian Babes Fiasco has reasonable grounds to hold a grudge against the bloke.

      Reply

    • Hermano says:

      08:29am | 10/09/10

      How dare Harold Bloom recommend great literature!  How dare he!

      And now, here’s some recommendations.

      Oh, the irony!!11!!!!!!1!!!

      Reply

    • Jimmy says:

      10:39pm | 10/09/10

      Hermano.

      Oh, the snobbery!!11!!!!!!1!!!

    • Greypower says:

      08:45am | 10/09/10

      Leigh, thank you for the lists that you produce regularly - I wouldn’t find these by myself in a month of Sundays - I thoroughly enjoy 99.99% of them - some are so enjoyable that they go into my ‘classic’ file to read again - perhaps in those last 3 months!
      A BIG thank you!

      Reply

    • Sarah Jane says:

      09:02am | 10/09/10

      Hermano may need to brush up on those reading comprehension skills. Not that she really needs to, but Leigh did clearly explain the premise behind her recommendation lists.

      Reply

    • rick says:

      09:49am | 10/09/10

      Sorry Sarah but your boot-licking doesn’t go well. Hermano is actually spot on.

    • Hermano says:

      10:37am | 10/09/10

      Irony is still irony, regardless of your reasoning or self-awareness.  Admitting to discussions of the work of Harold Bloom, then haranguing against literary snobbery is a thing of beauty, absolutely dripping with irony.

      I feel I should go on, but with my comprehension skills being what they are I would probably disappear up my own arse and never understand why.

    • Misha Ketchell says:

      09:40am | 10/09/10

      Of couse Leigh is right. Bloom is a bit of an old windbag, his totalising theory is inthe work of a daring fraud, and we would all do much bettter to let our reading take us where it may. But let’s not forget that just as pop songs with instant appeal more quickly curdle, literature that’s easy and shiny isn’t the whole game and there is stuff out there that’s worth the effort of making an effort.  My recommendatoin for a bok that’s both accessible and rich is The Adventures of Augue March, by Saul Bellow. With a few months to go that’d be on my list.

      Reply

    • MNZ says:

      09:54am | 10/09/10

      Roald Dahl, Paul Jennings, John Marsden Bloom would probably hate all of them, yet even with all the books I have read since, Dahl has to be one of the best, his revolting ryhmes (takes on fairytales) are fantastic. I recently purchased Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to read to my friend’s kids and the 5year old sat there for about half an hour listening to the story no tv or games needed. for a 5yr old to sit still for that long says something, children’s authors are often vastly underrated. I dare you not to smile at the title of the Andy Griffith’s book The Day My Bum Went Psycho. trashy by every sense of the word and obviously full of “Horror!” fart jokes but it gets boys reading

      Reply

    • bella starkey says:

      10:38am | 10/09/10

      Oh Revolting Rhymes is one of my favourite books ever. I remember the Little Red Riding Hood one so clearly I can still see the illustration that accompanied the line “She pulled a pistol from her knickers”

      Absolute genius

    • Michael says:

      12:19pm | 10/09/10

      Roald Dahl is one of the few authors who can write short stories I’ve got time for.  He’s a children’s writer without being sugary - a guy who appreciates there’s actually a lot of the horror story in the average children’s tale - consider the end of the witch in Hansel and Gretel, who eats children but winds up burned up in her own oven!

      “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar” and other short stories like that are still compelling reading, even today.  It’s a horror story masquerading as a short story.

    • ABC says:

      02:07pm | 10/09/10

      I have managed to come across a 10(?) CD set of people like Geoffrey Palmer, Stephen Fry, Hugh Lawrie, Simon Calloway reading some of Roald Dahls classics!  One of the best things I’ve ever bought - it is great for long journey’s.  Though you will find yourself (particularly if you are on a plane) - snorting with laughter while listening to your ipod) - and having people think you are quite unatterably mad!!

    • bigmuzz says:

      09:56am | 10/09/10

      This Bloom fellow sounds like a complete wanker! Who cares what he thinks or says…. raspberry

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      09:57am | 10/09/10

      I strongly disagree, Leigh.  People need to be given signposts, or else they go off directionless.

