It's quite interesting how they mention how the rich co-opt pop culture and make it "high art" and wall it away from the masses, as that also seems to be present in the classifications of "literary" and "genre" fiction.
I mean, gripe about my tastes all you want, but I got more enjoyment out of the works of Steven King, H.P. Lovecraft and Clive Barker than any piece of snobbery forced upon me by my literature teachers. And the two works I did like the most in those classes, Rudolfo Anaya's "Bless Me Ultima" and Sartre's "No Exit" were arguably both low-magic fantasy.
Not that the teachers called them such, as it's apparently a rule in the world of literary snobbery that if they like it/if it has intelectual value, then it isn't "genre". Just look at the receptions of Michael Chabon's works or Margret Atwood's sci-fi.
But, on the positive side, I have noticed that thanks to the internet, people are reclaiming pop-cultural analysis for themselves, using it as a form of popular entertainment via such things as TVTropes, the popularity of internet review shows (especially those on Chez Apocalypse) and a large chunk of posts on Tumblr. These may be criticized for shallowness, but are they really any more shallow than some of the stupid wankery that goes on in academic circles?
I like that you referenced the activities taken by your average person to become a gatekeeper of public opinion. I agree that you see a rise in people giving online reviews as an introduction of their voice to the internet where most people find their first platform. When I first initially started blogging in high school I participated in this by giving my own reviews of books and movies. It was gratifying to think that I may actually influence another person's tastes or interests in an object.
ReplyDelete