Your literary prejudices

My prejudices extend to the readers of chic-klit, and any snob who looks down their collective conk at readers of popular literature (I don't do that, you know, even though I don't read much of that stuff)

I met an Ayn Rand fan the other day! I didn't know she was bad.

1) Found out I wasn't a genius.

2) Found out that most people are misunderstood.

3) Grew up.

4) Got over myself.

I think Sedaris' two funniest are "Santaland Diaries" and his essay "Me Talk Pretty One Day." Some of his others are kinda hit and miss but these two will make me laugh every time. "He nice, the Jesus."

Also, reading the comments about Ayn Rand here reminds me of that "South Park" episode where the formerly illiterate Officer Barbrady is given a copy of "Atlas Shrugged." After finishing it, he announces that he's sorry he ever learned how to read. Now I can't listen to someone praise her work without thinking of that and laughing.

Mmm. Nice. So you hate yourself then?

Come to think of it, this kind of goes for anyone whose literary prejudices are the same throughout life.

Oh yeah, I have this too, and it's a really bad prejudice. I will buy a thick book over a thin book any day, because I'm worried a thin book will be over too soon and I won't get my money's worth, but I miss a lot of good books that way and thick books, if they're boring, can just go on forever.

I'm weirdly prejudiced against literary authors who incorporate genre themes in their work as a way of spicing it up. Irritating.

-- selfnoise (mgorill...), September 21st, 2004 2:59 PM.

I'm weirdly predjudiced against people who think there's some kind of meaningful disctinction between 'genre fiction' and 'literary fiction'. Besides, your average lit-wank, stream-of-conciousness 'serious' novel would be greatly spiced up by the appearence of a gangster or (better yet) a spaceship halfway through.

And no, it wouldn't be spiced up. It would just be obnoxious to a further degree.

I don't hate you!

'Wilderness Tips' is very dark; it's a remarkable collection.

"I'm weirdly prejudiced against literary authors who incorporate genre themes in their work as a way of spicing it up. Irritating."

I'm with you on this. well, sort of, i am. When I read that philip roth's new book was about what might have happened if charles lindberg had become president, i knew i would never read it.

but then i do have a general prejudice against alternate histories and literary reimaginings of history for some reason. it's one reason why I never wanted to read Libra and Underworld even though I like delillo. And yet i don't mind it in science fiction for some reason. and there are exceptions. i enjoyed the book i read about idi amin's fictional scottish doctor. i think if it's history or a person from history that i'm not that familiar with i don't mind as much. if it's too popcult or recent (i couldn't read joyce carol oates' book on marilyn monroe for instance) it just bugs me. i did pick up a book about two fictional pianists and their fictional friendship with glenn gould recently. that one looks pretty cool, actually. so my prejudice can't run that deep!

On the topic, then: agreed on Palanhiuk; it's fine to read and enjoy, whatever, do you own thing, but you can't claim it as a daring counter-culture talisman, you just can't. Doug Coupland too; I really like him, I think he's fairly clever, witty, and a fair amount of fun to read, but he's simply not the brilliant cutting-edge philosopher that people claim him as.

I'm totally ok with the supposed 'chick lit' stuff, because I've never known people that suggest it as 'capturing the zeitgeist' etc. People I've known read it because it's fun, and that's cool. I read lots of stuff because it's fun, and it's not my place to judge what you find fun. Just please don't tell me to read Pahlaniuk because "it'll really make you think".

I love a good thin book; the more succinct you can get it across, the better. There are few authors whose language is good enough to make me want to wallow in unnecessary prose(Delillo is among the few). I like short stories a lot for this reason too, I guess. That's not to say that I won't go for thick books, but that I'm more inclined to pick a thin one off a discard table.

I don't need to have read Ayn Rand to know that it's crap. Now that is prejudice.

Re Southpark, Southpark is excellent and the show's fun w Ayn was simply that; one of the creators is a Libertarian and he admires her immensely. For as you know, libertarians believe we can stand on our own not suckle at the State, depriving one of any worth and creativity.

Nah, couldn't be that. It must be that they just don't understand.