As late as the mid 19th century, sailors in a port were observed staging Hamlet for their amusement. Shakespeare only left popular culture for the elite canon in the U.S. from the late 19th century forward. I dimly rember from history something about how it was the Jacksonian era the first greatly widened the gulf in the U.S. between popular and elite culture.

To be fair, the Shakespeare that was popular in the 19th century was thoroughly bowdlerized with happy endings for R&J etc.

How can JZ be so awesome? I do not understand it.

I know! It's beyond comprehension.

I've just threadsucked and reread the discussion and - I don't know, I don't see the attitude that got under Hayden's skin.

I re-read too. You know what I think it was? There was a pile-on of hating individual classics which after a while had a cumulative effect. Followed by a lot of people saying, "I'm not going to be made to feel guilty because I don't want to read your steeenkin' classics (read: Canon.)" Most folks were fairly reasonable during this stretch, however, there were a lot of individual asides which added to the whole "serious literature stinks" tone.

It was interesting to read Lilty's comments because there was nothing so radical in her statements, and she was entirely both reasonable and saying, "Hey this is my personal thang" but the effect of her personal statements coupled with high-fives of "Bovary sucks weasel ass" again had a cumulative effect.

Plus, the structure of this particular thread which - as brenda and Heather in particular have noted - and which Consuela amended (she's good at the clarification) dissuades critical discussion. It's more useful than stimulating.

Summation:

I have enjoyed this a bunch.

Plei is me

Wolfram and TB are both my internet boyfriends.

Yeah, I can see that Hec. I'm just sorry we got to that point. (Um, if it needs to be said, and today I guess it does: Not sorry that the discussion continued, just sorry that somehow the thousand cuts snuck in there on all sides.)

Yeah, I can see that Hec. I'm just sorry we got to that point. (Um, if it needs to be said, and today I guess it does: Not sorry that the discussion continued, just sorry that somehow the thousand cuts snuck in there on all sides.)

You know, there were frictions and flare ups, but it was also a very interesting discussion with a lot of thoughtful posts on all sides. On the whole I think we skirted disaster without ever getting into flames. (The exception being my smartassery to Susan - who despite her claims of a hot temper - was pretty reasonable in response.)

"Bovary sucks weasel ass"

But it's funny CUZ IT'S TROOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

No, really. Most over-rated work in the Western Canon. Bloom can bite me.

It's like, the Dan Brown crap of its time, without the mystical stuff.

Master and Margarita, now THERE'S a book. Which I'm about due for a re-read on, in point of fact.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that there's a disconnect right now between what's commonly accepted as Literature (in newly-writ texts only, with a handful of exceptions) and the Human Experience as Lived by the Middle Class Masses. At least in the US. It leaves an odd, bad taste in my mouth when reading, even when I enjoy it, because it feels like what I'm reading is opaque to all but a handful of the highly educated.

Err. More on this later. My pause is up.

Bloom can bite me.

Yep. Plei is me.

Everyone has written such interesting things. Unfortunately, I have nothing to add to the literary discussion, except that I, too, would enjoy participating in a book group discussion as long as 2-4 weeks were allowed read the book. And now I’m about to use the apparently reviled mememe because the discussion brings up strong feelings for me and maybe I really am part of the group after all and what I have to say might be part of the gestalt of the group after all.

I feel so sad any more at discussions like this, not for the content, but that it seems so argumentative, so This Is What I Think and Screw You, which seemed like the reaction to hayden’s interesting post, and has now come around to something else, a kind of defusing, while I was writing this.

Ever since what I perceived as the stabbing of Elena and Megan’s husband in B’cry months ago, it seems that more and more there’s a huge amount of intolerance. X really hates it when people ask her questions, and left another thread years ago because of it. Y despises porny talk and number slutting. Z can’t stand a handful of people and is actively rude and mean. Q takes serious offence at someone’s mistaken belief and keeps the offense simmering after they admit to making a mistake. P, R and K all take offense at newbie’s puppy-bouncing, are mean, and continue to be mean.

Maybe it was always that way and it’s only my perception that’s changed. The Buffistas used to seem like the most lovely quilt or mosaic in the world, with interesting people and voices and different points of view all supporting each other with tolerance and good will. It still is that, isn’t it? So what about the rancor – is it inevitable?

I'm hoping you're not trying to be patronizing and offensive to people you know are articulate, thoughtful, and incisive.

He wasn’t the least bit patronizing or offensive, at least, I didn’t see it that way. His is another interesting and valid point of point. It’s not a win/lose argument, it’s a discussion. But now, right there in print, is now a statement characterizing hayden as patronizing and offensive. It seems intolerant to me. (I’m picking that example, consuela, because you and I can go out for a beer and talk about if we want.)

I keep thinking about the Sharkey article on how internet group are their own worst enemy. Also, about how a wise person on this board theorized that there are various broad types of Buffista users: the logical arguers, the emotional relationship-pers, and the mixes of those. It’s a nicer world and a more realistic world when there is recognition that there are many types of people, whether they are ISTJ or ENTP, or signs of the Zodiac, or whatever. The rancor, attacks, intolerance. It doesn’t have to be that way, does it?

I think it is mostly structural - though I will also note the following (very few comments) over the past year

for example:

Feb 25,
Ginger

I know a number of people who pretty much only read "literary" fiction and do give me a look of disdain when I admit to mainly reading mysteries, science fiction and nonfiction. I'm just not much on most modern literary fiction. I want something to actually happen. The New Yorker once ran a cartoon that was making fun of a lot of the stuff the New Yorker buys. A man is making a peanut butter sandwich and the caption says something like, "He smoothed the thick peanut butter across the bread, watching the slow swirls cover the rough texture of the bread. It reminded hiim of the peanut butter sandwiches his mother had made long ago, back in the house on the sunlit hill...." For me, at about that point, I would want something to explode.

Note two things. This is in response to a genre snobs - so the rage is justified. But she is putting down not individual works, but an entire genre - literary fiction. If someone put down science fiction in that way theyd get one hell of a smackdown - even if it was in response to someone putting down romance.

OK two more recent examples: from June 16

June 16

Susan W

This is where it helps to not give a damn about classifying them ... why does that matter?

not just one work.

Connie

I've never read Ulysses. It's one of those things, like eggplant, that people say you're supposed to appreciate, but which I've never been tempted to try.

Just one work - but unread, and a bit casually dismissive.

I think it is two things here. Certain types of books get (certain parts of 'canon') get piled on here more than any other genre. And you get away with dimissing the entire "literary fiction" genre in a way you cannot get away with any other genre in this thread. So those things combined do contribute to a little bit hostile atmosphere.

Oh and hec - was the bowlderized shakespear the version most people would read? I thought it was mainly professional performances. There was Lamb of course, but I always thought of Lamb as more late 19th century than mid or early. OK really big area of fuzzy memory here, so I'm preparing to be corrected.

Oh and hec - was the bowlderized shakespear the version most people would read?

It was really the only thing available. Corrected, accurate versions of Shakespeare didn't come around again as widely read until sometime in the 20th century (as I recall). Actually, it's not much different than the heavily edited versions of things like Wind in the Willows which are current now. You'd have to search to find an unexpurgated one.

And you get away with dimissing the entire "literary fiction" genre in a way you cannot get away with any other genre in this thread.

Can I just note that (while there are actually interesting arguments to be made for this case) calling literary fiction a genre drives me batfuck. Which may be one of the things that pings me here but literature is not bound by genre conventions. Certainly there are literary genres like Carver-esque minimalism or Southern Gothic, or New Yorker Short Stories. But I can't set Flannery O'Connor on the same shelf with Louis L'Amour anymore than I can talk about Three's Company in the same way I can talk about Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (A deconstructionist would not make that distinction - but I'm not one and I do.)

Literature aspires to greater levels of complexity, sophistication, language, characterization. That doesn't exclude genre works which achieve those levels of quality. At all. In fact, I have my own canon of works which were written in genre and which achieve my standards of literature.

Hard boiled mysteries have a set of conventions which mark them as genre in a way that cannot encompass "literary fiction" which stretches (in today's discussion alone) from Moby Dick to Madame Bovary to Ullysses.

Right..the loner detective, cut off from the family unit...stuff like that.