Pointless language is as bad as clunky language, IMO. Neither of them use the tools of writing in the strongest way.

But knowing a subject in detail

I don't think you're risking getting called a snob because you know details, Hec. That's deflecting.

I have never read any Asimov, but I am picking up the I, Robot audiobook right now. All right, Scott Brick, make this serviceable prose worth listening to.

Some critics can certainly be pretentious assholes, but I also want to say that it's fine to love things that aren't actually good and critics pointing out the non-goodness is not, in an of itself, being snobby. I define a good work of art as one that uses all of its tools well. Not just plot or language or storytelling, etc. but all of them.

I am more familiar with film criticism so I will use that for an example. I don't care that some films I love are not liked by critics. I can love "Summer School" with Mark Harmon and not feel that film critics who hate it are snobs. Just because I love it does not mean it is as good a film as, oh, "Philadelphia Story." It's still seems to me to be useful to have the ideal of goodness, even if that can be hard to define. I don't think saying it's all subjective will EVER mean that "Billy Madison" is a great film, no matter how many millions of people enjoyed it. It's enjoyable, which is good, but not GOOD.I don't think I am a snob for pointing that out.

The thing with Asimov, and I just re-read Nightfall thanks to this discussion, is that his prose is often effectively transparent. Reading it, the story, the *what* of what's happening is what you notice, even 70 years later. It's aged exceptionally well in large part because of that.

Nightfall is probably the best example, but I think "The Ugly Little Boy" is damn close.

I don't think you're risking getting called a snob because you know details, Hec. That's deflecting.

What's your definition of a snob?

It's certainly not someone who knows details. I wasn't the one that called out criticism, so I'm not going to go into detail about *that* meaning, but knowing details? Isn't remotely a definition of snob. It's not even required. I'm just not sure why you'd come to that conclusion.

You'd have to ask Connie precisely what she meant. But I assume it's something vaguely like the dictionary definition.

I'm hearing a "Hmph!" and sensing perhaps a little grimace. But that inference is all on me.

Oh no, it was there.

I think snobbery is the difference between the statement "X is a shitty author" and "X's style doesn't work for me." I admit I often cross this line into snobbiness - my wife and I have had a few arguments verging on fights about Twilight which she actually really enjoyed, even in hindsight, despite being one of the best English teachers I've ever met. She, even more than me, feels like there is more to good books than good prose, though she appreciates beautiful prose at a level far above my ability to appreciate it, as well, and she happily calls me out on my snobbiness when I roll my eyes at Twilight or The DaVinci Code.

In the long run, I think a great book is one that can consistently appeal to a broad range of people outside of its time period. I don't think Twilight and The Da Vinci Code will fit that bill, but I could be wrong. If I am, I'll admit it in 50 years. That doesn't mean I'll like it, which is fine. I also don't like The Catcher in the Rye that much, abhor Vonnegut, and roll my eyes constantly as I read most of Jane Austen. But they've all earned their place, not just because they are influential, though they are, but because I know a lot of people who enjoy them, and love them, still. And that means the authors have done something worth doing.

See, I'm willin to both roll my eyes at AND enjoy things like trashy romances or the Davinci Code!