      I am always grateful to the delightful Ms Levi who, in Year 11, gave me a list of 100 or so books that a person should read in their lifetime to be a well-rounded person.

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      12:51pm | 10/09/10

      I wouldn’t mind seeing that list, just to see how many I can tick off…

    • ABC says:

      02:01pm | 10/09/10

      I think you should read the great book by called “Can’t Be Arsed” by Richard Wilson.  It’s a huge, big (and very funny) spit in the eye to all those “1001 Things you must read/do/see” before you die” self serving “tomes” that have been release of late.

    • Jimmy says:

      10:35pm | 10/09/10

      Peter, you’d be a well-rounded person in your delightfu M Lvi’s eyes, which tends to defeat the purpose of exploration.
      Wandering off in unexpected directions is par of the pure joy of discovery, and many books and music have brought me such joy not following signposts.

    • Colleen A says:

      09:58am | 10/09/10

      Great article! Thanks also for the link to Footloose, fabulous!

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      10:11am | 10/09/10

      Ah but Dan, you read science-fiction which is the modern indicator of a misspent youth. I have persevered with Terry Pratchett and resented ever lost minute. Not a thing in it had hasn’t occurred to me without the need to interpret his ravings.

      There is so much worthy non-fiction to read without wasting time on fiction, let alone science-fiction. Still I suppose reading fiction is a lead up to proper reading, but to get stuck in the genre is a bit like the gym member who only goes to the gym so he can survive going to the gym?

      “Please fit your story in with my preconceptions of what is going to happen and if you don’t, then I make it fit anyway.”

      Unfortunately it is the fiction writers who have the vested interested in ensuring that their readers remain locked in the realm of fantasy.

      Fact is far too fantastic.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      11:13am | 10/09/10

      The last people with whom you want to be stuck with at a party are the pretentious wankers who refuse to read fiction.  They confuse facts for ideas.

    • HappyCynic says:

      04:31pm | 10/09/10

      Non fiction is is pretty great, but you’d have to be delusional to think any of it is fact.

      Fiction is escapist, generally speaking, sure but there isn’t anything wrong with escaping into your imagination with a favourite author.

      Personally, I love to read whether it’s fiction or non as long as it has lots of words smile  but some of my favourite authors would be Edgar Allen Poe, Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, Jules Verne, Tolkein (though Peter Jackson’s movies are a travesty and an insult to the Lord of the Rings books), Matthew Reilly (a Sydney author who writes like Dan Brown but has been doing it for longer and is much better in my opinion), Isaac Asimov (some of his short stories make The Twilight Zone seem sane in comparison), Alistair McLean, Lewis Carroll, some comics, New Scientist Magazine, National Geographic, the list goes on and on and on smile

    • Dan says:

      09:09pm | 10/09/10

      Reg, fiction (and sci-fi) is just as much worthy as non-fiction. Are you honestly suggesting that Joyce, Nabacov,  Shakespeare, Dickens, Austin were not worthy because they weren’t fiction? Are you suggesting that HG Wells wasn’t worthy because he was sci-fi?

      If you think that only non-fiction is ‘proper reading’ you are incredibly ignorant. Any book can be great, regardless of its genre or type.

    • iansand says:

      10:26am | 10/09/10

      Anthony Burgess wrote Tremor of Intent (a spy thriler) just for fun.
      Thomas Kenneally writes detective books under some other name.  They are not unusual.

      My point? I don’t have one.

      Reply

    • Joolz says:

      11:06am | 10/09/10

      If you only read the ‘good stuff’ and don’t introduce the ‘bad stuff’ from time to time, how do you know it’s good? Because someone tells you?

      Penny dreadfuls are vital to allowing us to develop taste - good and or bad.

      And they allow writers who can’t write a million words like Tolstoy, but can scrape together 40,000 for a modern bodice ripper, a genuine and honest living.

      I apply the same principle to Telly. But I drew the line at Hey Hey it’s Saturday.

      Reply

    • dancan says:

      11:54am | 10/09/10

      If i had three months to live, I wouldn’t spend it sitting around inside read a book!

      Reply

    • Von says:

      01:12pm | 10/09/10

      You bet!

    • iansand says:

      12:04pm | 10/09/10

      I’m back.  Again. 

      Books are like music.  Most of it is worth listening to at least once (some is not).  Some music repays multiple visits.  That music is good music (and my “good” music is almost certainly dfferent to yours).

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      03:00pm | 10/09/10

      Background music is only required if the story is so weak that the music is needed to support it. How often do you read a book with spontaneous music coursing through your brain. Even good music becomes boring from over-exposure and the guy who invented the repetitive 3 second grab that accompanies the Foxtel menu should have the whole of Foxtel driven right up his grassy knoll.

    • Michael says:

      12:16pm | 10/09/10

      The funniest part about literature with a capital L folk is that they often uphold Shakespeare and Dickens as Great Literary Writers when both, in fact, were seen as populist hacks of their time.  They wrote for the popular crowd of the time, and these days they’re seen as the giants (with a capital G).

      Therefore Stephen King falls into the same category, being one of the best-selling authors of all time, and having sold more copies of his books than Umberto Eco ever has.  And we might note that Stephen King has repeatedly taken the Literature Folk to the woodshed (mostly in poorly-disguised tracts in his own novels) over the fact they can’t just let a story be a story.

      The simple fact is that Literature Folk are not in the business of producing anything.  That is evident from the fact they look down their noses at people who do - i.e. popular writers.  As every English teacher knows in his heart, they do nothing for literature but build ugly castles in the air, requiring a novel to be something other than a story.

      I remember going to a lecture where Margaret Atwood the Overrated was the guest speaker.  The lecturer introducing her made all manner of assertions about what themes were in her latest book.  She went on to contradict him on every single one.

      Harper Lee, the author of the Great Literary Classic “To Kill a Mockingbird” didn’t lecture or do public speaking very much.  But one of the few times she did was before an English class, where one student after another asked her questions about the supposed symbolism in her book.  She got more and more annoyed as the session went on, repeatedly saying she didn’t have time for symbolism and was simply trying to write a good story that would sell.  Finally someone suggested there must have been some great significance of all the antagonists of the novel had the names of Confederate generals.

      Lee coldly responded: “All of those characters were white trash.  All the white trash in the South are named after Confederate generals.”

      A dead silence followed, mostly due to the students thinking about their classmates who had the names of Confederate generals.

      So much for symbolism, and so much for literature with a capital L.  It’s all bullcrap designed to keep people in jobs who aren’t good enough to write a popular novel.  Symbolism or allegory are coincidental, or at least they always should be.

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      12:51pm | 10/09/10

      My chewing gum for the brain has always been Matthew Reilly.  His books are the equivalent of a Van Damme movie - ridiculous, over the top, filled with explosions and narrow escapes, and corny dialogue.  They’re perfect for a rainy afternoon snuggled under the doona.

      If I had 3 months left to live, I’d probably reread Wilbur Smith’s ‘Egypt’ quadrilogy.  If I finished them quickly enough, I’d add on 1984.  And the latest Mad magazine (the American version, not the Australian version).

      I don’t experience book snobbery from people, but I do have a friend who is a total music snob.  It’s grating.  Particularly because he can only afford to go to all the concerts he goes to because he live with his parents and doesn’t pay any rent.

      I do worry about the teens of today though.  If you want to like Twilight, that’s fine, but the next person who tells me it’s the best book that has ever been written is going to get their head kicked in.

      Reply

    • MNZ says:

      03:12pm | 10/09/10

      I’m with you there

    • Unsalted says:

      01:08pm | 10/09/10

      This attitude is what makes Australia the “clever country”.  Ha!

      Reply

    • Mr Subramanian says:

      01:12pm | 10/09/10

      I suspect authors make more money from their “trashy” novels than from their literarily amazing works of art… so that’s anotehr good reason to write them (apart from it being “fun”, of course wink)

      Reply

    • Silvia says:

      02:06pm | 10/09/10

      A bit of synchronicity happening ‘cause my husband and I were talking about good writing just last night.  Stephen King came up in the conversation because he is, I believe, an excellent writer.  He packs enourmous emotional punch into his writing which is what most readers are looking for.  Whether he elicits fear, love, repulsion, hate etc, he does it with the skills of a master craftsman.  Writing should be accessible not exclusive.  As my husband, who is a poet, says “Poetry should punch into your head” and the same should be said of prose.  Tell me truly, how many of you have read Joyce’s Ulysses?  I tried, but it lost me very early in the piece.  That’s not to say that there is no value in reading classis literature, but what I find is that unless it has those elements of the fantastic in it, it becomes seriously dated - leaving most readers cold because there is no sense of being part of the story and no connection with the characters. 

