Name: Lit Crit
Written: As a letter to the editor of Writers Forum magazine, published in the November 08 issue.
I agree with what Matt Bates said in issue 85 Aug/Sept about certain journalists’ snobbish attitudes to non-literary books. It’s not only journalists, though. I did a degree in Creative Writing for which I had to take some literature modules. You would think that even if they’re not going to combine it with the literary material, there would at least be a popular fiction module somewhere on the course, that a modern university would consider some of the more popular books worth studying and analysing too.
I also think that the way in which literature is defined is also snobbish. Literature is supposed to be about depth, importance and art, but these critics dismiss books that fit this criteria if, a) it sells too well (because anything liked so much by the masses must be shallow and worthless); b) if it’s of a genre (it’s amusing how much fuss is kicked up every time The Lord of the Rings wins a Favourite Books poll, especially when it won the Folio Society’s poll, whose readers are literary connoisseurs); or c) if it was written for children (what is The Wind in the Willows then, or Treasure Island?).
I think there are actually three categories of books – casual popular fiction, which is valuable mostly or completely in terms of entertainment; higher popular fiction, which is valuable as entertainment but also has depth and meaning and perhaps some artistic value; and literature, which is part of our culture, highly artistic and meaningful, and/or has an express purpose to make people think.
