![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparkindarknessAnn Somerville Tweeted me a link that amused me muchly
It's a rather long, dry interview of a Mr. Philip Roth (no idea who that is, for the record), most of which I didn't read and didn't care about. No, the killer line was:
What do popular writers such as James Patterson and Nora Roberts have that attracts such huge numbers of readers?
I don't know their books. They are entertainers. They aren't writers
We'll leave, for a moment, the grossly ridiculous idea of judging their work while at the same time you don't know their books. Srsly? Judging a book without even seeing the cover! Bravo
No no, I am much more amused by the "They are entertainers. They aren't writers."
They write books. Isn't this the definition of a writer? And is there a reason why an entertainer is not a writer?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I rather suspect 90%+ of all fiction writers out there are entertainers. I'm sure 99.9% of all fiction readers out there read to be entertained. In fact, I will even go as far to say that entertainment is 80% of the POINT of fiction. I'm pretty certain when William Shakespeare, the Brontes, Chaucer, Jane Austen and even Charles Dickings put pen to paper they did so to entertain (though if you are entertained by a Dickens novel there's something wrong with you).
Can fiction do other things? Sure it can educate, it can move, it can inspire, it can inform, it can be uplifting and it can be deeply depressing. But ultimately, it's a diversion, it's leisure it's *gasp* entertainment! It reminds me of those awfully pretentious people who inist that true LITERATURE has to be dreadfully dreadfully dull (like Dickens) and reading it must be WORK (*cough*Dickens*cough*)
Am I horribly crass and shallow here? I mean my shelves are full of books that I own purely for my own amusement. I will even, *gasp* STOP READING A BOOK THAT FAILS TO ENTERTAIN ME! Am I terribly common and crude for such terrible tastes?
It's a rather long, dry interview of a Mr. Philip Roth (no idea who that is, for the record), most of which I didn't read and didn't care about. No, the killer line was:
What do popular writers such as James Patterson and Nora Roberts have that attracts such huge numbers of readers?
I don't know their books. They are entertainers. They aren't writers
We'll leave, for a moment, the grossly ridiculous idea of judging their work while at the same time you don't know their books. Srsly? Judging a book without even seeing the cover! Bravo
No no, I am much more amused by the "They are entertainers. They aren't writers."
They write books. Isn't this the definition of a writer? And is there a reason why an entertainer is not a writer?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I rather suspect 90%+ of all fiction writers out there are entertainers. I'm sure 99.9% of all fiction readers out there read to be entertained. In fact, I will even go as far to say that entertainment is 80% of the POINT of fiction. I'm pretty certain when William Shakespeare, the Brontes, Chaucer, Jane Austen and even Charles Dickings put pen to paper they did so to entertain (though if you are entertained by a Dickens novel there's something wrong with you).
Can fiction do other things? Sure it can educate, it can move, it can inspire, it can inform, it can be uplifting and it can be deeply depressing. But ultimately, it's a diversion, it's leisure it's *gasp* entertainment! It reminds me of those awfully pretentious people who inist that true LITERATURE has to be dreadfully dreadfully dull (like Dickens) and reading it must be WORK (*cough*Dickens*cough*)
Am I horribly crass and shallow here? I mean my shelves are full of books that I own purely for my own amusement. I will even, *gasp* STOP READING A BOOK THAT FAILS TO ENTERTAIN ME! Am I terribly common and crude for such terrible tastes?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-24 12:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-24 01:13 am (UTC)It's ridiculous that in entertainment industries (and music is, if anything, even worse than literature! Surely 99.99999% of EVERYONE listens to music to be entertained?!) it's supposed to be a bad thing to be an entertainer.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-24 01:19 am (UTC)To show off their several-thousand dollar University/Conservatory education that, Gods know, won't get them shit all else! To make sure you know how much of a more REFINED human being they are!Music is Srs Biznes.
With slightly less snark for myself (my opinion follows) - by my definition of art, art has a lot of purposes. It can be for entertainment, it can be for learning, it can be for transporting, it can be for challenging, it can be for whatever. For some people, it really is elitism, shameless or otherwise (and some are very ashamed of their elitism, and so try to convince you it's something else). For others, it's that their use for a particular kind of art is not entertainment, but they can't imagine any other use being valid, so obviously entertainment-oriented stuff is not "real art" (whether the art-form in question be lit, painting, music, jumping up and down and screaming "NEEEEE!" or whatever). For others I think it's brainwashing.
But it's alllll the same stuff, in all the different branches.