On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Kevin Tarr wrote:
> The op-ed writer takes the literary world to task for awarding bad but
> popular authors like Stephen King. While I can understand his point,
> what is the list opinion: is it better that more people read even if
> it's not highbrow works? Isn't this the same argument used against comic
> books or rock n roll?
I haven't read the article, may get to it at a later time, though.
My opinion is that whatever works to hook someone on reading is a Good
Thing. The trick is to persuade them to go on to "better" stuff.
Don't know about rock n roll, music appreciation is a little different
from reading (I think interest in music is a lot closer to being
instinctual than reading is), but comic books are fine for starters,
graphic novels are good period. If they're reasonably well-written,
anyway. Pulp is fine. Eventually you run out of pulp that you like and
go on to deeper stuff.
Here's a question that just occurred to me: why will I happily put up
with crappier writing from a mystery writer than from a science fiction
writer? Maybe I'm taking the science fiction more seriously and want the
writers of same to do so as well?
Julia
a little brain-fried today
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
