Discussion Question

[rolanni]

A book that is an "easy read" is a lower form of literature.

Discuss.

Comments

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Lower than what? I can think of several which are hard to read because they are confusing, use lots of invented language or scrambled spelling and syntax (yes, I'm looking at you, Mr. Banks, and you, Mr. Joyce).

Yes, there are snobs who will look down on "easy reading" just as they do on "easy listening" (and "easy watching" for that matter), those who think that anything for "the masses" is by definition trivial as opposed to that for the few elite (amongst whom those snobs are numbered, of course).

I think Heinlein's Jubal Harshaw ("Stranger in a Strange Land") pegged it when he said that the purpose of any art is to communicate. If it fails to do that by being "too hard" for most people then it has failed as art, a cheap thriller or romance novel off an airport bookstore which stirs the reader is better as art than a 1000 page tome which everyone finds boring. (I paraphrase drastically but that was the general idea.)

That may be a little too drastic, of course, there is room for all kinds. Some is just intended for consumption once and then to be thrown or given away, whereas some is best appreciated only after a lot of repetitions. My preference is for something of both, art which is simple enough that I am not put off before finishing it but which contains deeper elements which draw me back to re-reading (listening, watching) because there is more to find. And it's in that middle one would find most of the books I read and re-read.

[katmoonshaker.livejournal.com]

This depends on how you define "easy read". If by "easy read" you mean something that does not require more than two brain cells to read then yes, I would consider it to be a lower form of literature. However, if "easy read" is defined as something that is so well written that one becomes enthralled or caught up in the work that one begins the book and then suddenly finds oneself at the end without knowing how they got there (and wanting more more more!), then obviously it ranks in the highest form of literature. There are also those books which range in that second as well as those one has loved and reread many times which are "comfort books". These can be read when one has walking pneumonia and all brain cells are defunct because they are understood with the heart.

I do hope that makes sense, my week has been... interesting.

[kimuro.livejournal.com]

Define literature.

fwiw, I'm in the process of applying genre labels to the fiction collection at the local high school library, preparatory to separating it into several sub-collections. I have a great deal of discretion in applying the labels. In my mind, the term "great literature" (genre label "classics") applies to books/ novels which are only read when assigned in English Lit classes and, personally, I am reluctant to apply that label to any book that is a good read (for example, Rudyard Kipling, Jules Verne, Mark Twain, Jane Austen, etc.). I see the potential Classics section as a "ghetto" for books that students will only check out under duress.

And so, to answer your question, by that definition of literature, then yes, I would say that "easy reading" is a lower form of literature. But when a person wants to be entertained, few of us reach for War and Peace - We're more likely to crave The Crystal Dragon or Bride of the Rat God (don't laugh - that's a Barbara Hambly's fantasy that I re-read once or twice a year).

[aspidites.livejournal.com]

I recall a high school English teacher telling my class that "classics" were just old best-sellers, which lead to discussion as to whether Stephen King, Tom Clancy, and Elizabeth Peters, for example, would one day achieve "classic" status.

I'd be tempted to shelve the classics within the genre fiction - Verne in speculative fiction, Kipling in adventure, Sherlock Holmes stories in mystery, Jane Austen in romance, etc.

[kimuro.livejournal.com]

My philosophy is - if the work in question is still a good read by modern standards, it goes into the genre. If the writing style detracts from the readability of the work, it goes to Classics.

If it's an "easy read" from 20-30 years ago, I look through it to determine if there's any chance a student would ever consider reading it now. If not, I select it for weeding. If so, I argue that it be retained. A lot of what would have been classified as "Contemporary Teen" back when has little relevance to teens today. And a lot of what is classified as "Contemporary Teen" today, I consider trash.

[isabellag.livejournal.com]

Hambly's "Scorcer's Ward", or "Stranger at the Wedding" is one of those I often fall back on. Easy? Yes. Cheap? No way.

[attilathepbnun.livejournal.com]

Bride of the Rat God, yayy! My main complaint about that book is, it hasn't yet acquired a sequel

[(Anonymous)]

...just like a grilled cheese sandwich is a 'lower' form of cuisine.
Doesn't mean it tastes any less good when that's what you're hungry for.
Sue H in SC
(runs off to make grilled cheese sammich)

[trolleypup.livejournal.com]

And there are grilled cheese sandwiches and grilled cheese sandwiches. It isn't black and white.

I am certainly not a believer in the theory that it isn't good unless it hurts (in reading any more than exercise!)

(Just back from eating a superlative bacon and egg sandwich.)

[adriannem.livejournal.com]

My favorite stories are stories where I learn something new or learn to see something old in a new light. As an example, _The Little Prince_ is an "easy read" but it talks about how we understand the world we live in, and how we understand each other. I find it endlessly fascinating.

Conversely, there are a ton of stories that are as entertaining as junk food. You gulp them down because they're fast and easy, and learn nothing. Some of them are very long, and you still learn nothing. Some of them have very beautiful language, and you still learn nothing. I lump all of those into "junk food reading," and those I would agree are lower forms of literature.

[schulman.livejournal.com]

Yes indeed; that's why Hemingway is held in such contempt.

emphatically disagree

[furballtiger.livejournal.com]

It is trivially easy to make any form of communication more obscure, and far more challenging to make it (for any given content) clearer, and easier to read. I think the best writing in the world, and that which endures, is the easiest to read...for its subject matter. Wanna be quoted a long time hence? put a good message in a supremely easy to read form. Wanna be forgotten tomorrow? make it any tiny bit harder for the reader. IMHO. I think the previous comment re Little Prince is spot on; that's spectacular writing in addition to having a good message. At the other end of the scale, contrast the communication styles of Obama and Reagan. Happy trails.

[(Anonymous)]

Does this statement only cover books for adults?

The Magic Faraway Tree and most of Andre Norton's YA books are an easy read but I still consider them to be literature.

Tricia

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

I'm still confused as to what literature means, as the unspoken definition I keep encountering is "book I want to use to preach at you".

easy read

[(Anonymous)]

This is a meaningless question. I state to make my point that I am considered well educated and well read. A book that I would consider an easy read might well be very difficult for a man in an adult education class - or even a graduate of some of our so called High Schools. I think it far more importent to worry less about what might be an easy read and get people to actually read. This is not a good venue because, by their nature, your
readers are educated and do read. I am apalled by statics on the number of Americans who do not read, at least not much more than cerial boxes.

Bill

[conuly]

If this is true, I guess the converse ("The most complicated legal document available is GOOD reading") must also be true.

[saruby.livejournal.com]

Assuming that by "easy read" one means a book that is perhaps short and keeps one reading, I disagree. Literature to me is a book that makes me think. I continue to think about it after I have finished the book. Perhaps I think about the choices a character makes and whether I would make the same choices. Perhaps I am thinking about the setting and whether the author created a believable "world". Or the theme of the book. It doesn't have to be Steinbeck or Melville. Just a book that makes me think. When I was in school, my friends and I used to joke about the DIM of literature (Deep Inner Meaning). But I rarely think about the books we read in school today. The ones that stick with me are the books I read because I enjoyed them. I studied medieval Arthurian legend in graduate school. I wouldpoint out that most of those stories would be considered fantasy today and were written for entertainment. There are no contemporaneous critiques available discussing the archetypal characters or their moral choices. A thousand years from now, scholars may well be arguing the merits of works that we today consider "easy reading".

[kalimeg.livejournal.com]

I have been re-reading the Laura Ingalls Wilder Little House books. Easy reads? Yes. Lower form of literature? No way.

[(Anonymous)]

My opinion is that if it's NOT an easy read, there had better be a damn good reason. Unless it is a conscious artistic choice to try to force the reader to figure out what's going on (like Faulkner, for example), making something a tough read just means you're incompetent. If you're going to alienate the reader, you had better have a hefty dose of genius to back it up. Otherwise who will ever bother reading it?

I think being able to communicate your vision eloquently enough that the reader loses himself in the story, rather than the word-packaging that the story is wrapped up in, is a skill that should be applauded, not looked down on as some kind of sell-out of appealing to the masses. Ideas don't change the world if no one ever reads them.

-Meara

[otterb.livejournal.com]

My original response was "P-b-t-t-t-t-t-t" but since previous commenters have been more articulate, I shall try to do the same.

Realizing that the definition of "good literature" is contentious, I'll consider it as something that has enduring value in helping us understand ourselves, our society, and/or the world around us. And, as I reread this definition, it sounds lie something a bad middle school social studies textbook might say about itself, and that would definitely not be good literature. In any case, it has something to do with truth and insight and emotional connection, and should not mean "dull and boring and never read voluntarily."

I think I place "easy read" as near-orthogonal with "good literature," however you define it. So we have such combinations as easy and good, hard and good, etc.

A previous commenter mentioned junk food reading. These are what I think of as popcorn books: enjoyable for once through, but that's all. I don't denigrate them; sometimes I want some popcorn. But they aren't the kind of books that people remember, or reread (except by accident), or argue about, or learn from.

Except you have to be careful with that generalization, because the insight someone needs at a particular moment can come from the darnedest places, and they're not all "good literature" by anyone else's definition.

The books that are both easy and good have a quality of still waters running deep. The surface is easily accessible; you can paddle across it in a short while. The depths reward more attention. Somebody mentioned The Little Prince; I'd thought of that too. There are other ostensibly childrens' books that have the same quality; I'm thinking of "Sarah, Plain and Tall."

To say that something is a lower form of literature because it's easy is as wrong as saying something is a higher form of literature because it's hard.

an "easy read"

[bookmobiler.livejournal.com]

Actually there is seldom a more difficult reading experience than books that are defined as literature.

Come to think of it there are seldom more difficult people than those who think they have the right to define literature.

Re: an "easy read"

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's a wonderful summary! [FX: applauds]

[xinef.livejournal.com]

I certainly don't care about "high" vs "low" literature. I look for entertainment when I read. Books that entertain and make me think are preferable.

[trolleypup.livejournal.com]

And double bonus points for books that make me cry...each time I read them.

[xinef.livejournal.com]

Totally. Or make me laugh each time.

[muehe.livejournal.com]

A lot of different views here.

Is ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ an easy read? It was to me, but then I remember discussing it in my literature class. I missed a lot, how I do not know -- I did read the book. Even after spending a day or two discussing it I was thinking, whatever. Now the movie, that opened my eyes. I can see why some people consider that book a classic.

Anyway, hard read – poetry. And you never know if you got the right image.

Is the entire SF genre considered easy reading? I kind of think so, at least I do not remember reading any that I would consider a “hard read”. So then the question becomes is SF a lower form of literature? I know some would say so, I still remember hearing this. Since fiction is comic books without pictures.

I guess it boils down to perspective. A beautiful thing “perspective” – everyone has one.

There is no such thing as an easy read.

[tomato-addict.livejournal.com]

As readers, we all choose the level of involvement that we will have with a story. Just having to make that choice is an emotional investment, a commitment which requires a significant effort, a variable which is sometimes completely independent of the "difficulty" of the reading material.

I don't think that "literature" can really be separated into higher or lower forms, per se. All writing is purposeful, done for a particular reason to achieve a particular goal or goals.

As readers, we decide what our needs are at any given time and try to find writing that will help fulfill those needs.

Re: There is no such thing as an easy read.

[isabellag.livejournal.com]

You've hit the nail on the head for me. The outcome of reading is subjective for every single one of us, therefore nobody can really say if a book is 'an easy read' or not. Education, life skills and perspective will all play a part in whether somebody considers a book to be easy or not - it took me several tries to get into John Kennedy Toole's "Confederacy of Dunces" but I persisted and I'm glad I did - one of the best books I've ever read, but easy? no way. On the obverse, an easy read for me is something I've devoured in a day, and come back to over and over again. Definitely not a lower form of literature (and who makes up the rules, anyway?).

[gilraen2.livejournal.com]

i'll repost my FB comment here: i don't agree with the idea that a book must be difficult to understand to be deeply meaningful. my classic example would be The Giving Tree.

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

I was thinking of that. The words and events are very easy to follow. But untangling even some of the ... points of it all, is not.

(Hated it, personally.)

Easy Read Lower Form of Literature?

[claire774.livejournal.com]

Good discussion. Let's consider the difficult to read. Canterbury Tales. Hard cause it's not modern English. Same for Shakespeare. Difficult to read modern novel? The most has got to be Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce where he more or less made up his own language for the book. Most normal novels have seemed to me to be fairly easy reads. So I don't think that they are a lower form of literature especially if they are well written. I am a great fan of Jane Austen for example. I find her novels very easy to understand and read. There's no better story than Pride and Prejudice imo.

You might be referring to the Harlequin type books perhaps. But I haven't read any of those so I can't say. I've never tried to read Finnegan's Wake either by the way. I don't think I'd understand it.
C.

Re: Easy Read Lower Form of Literature?

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

Hm. Might say that Austen's complexity is on the surface -- grammar, nuances of behavior -- but the large events are pretty simple. Doesn't make it less great literature, though.

Hm. I could contrast Austen with Angela Thirkell (whom I love). Good grammar, literate, recognisable characters ... but not great literature.

[(Anonymous)]

I have three criteria for a "good read", in order of importance:
1) Book must grab you and keep you reading. What good is a so-called "valuable" book when you can't even be bothered to finish it?
2) The book stays with you for a long time (i.e. somehow engages your "critical thinking" process).
3) The book makes you want to re-read it.

I find that the books I read tend to fall into two classes: the ones scoring high on 1+2 (Daniel Quinn's 'Ishmael' was one of those for me - still thinking about it 10 years later) or score high on the 1+3 criteria (Lee & Miller are in this one. Have lost count of re-reads.).

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that 'lower form' vs 'higher form' really stands up. When a great writer seriously tackles a 'lower form', the product jumps right up into first rank.

Child's Garden of Verses, Tolkien, maybe Harry Potter, some Dorothy Parker maybe, Wilde's plays....

NO says the bookseller

[(Anonymous)]

There are all kinds of books, like there are all kinds of food.
Some are Complex, some are simple. All are delicious.

Just as some folks enjoy really difficult, thought-provoking books
some of the time, some enjoy what I would call fluff. What I see are
that folks read some of each at different times.
Lauretta@ConstellationBooks

PS I have 'comfort books' just like comfort food --- and your books
are on that list.

[(Anonymous)]

I have waded into this discussion very late. ‘Easy reading’ has, I think, been subject to so many different definitions, interpretations and generalisations, so as to make the term virtually meaningless. However, the fact that it is commonly stacked up against the term ‘literary fiction’, says more to me about the needs of some of the literati to justify the substance of many literary works whose plots are complex, convoluted and hard work, where the characters’ journeys on the uglier extremes of life are torturous and disturbing; where the reading and the interpretation of such works is seen as a badge of honour for those hardy souls who have suffered through it and come out the other end with theories on meaning and nuance, whether the author intended them or not.

It wasn’t all that long ago that all fiction – ‘novels’ – were generally considered a lower class of writing to works of non-fiction, to be indulged in mostly by silly women with too much time on their hands. All types of fiction will have their detractors; it doesn’t mean they are unworthy.

Easy reading, I think, has nothing to do with the quality of a work, because we all know that these works can and do bring the reader into rich worlds with multidimensional characters and plots, in beautifully chosen language. I think the term should be used to describe a reader’s reaction to a book, that is, it’s page-turning ability. If you love the world the author has created, if you love the characters and their story, then it is an easy read for you. With all respect to the literary giant, Margaret Atwood, I don’t think I’ve ever read one of her books where I couldn’t wait to find out what happens next.

Phyllis

Fiction vs. Literature

[patti ludwig (from livejournal.com)]

Well, this has been an interesting read in itself.
The first thing I did, upon deciding I'd like to comment, was look up "literature" and "Fiction" on an online dictionary. That was also eye opening.
Literature is defined thus: (1)writings in which expression and
form, in connection with ideas of
permanent and universal interest,
are characteristic or essential
features, as poetry, novels,
history, biography, and essays.

(6)Archaic . polite learning;
literary culture; appreciation of
letters and books.

Fiction, is defined so:
the class of literature
comprising works of imaginative
narration, esp. in prose form.

So, what does that tell me? That "Sweet Valley Twins" or the infamous "Cook's" whatzit de whozit that was "editing" correctly presented period piece cooking articles are both "literature" in theory.

High literature? That's another question, and the one really being addressed here, I gather. I don't know if a dictionary would define such a thing.

I'll say this; I'm basically in the "so-called-high-literature is stuff you're forced to read and loathe ever after" camp. People who can read & enjoy it? Good for them. They aren't converting me to their camp, though. It may be terrific stuff; don't know, don't care, already got put off of it by the presentation.

I read some stuff that I know is bad...Early Lackey has been pointed out as...Mary Sue, shall we say. Heaven knows the "Floating Outfit" westerns are dreadful stuff, but I'm mildly addicted to them. I even re-read them from time to time. Are they things I would book push? No.

Lee & Miller, P.Briggs, S.Robinson, D.Duane, R. Heinlein, yes, I push with enthusiasm. They have messages, and nuances. They are (some...) comfort food for the soul, as Lee & Miller were named by A. McCaffrey (Push her too; her son, not so much, he's leaning toward Literature), and often with lessons in them. Who can forget the lessons from "Have Space Suit, Will Travel" and "Starship Troopers"?

Does all the writing hold up as high quality, after a decade or three or ten has passed? Well, no. Either the writers were young in their craft, writing hurriedly for money (the only legitimate excuse according to whom? Right.), writing for juveniles, or the science has made the story impossible.

Doesn't matter; as with Shakespeare, the content and in some cases, the language (and with W.S. it needs to be performed or doesn't come off now, let alone another 100 years from now) have power to evoke emotion or thought.

Some is blatant. The relative versus absolute value lesson of "Starship Troopers".
Some is subtle. The "it's all right not to be perfect, to learn differently or more slowly than others do" of, well, "Carpe Diem".

Schlock can make me cry. The Arrows Trilogy; Wolf's death from the "Lad: A Dog" series", - but - that doesn't mean that the lessons of true values and "Courage consists of holding on one moment longer" is invalid because the packaging is out of date or politically incorrect.

So stuff literature. File by genre, if you can figure it out. If you can't, or it wanders, there's still "general fiction" willing to embrace it.

And "easy reading is not worth the effort"? More balderdash. We lay down our core understanding of the world with easy reading - if we're lucky enough to LEARN to read - because you need the stripped down thing to base the rest of it on, to be able to appreciate those nuances. Whether you find them in Dickens, or Austin, Twain, Heinlein, McCaffrey, or Rowling.

Now, I think I'll take this rant over to my "home board" and post it up there for a different but equally interesting (I suspect, anyway) discussion.
Thank you for the venue.