• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Judging people by the art they (mostly) consume

Trophonius

Well-Known Member
It might be caused by rigid thinking-patterns, but it is hard for me not create a general opinion about a person based on the kind of art they consume — whether it is films, music or literature. Of course, I reserve my opinion on this matter when in public (now, not always) but it's hard for me not to see a person as being 'immature' or having a 'bad taste' (neither of these words exactly capture what I'm aiming for) when an adult (25-35 years old) talks about how they recently read the Harry Potter books and changed their life, or ramble about how Coelho books are insightful, or how hilarious Epic Movie is.

Of course, I hold that aesthetics judgments are ultimately objective, and ideally our personal judgments should be in line with those, with a few exceptions that always occur (say for example, a book might have no literary value, but it caused a big impact because of the moment I read it).

Now there seems to be a trend that raises the consumption if 'bad' art by adults. For example, I take part in two literature clubs; one of those is mainly composed by older people (ages 50-80) and read very good books; the other is composed by adults (25-35) with Young Adult fiction and genre fiction being a major focus. I stopped to assist to the later eventually, and though they were very nice people, I was always baffled at how much YA and 'bad' books some people can go through.

And finally, because of how much I care about these kind of things, it becomes harder for me to associate with people. I don't want to be the one person sitting a YA-meeting telling everyone they're reading trash, but it is also annoying to be silent if involved in these discussions — which are always prone to happen in social settings, whether a discussion is about books, music or movies.

I hope it makes sense, and wonder if anyone has experienced anything similar.

Related:
Against YA: Adults should be embarrassed to read children's books.
No, you don't have to be ashamed of reading young adult fiction
 
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that this could also be seen in sorta the other way around.

I knew someone once, who tended to only read "deep" books. It had to have all sorts of "meaning" and adult situations. The guy could go through an entire Discworld book without so much as a slight smile, which is absolutely baffling. I was later told that he reads them "for the satire", as put in his own words. Just the way he said that and the tone he used spoke volumes.

He wanted so, SO badly to be seen as a "true intellectual", and someone who is full of maturity.

And honestly when I see people doing things like complaining about the stuff others read/watch/whatever... saying that it's so crass/immature/stupid/childish, stuff like that, that's typically what I think of: the wannabe intellectual, the person that seems to have this bizarre need to prove their IQ and how "mature" they are. Without really knowing that to some, this actually just makes them look really childish.

But also, they're making alot of highly illogical assumptions, with stuff like that, if they havent actually read/watched it themselves. Even if they've heard what others say about it. Because there's a darned high chance that those others in their circles ALSO havent read whatever it is.

Note that all of this is coming from someone who couldnt give less of a fart about any of this. I've always tended to do whatever I want, age "restrictions" not considered whatsoever. In my mind, that's ACTUAL maturity. The willpower to simply be yourself, without feeling the need to prove something to everyone around you.

And yes, I do read/watch things that many might consider dumb. Doesnt matter to me. It's either good, or it isnt. Like it, or dont. That's all.

That's just my thoughts on the matter.
 
He wanted so, SO badly to be seen as a "true intellectual", and someone who is full of maturity.

And honestly when I see people doing things like complaining about the stuff others read/watch/whatever... saying that it's so crass/immature/stupid/childish, stuff like that, that's typically what I think of: the wannabe intellectual, the person that seems to have this bizarre need to prove their IQ and how "mature" they are. Without really knowing that to some, this actually just makes them look really childish.

I agree with this. Complaining, in social settings and in public, to other people about what they read or watch is ugly to see, and it makes it seems that people who do that probably have a high value on the opinion of others in regard to themselves.
 
Also YA is garbage with few non Japanese exceptions, but I think it's dumb to criticize twenty year olds for reading it.
 
I am not judgemental of others, so it's not an issue for me, plus I have always enjoyed some YA fiction if it's well written and has a good story. There's some really excellent YA fiction around, haven't you come across any?

I definitely wouldn't enjoy a book club or discussion, I really only need my own opinion on a book, and I would definitely find having to listen to others opinions potentially tedious or irritating, so I wouldn't go to any such group. I don't mind what others read, everyone's entitled to their own choice on this, I guess I would rather stay in and read than worry about this.
 
A good story is a good story regardless of what age it is directed to. Heck, I even watch anime. I'll still match my depth of understanding of the world with anyone.

Have you considered that your ego is talking here? That's what such judgments are all about. It gives you a sense of superiority that you read better stuff and therefore are the better person.
 
I also hate it people try to advocate against teenage protagonists and insist that adult protagonists automatically equals better writing.

Charles M. Schulz intentionally didn't include adults because they're boring to write about.
 
There is no such thing as "bad" books or art. If someone enjoys it, it's good. Judging adults for enjoying books written for young adults or children is the sort of intellectual snobbery I can't stand. Let people like what they like.
 
I agree. I meet so few people who actually read literature or non-fiction. Everyone seems to prefer young adult fiction or “cheap pop”’ fiction, if indeed they read at all (rare). Personally I’m totally up to reading anything, and do. I’ve read Harry Potter (they’re fun) and absolutely adore Lemony Snicket’s All the Wrong Questions series and one of my absolute favorite novels is Treasure Island, but I do probably at the end of the day prefer literature over “junk food stories/novels.” I also read a fair bit of non-fiction and subscribe to several literary journals (The Dublin Review is my favorite by far). It’s kind of a tough question, though, because so many of my favorite writers did not author literature e.g. Robert Louis Stevenson (I adore him beyond words), Jules Verne (again, no words can describe what a remarkable author he was), Ray Bradbury, and others. I really just like...stories. I don’t discriminate. My sister reads a lot of popular mystery novels, and having developed a tender spot for Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories many moons ago, I usually take her up on her recommendations...and enjoy them very, very much.

I do completely understand what you mean, though. People are so utterly dumbed down nowadays that they emotionally and intellectually simply cannot handle anything more complex than Harry Potter.
 
many of my favorite writers did not author literature e.g. Robert Louis Stevenson (I adore him beyond words), Jules Verne (again, no words can describe what a remarkable author he was), Ray Bradbury, and others.

What definition of literature do you use? Because while it's true that Stevenson and Bradbury wrote stories, they also wrote some books which I would call literature; Stevenson with his Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and travel literature; Bradbury with Farenheit 451 and Martian Chronicles, and maybe others.
 
There is no such thing as "bad" books or art. If someone enjoys it, it's good. Judging adults for enjoying books written for young adults or children is the sort of intellectual snobbery I can't stand. Let people like what they like.

I disagree.

Of course, I cannot do but "let" people like what they like. If someone enjoys the Harry Potter series that's fine. However, if someone says that the Harry Potter series is better than, for example, Dante's Divine Comedy, their judgment is simply misguided. Whether a book is or not better than other is not ultimately to personal taste (giving to all writing, from Oddysey to Irene Iddesleigh, ultimately the same merit), but there are many elements that allow us to objectively critique it (which of course can err from time to time). I apply the same judgment to many things I personally like; for example, while I enjoy The Big Sleep more than A Turn of the Screw, it wouldn't cross my mind to say that Chandler is a better author than Henry James and I think I could point how the latter is in many ways a better book, but I also know myself and realize that because of the role detective novels played in my youth I will probably enjoy them in adulthood almost regardless of how bad and repetitive they are sometimes — I know what I like them, and is because my personal past that I put into them when I read them that I enjoy them, while most of them having no objective literary merit.

Now, this is to expect of most people, we all have preferences. What do surprise me is how often objectively "bad" books are massively consumed — not bad of any particular kind that would explain the reader's personal affinity, just bad books in general. I think of reading likewise with eating: of course I enjoy eating a Big Mac now and then, but it's definitely not "good" food; now regardless of whichever junk food we like (I have a few preferences myself), what would surprise me here would be only eating junk food in general, and being completely oblivious to what the difference is between a well prepared dish and a bar of snickers. Something similar happens in regards to literature.
 
A book may be
I disagree.

Of course, I cannot do but "let" people like what they like. If someone enjoys the Harry Potter series that's fine. However, if someone says that the Harry Potter series is better than, for example, Dante's Divine Comedy, their judgment is simply misguided. Whether a book is or not better than other is not ultimately to personal taste (giving to all writing, from Oddysey to Irene Iddesleigh, ultimately the same merit), but there are many elements that allow us to objectively critique it (which of course can err from time to time). I apply the same judgment to many things I personally like; for example, while I enjoy The Big Sleep more than A Turn of the Screw, it wouldn't cross my mind to say that Chandler is a better author than Henry James and I think I could point how the latter is in many ways a better book, but I also know myself and realize that because of the role detective novels played in my youth I will probably enjoy them in adulthood almost regardless of how bad and repetitive they are sometimes — I know what I like them, and is because my personal past that I put into them when I read them that I enjoy them, while most of them having no objective literary merit.

