Part of the "difficulty" with great books is that many of them do not have simplistic messages. That complexity is, in my view, a large part of the distinction between highbrow and lowbrow writing. I'm not sure that highbrow writers are any better, technically speaking, at actually writing compared to bestsellers like Hoover. But my sense is that they are able to present nuanced depictions of human nature in a way that exceeds most bestselling authors.
Moby Dick, noted below in a comment, is a good example of this. I think reasonable minds can disagree whether it's boring, etc - I happened to enjoy it, but I totally understand why the other commenter did not enjoy it. Such is life! But if you read it to the completion, Ahab becomes a really interesting character to sink your teeth into - is he noble, is he mad, how/why is he charismatic, are you sympathetic to his quest? Whatever you can say about him, he's not a "flat" character. I know that one of the characters in "Jaws" was apparently modeled off Ahab, and so I was excited to watch "Jaws" immediately after finishing "Moby Dick." But I was struck by how Spielberg just completely sucked the complexity out of whoever was supposed to be the stand-in for Ahab.
I agree that they're more complex. I do think that's only a part of the difficulty. The difficulty of complexity is the reason why most critically- and commercially-successful modern books are so simple. But there's also an element of difficulty that just comes from the way people wrote in the premodern era: especially in the 18th and 19th century, people were wordy as fuck. Moby Dick also has all the passages about how many buckets of sperm you can get from the head of a whale, and that's a different sort of complexity. I think a lot more people are capable of enjoying character / thematic complexity than we appreciate--a lot of prestige TV shows have precisely this complexity--and I do think they would enjoy the Great Books quite a bit, but the tools the Great Books use to build this complexity are initially alienating.
I tried reading Moby Dick last year and enjoyed very little of it and gave up halfway. And I was fine with it.
And that Cool Girl Novelists article looks like, at the very least, a fun read. Wish it wasn't paywalled.
Edit: Turns out you can read up to 3 free New Statesman articles a month by just signing up. I read the Cool Girl Novelists article and yeah, I agree with you in that it wasn't well-written. It's getting at something true, but it's so general and broadbrushed that it sounds more like the writer has a specific grudge against a specific novel or writer, but for whatever reason, can't be open about it.
On a technical level, she made generalizations about a bunch of novels, but those generalizations weren't true of most of the books. For instance, most of the protags of those books don't have PhDs or even graduate degrees. She also didn't quote any of the books or give readings of any specific book. It was just a very broad portrait she painted.
On a creative level, her reading was pretty uncharitable. To me, the ingenue novel is about a young woman who is desired by others more than she desires herself. She is passive because others seem to want her to an excessive degree, and her main conflict is managing others' desire. I am thinking, for instance, of the protagonist of "Cat Person" or NORMAL PEOPLE or LUSTER or ASYMMETRY. She is young and pretty and smart, but feels like perhaps she's not really worth that much.
The appeal of the books is purely escapist. It's like watching the OC or Gossip Girl--if you are reading about rich people, you want them to be miserable. If you're reading about pretty girls, you want them to be empty inside. (I assume that some people can also empathize with this conundrum from the inside, but I think those people are a minority of the audience). Stroud's article was so wholly dismissive, and it did come off as a bit sexist, as if she was decrying silly lady novelists. These books are not being shoved at us from above--what possible incentive does publishing have to prioitize books about young, miserable white women? They're a response to something organic in our society--people write and read them because they really respond to these stories
I've read all of those except Asymmetry (must check that out), and "if you're reading about pretty girls, you want them to be empty inside" is devastatingly accurate. I just pulled up Tiqqun's Preliminary Materials for a Theory of the Young-Girl because your claim reminded me of theirs: "It is only in her suffering that the Young-Girl is lovable." Thank you for humoring me & expanding on your aside.
Part of the "difficulty" with great books is that many of them do not have simplistic messages. That complexity is, in my view, a large part of the distinction between highbrow and lowbrow writing. I'm not sure that highbrow writers are any better, technically speaking, at actually writing compared to bestsellers like Hoover. But my sense is that they are able to present nuanced depictions of human nature in a way that exceeds most bestselling authors.
Moby Dick, noted below in a comment, is a good example of this. I think reasonable minds can disagree whether it's boring, etc - I happened to enjoy it, but I totally understand why the other commenter did not enjoy it. Such is life! But if you read it to the completion, Ahab becomes a really interesting character to sink your teeth into - is he noble, is he mad, how/why is he charismatic, are you sympathetic to his quest? Whatever you can say about him, he's not a "flat" character. I know that one of the characters in "Jaws" was apparently modeled off Ahab, and so I was excited to watch "Jaws" immediately after finishing "Moby Dick." But I was struck by how Spielberg just completely sucked the complexity out of whoever was supposed to be the stand-in for Ahab.
I agree that they're more complex. I do think that's only a part of the difficulty. The difficulty of complexity is the reason why most critically- and commercially-successful modern books are so simple. But there's also an element of difficulty that just comes from the way people wrote in the premodern era: especially in the 18th and 19th century, people were wordy as fuck. Moby Dick also has all the passages about how many buckets of sperm you can get from the head of a whale, and that's a different sort of complexity. I think a lot more people are capable of enjoying character / thematic complexity than we appreciate--a lot of prestige TV shows have precisely this complexity--and I do think they would enjoy the Great Books quite a bit, but the tools the Great Books use to build this complexity are initially alienating.
I tried reading Moby Dick last year and enjoyed very little of it and gave up halfway. And I was fine with it.
And that Cool Girl Novelists article looks like, at the very least, a fun read. Wish it wasn't paywalled.
Edit: Turns out you can read up to 3 free New Statesman articles a month by just signing up. I read the Cool Girl Novelists article and yeah, I agree with you in that it wasn't well-written. It's getting at something true, but it's so general and broadbrushed that it sounds more like the writer has a specific grudge against a specific novel or writer, but for whatever reason, can't be open about it.
Now I really want your take on why Stroud's essay is bad, and also your thoughts on the ingenue novel.
On a technical level, she made generalizations about a bunch of novels, but those generalizations weren't true of most of the books. For instance, most of the protags of those books don't have PhDs or even graduate degrees. She also didn't quote any of the books or give readings of any specific book. It was just a very broad portrait she painted.
On a creative level, her reading was pretty uncharitable. To me, the ingenue novel is about a young woman who is desired by others more than she desires herself. She is passive because others seem to want her to an excessive degree, and her main conflict is managing others' desire. I am thinking, for instance, of the protagonist of "Cat Person" or NORMAL PEOPLE or LUSTER or ASYMMETRY. She is young and pretty and smart, but feels like perhaps she's not really worth that much.
The appeal of the books is purely escapist. It's like watching the OC or Gossip Girl--if you are reading about rich people, you want them to be miserable. If you're reading about pretty girls, you want them to be empty inside. (I assume that some people can also empathize with this conundrum from the inside, but I think those people are a minority of the audience). Stroud's article was so wholly dismissive, and it did come off as a bit sexist, as if she was decrying silly lady novelists. These books are not being shoved at us from above--what possible incentive does publishing have to prioitize books about young, miserable white women? They're a response to something organic in our society--people write and read them because they really respond to these stories
I've read all of those except Asymmetry (must check that out), and "if you're reading about pretty girls, you want them to be empty inside" is devastatingly accurate. I just pulled up Tiqqun's Preliminary Materials for a Theory of the Young-Girl because your claim reminded me of theirs: "It is only in her suffering that the Young-Girl is lovable." Thank you for humoring me & expanding on your aside.
Lol did I ever say it wasn't good? I fully agree with the aspirational model. But it is dead and gone :)