      I truly dislike literary snobs.  People should read for their own enjoyment and it makes the best soul food. 

      Link for my husband’s poetry:  http://markwilliamjackson.com

      Reply

    • Hermano says:

      12:07pm | 11/09/10

      I’ve read Ulysses.  Twice.  And David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest 3 times.
      You dislike me a lot, but then I can’t stand Stephen King, and yes, I’ve read a couple of his novels.  His short stories hold up, but those novels are just glorified screenplays.
      Hey, it’s just my opinion.  Don’t shoot the messenger.

    • Ellen Bach says:

      02:24pm | 10/09/10

      Living in a Black Saturday zone,where within a 5k.radius 70 folks lost their lives in the space of an hour,where you couldn,t see, where the air was not fit to breathe,where the wind was full of fire, a day of utter tragedy. From the ashes emerged the poetry tree, where people pinned their tributes,their love of verse inspired many to hold on to a positive state of mind,so perhaps it is not to be found in a book,but a short verse of wisdom and true compassion.

      Reply

    • Sean Condon says:

      03:08pm | 10/09/10

      The Chaser is a shameless ripoff of The Onion. Every time I see them praised for something I feel compelled to bring this up.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      03:26pm | 10/09/10

      And when ever anyone says The Chaser is a ripoff of The Onion I feel compelled to say The Onion is a rip-off of Chris Morris’ Brass Eye.

    • Nicole says:

      05:00pm | 10/09/10

      @Sean, every time I see them praised for something, I feel compelled to throw up !

    • Hermano says:

      11:41am | 11/09/10

      @ Zeta: Chris Morris is a freakin’ genius.  The Day Today is up there as well.  Highly recommended, would watch again A++++

    • KH says:

      03:44pm | 10/09/10

      you know what they say - you will never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator…....I mean have you read any of those awful Stephanie Meyer books? I couldn’t even read 4 pages before tossing it in the bin.  There is good and bad writing, and yes, some should be on lists of ‘should reads’, but that doesn’t mean popular = bad….........variety is the spice of life, and without the really bad writing, you wouldn’t know what was good!  Some people are incapable of divining meaning in things, and others can’t be bothered…..........I would prefer people read than not!

      ‘Greatness’ is often bestowed post mortem.  Ive been reading the biography of J D Salinger.  Its really interesting how many magazines and publishers rejected his work during his lifetime, yet now everyone fawns over it!  I haven’t got up to the part where he publishes ‘catcher’ yet, but still, ‘greatness’ is apparently not always evident.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      06:57pm | 10/09/10

      Harold Bloom’s right, but he, as usual, leaves out so much.
      I’ve got two of his books and I agree with all his recommendations and opinions.
      The reason readers don’t read so much High Art is really, I think, because there’s so much excellent popular culture around.
      It should not, however, be taught at school. Ever, except as perhaps ‘foil’.
      Pop. Art should be enjoyed, and the great Poets and Writers should be studied.
      Mr. Bloom enjoyes Shakespeare as nearly all others enjoy movies.
      That’s because he’s educated, smart, and likes important messages.
      Important messages are also common in pop. lit. but the Great Classics have so much more in them to study.
      I don’t think he’s a snob, but he is old.

      Reply

    • Dan says:

      11:01pm | 10/09/10

      What makes you think that popular culture can not be art? Art is not determined by how popular it is, and Shakespeare himself was a popular playwright during his day. There is popular culture which if extraordinary and there are so-called classics which are junk.

      Thankfully Bloom is not the gatekeeper of culture.

    • stephen says:

      11:24pm | 11/09/10

      Dan, did I say it couldn’t be art ?
      The reason it should be not a subject for study is because it is modern : there is much to believe in pop culture and and to love, but nothing yet to retrieve. It’s part of our memory, but not yet historical e.g. we don’t miss anything as we can put on an old record, or movie.
      The best modern artists will be Historical, and youngsters in 500 years time will say what you do.
      Mr. Bloom is the best modern critic,(but that may be cause I like who he likes) and he is not a snob.

    • Dan says:

      03:04am | 12/09/10

      Sorry, I didn’t see that you had referred to it as art. Anyway, I completely disagree that popular culture should not be studied in school. Great literature should be studied, and that includes popular fiction. Great literature, IMO, includes Proust, but also Arthur Conan Doyle; Updike, but also King. There is crap literature which should not be taught, but crap literature may include popular fiction and it may include ‘literary fiction.’

      You mention High Art, I don’t really believe in it. To me, Art is Art. High Art simply means that one shouldn’t read genre or popular fiction. I don’t accept that as many of the greatest novels every published have arguably been popular/genre novels, yet they don’t get called High Art because society looks down on it. If Raymond Chandler, Ray Bradbury and Stephen King are not considered High Art, but White are Delillo are, then I’m not interested in High Art (which is purely subjective anyway).

      ‘Important messages are also common in pop. lit. but the Great Classics have so much more in them to study.’

      I think this is a very ignorant comment. To say that the Great Classics have more important messages, or are better to study, than in pop is ridiculous. Not only were many of these Great Classics pop in their day, but you can’t judge a message or how it’s conveyed, by whether it is conveyed in a Great Classic or not. Many of the most insightful books I’ve ever read have been genre fiction.

      No, I think that readers and students should read anything, as long as it’s great. Whether it’s popular or not is irrelevent.

    • stephen says:

      08:26pm | 12/09/10

      Dan, to study pop. culture anywhere is to dumb it down.
      It is designed for our feelings, as a foil for everything else in the world.
      Don’t study it. Be it. They’re telling us things (the best are anyway).
      To study mod. culture is to take it out of its time, and its wrong.
      Study high art.(if you must ). Its old and its better, because modern art is diffuse. There’s so much more on offer.
      (If there were no Artists in the world other than Homer, Goya and Tolstoy, we would still have enough.)

    • Dan says:

      11:45pm | 12/09/10

      Stephen:

      ’  Dan, to study pop. culture anywhere is to dumb it down.”

      No, it’s not, as you still don’t seem to realise that greatness is not determined by whether it’s popular or not.  Some popular culture is dumb, but plenty of it is smart.

      ’ It is designed for our feelings, as a foil for everything else in the world.
        Don’t study it. Be it. They’re telling us things (the best are anyway).
        To study mod. culture is to take it out of its time, and its wrong.’

      I don’t agree. You are generalising about popular culture as if it’s homogonous . It’s not.

      ” Study high art.(if you must ). Its old and its better, because modern art is diffuse. There’s so much more on offer.”

      That is an absurd statement. High art is better because it’s older? Oh please! Putting aside the fact that High art (which I don’t believe in anyway) was once popular culture, age is irrelevent. There is plenty of old fiction and so-called high art which is bad. Furtheremore to say that High art is diffuse doesn’t mean anything as popular culture is also diffuse. As for whether or not High art has more to offer; that’s subjective. I disagree.

      “(If there were no Artists in the world other than Homer, Goya and Tolstoy, we would still have enough.)”

      No, we wouldn’t. I certainly wouldn’t. You might, but that’s just your opinion. If we only had those artists, I think it would be a terrible world.

    • Joan says:

      07:32pm | 10/09/10

      Just loved the chat about reading…  on a romantic note… Barbara Cartland wrote about 700 books and sold about 650million copies….. all about this thing called romantic love. - but not too many people admit to reading her books.-  she did pretty well out of that.

      Reply

    • Norman Churcher says:

      08:05pm | 10/09/10

      How many of these alleged Dorothy Parker “sayings” actually can be verified? Somehow, I have a sneaking feeling that the lady has been given a prominence she does not deserve.

      Reply

    • Claire says:

      04:55pm | 13/09/10

      Sorry, but anyone that knows who Harold Bloom is and what he is about, and quotes Dorothy Parker is a literary snob (even if they do not accept this).

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter