In the latest Book Babes column, the Babes take on ‘The Case of the Literary Snob.’ Here’s a quick play-by-play of the column, with my comments in italics:

Ellen writes to Margo
-Nowadays, “every major airport has acquired �its own version of a� quality bookstore,” but the term “airport book” still stands for “lite reading” and represents “‘serious’ book people’s” disdain for popular fiction.
-“It’s a form of snobbery, but not without reason: The more educated the eye, the more apparent the shortcomings of books with one-dimensional characters and clunky writing.” Ok. But why, then, center the discussion around “snobbery”? It’s (in America, at least) a pejorative term and always begs, regardless of context, for counter-attack. The word forces a cheap dialectic, and guarantees the argument will conclude with a facile “synthesis.”
-Most book editors argue that “1) commercial �fiction �will sell whether they review it or not, and 2 )�it’s a waste of time to give it ‘serious’ review consideration because such books are skin-deep and there isn’t much to say.”
-“But is this �formula helping or hurting book coverage?� Are we at risk of being literary snobs and turning people off� when we implicitly sneer at their favorites?” Again, loaded language. “Sneer”-ing? If you’re going to rely on class politics for the column’s hidden, or not so hidden, rhetorical structure, then please address the subject head-on, instead of guiding it with words that denote pre-assigned values.

Margo responds
-Margo was amazed “at how many people �leapt to the defense of so-called serious fiction” after their column on the NYBT. “Yet few of them� attempted to define what they meant by that term.” Maybe because it was so obvious what Keller thought it was, and they were writing in response to him?
-Literary snobbishness “is one of the reasons good fiction is having such a hard time attracting attention these days.” The literari “dissed” Oprah even though “she tried to bring good literature to a �mass audience.”
-“We can’t complain that no one pays attention to serious fiction and then applaud� fiction that is so inaccessible �that only a handful of people� can understand it. We can’t complain that so-called serious fiction is not attracting �readers, and then conclude that �any fiction �that does can’t be serious.” I’ve never understood what people mean when they refer to books as ‘inaccessible.’ Especially when it’s likely that they’re referring to books by Franzen and not Gaddis. The second point makes better sense, though; I sometimes suspect that we, at least in part, define serious fiction based on its unpopularity. And it’s very “high-minded” to be so deeply suspicious of bestsellers that we don’t hesitate turning suspicion into distaste.
-Margo agrees “with Keller that �there IS more� happening in non-fiction than fiction these days” and that the NYTBR does “need to mix it up more.”�

Ellen responds
-“The standard high-low dichotomy suggests that� Stephen King and John Grisham are not worthy of serious reviews, �but that’s true only if you assume that reviewers must confine themselves to literary merit.”
-Ellen suggests that reviews ask broader questions. Responding to an unnamed book she’s reading, she might ask in a review, “What’s the harm of a few anachronisms in an otherwise well-done �piece of fiction?” Thinking out loud here: does the popular fiction audience care for this type of analysis? Or does this type of analysis appeal to “the literati,” who wouldn’t mind reading about “airport books,” so long as they don’t have to read them?
-“Non-fiction doesn’t replace fiction as a form of truth telling.” She continues, “Whether it’s the much-maligned ‘airport book’ or ‘serious literature,’ � fiction rides on the wings of our imaginations.” This is the “facile synthesis” I was waiting for.

bloggers’ responses

Sam of Golden Rule Jones writes,

A year ago I would have maintained that, while reading a thriller or a horror story may leave you entertained and even informed, reading serious literature can make you a better person. But that was before the famous Denby experiment, which showed that such a diet can also lead to an extended episode of moral corruption, ending in idiocy.

Beatrice writes,

Popular media can and does tell us a lot about ourselves as a culture. A good reviewer could easily find tropes of masculinity, or articulations of conservatism, in Tom Clancy, just as Anne Rice’s oeuvre has a lot to say about shifting attitudes towards gender and eroticism. Mysteries and thrillers reflect social attitudes about crime and punishment; George Pelecanos uses the genre as an effective instrument to talk about race relations as well.

And the point of reviewing isn’t to make sure books sell, unless you’re writing for Amazon.com (as I can attest from experience). The point of reviewing is to offer a critical perspective that individual readers can use to inform their independent choices.

OGIC at About Last Night responds to Beatrice, and links to her favorite smart review of a dumb book. What would Julavits say, if she weren’t bound and gagged in OGIC’s closet?