>>12
>>13
>>15
Ignoring the troll factor, as once again, trolling as often as not facilitates positive discourse, I'd like to share my position on your assertions. You're definitely on the right track. First, there are some semantic problems, like your choice of the words smart and dumb. There are many smart people who can't read, and many dumb people who can. I would agree that any intelligent, knowledgeable person is going to be able to see the value in any work of literature that has withstood the test of time as well as W&P and Austen, but do you insist that any preference must be based on concrete values like the writers skill? Art doesn't really work that way. Books and other works of art resonate with individuals because of their own personalities and experiences.
>>10 never said that he didn't think the books had value, only that their value in the given context was minimal for him. And I can see where he's coming from. The rich character and setting development in W&P, and the low hum of calm resignation in some of the Austen books wouldn't exactly do it for me on a desert Island either. You may be so intelligent and knowledgeable that you've never put down a book you weren't enjoying, only to try it again some time later and discover that it's great, but most of us have. Would you have us believe that you are systematically working your way through every great work of fiction with an eye only on efficiency, and no regard for what resonates with you, or those around you personally?
I would rather have heard you say that ignorance is often a contributing factor in poor taste. As a musician I've thought about this a lot. Learning to hear, understand, and enjoy increasingly theoretically complex pieces of music requires listening to them, and in this age of the consumerist three chord hit song, it just doesn't normally happen. Reading is the same way. Intelligent? An intelligent person who has transcended taste doesn't call people dumb. He provides intelligent commentary on the maligned work so that his audience may find something in it that resonates with them, and encourages them to seek out the work at some time in the future.
That's why I started this thread. I wanted to see what was resonating with /books/, and encourage exposure to new paths through what is a practically endless labyrinth of great literature. If taste were not a factor then it would/should have ended at
>>2, 'cause he nailed it.
All art is a physical manifestation of profound truth, and knowing the truth makes us better people. One of the truths I've learned is that positive contributions are good. I understand that your post was an attempt to defend great works of literature, but you took a negative approach. You attacked and insulted. Do you think that was the best way to go?