Now, this is to expect of most people, we all have preferences. What do surprise me is how often objectively "bad" books are massively consumed — not bad of any particular kind that would explain the reader's personal affinity, just bad books in general. I think of reading likewise with eating: of course I enjoy eating a Big Mac now and then, but it's definitely not "good" food; now regardless of whichever junk food we like (I have a few preferences myself), what would surprise me here would be only eating junk food in general, and being completely oblivious to what the difference is between a well prepared dish and a bar of snickers. Something similar happens in regards to literature.
The point of fiction is to entertain. Whether a book is objectively better written than another is the domain of literature professors, and guess what, most people don't study literature, they read to be entertained. If a book achieves that, it's good. If it is written in a way so as to be enjoyed by a large portion of the population, great.

The vast majority of the people in the world have only basic reading skills. The average reading age of people in the UK is 11, in the USA it's 12. These people deserve to enjoy reading as much as people with excellent reading skills. Enjoy what you like and appreciate fine writing if that's your thing, but as I said, judging people who don't is the sort of intellectual snobbery I can't stand.
 
A book may be

The point of fiction is to entertain.

That's a sweeping generalization which is obviously false.

Consider for example literary fiction:

A genre is a category of literature, such as mystery, suspense, science fiction or horror. Each genre has its own conventions. Romance, for example, focuses on romantic love between two people and often ends positively. Generally, genre fiction tends to place value on entertainment and, as a result, it tends to be more popular with mass audiences.

Literary fiction, on the other hand, is a bit trickier to define. In general, it emphasizes meaning over entertainment. Literary fiction also aspires toward art. Of course, that abstract of “art” is where things get most tricky. What is art? In fiction it can be defined as interesting and deep manifestations of the elements of craft: dimensional characters, a pleasing arc of tension, evocative language and thematic purpose.

Of course, literary and genre fiction aren’t exclusive of one another. A work of genre fiction can be literary as well. Jane Austen, for example, wrote literary romances, like Pride and Prejudice.

Answers to Writing Questions - Genre - Gotham Writers Workshop

And it is precisely one of the points of my criticism in regards to the consumption of art. If a person reads a book like a Ulysses, or watches a film like Persona, and says about them that their point is to entertainment, then the whole book/film went over their heads, watching Persona just as they might watch Jerry Springer. This is not always their fault, often people have been educated to consume this, whether because they don't read literature or because the culture in which they grew up promotes it for obvious reasons (profit).
 
What definition of literature do you use? Because while it's true that Stevenson and Bradbury wrote stories, they also wrote some books which I would call literature; Stevenson with his Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and travel literature; Bradbury with Farenheit 451 and Martian Chronicles, and maybe others.

I go by the academic definition of “literature,” I suppose. That a novel must have a lasting artistic and intellectual value to it. Definitely Fahrenheit 451 qualifies. Without a doubt. But I don’t think most of his novels count as literature, such as Something Wicked This Way Comes, which in my mind doesn’t in any way diminish its value or relevance. Re: The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: most definitely not literature. It was basically a penny dreadful-type of novella when it was published. It’s one of my favorites, though. I’ve read it a million times and have several copies of it. Also, I love Sherlock Holmes, but again, it isn’t considered literature. It’s sort of horrifying that it could justifiably be considered as such nowadays, though, considering the infantile drivel that is popular fiction.

I completely agree with everything you’re saying. It’s horrifying that adults, if and when they read at all, choose young adult literature because they can’t handle anything more sophisticated. And of course they’ll say you’re a snob. We’re living in an age of blatant anti-intellectualism. Like I said before, I absolutely love quite a lot of YA novels and children’s books, but if you’re over the age of 12 and that’s all you read and appreciate, then you may want to concede that you’re lazy as hell in terms of literature. I also completely disagree that the purpose of reading is entertainment. Most of the novels I read, I do so for intellectual and emotional reasons. Not entertainment at all.
 
Thinking you shouldn't look down on people for being less intelligent and educated, or for reading for fun, is not anti-intellectual.

No disrespect. The point I’m making is that when we have a nation of adults who can only handle/appreciate novels written for children and young adults, this may be something to be incredibly alarmed about.
 
No disrespect. The point I’m making is that when we have a nation of adults who can only handle/appreciate novels written for children and young adults, this may be something to be incredibly alarmed about.
How do you know that all of these people don't like adult novels.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom