I think it's ok to be a logical positivist. In fact, I
sometimes wish
they'd succeed. It would be very nice to be able to
scientifically
determine what constitutes quality and measure any cultural
product anywhere
anytime against this objective standard. Very convenient and
certainly
useful.
It's hard, though, to explain things like why Jerry Lewis is
popular in
France or why the (to us) noise they call Middle Eastern
music is really
music, without somehow referring to the people who produce
the cultural
products and/or enjoy them. More and more, folks are starting
to believe
that cultural goods are best understood in relation to the
cultures that
produce and consume them.
Postmodernism adds a fun twist. Suddenly, labels and
authority to speak
become important. Pronzini's writing and editing credentials,
along with
his ability to convince someone to publish his book, give him
authority to
speak. Using his authority, he promotes the label
"alternative classics"
for what he conceives of as so-cheesey-it's-fun mystery
literature. The
very act of labeling, though, is what creates these
alternative classics.
Before they were labeled by a person with authority, they
were just stories
people read.
A good back-up position for disillusioned positivists is
post-positivism.
The idea here is (sort of) that if enough of the right people
argue that
something is good quality, then that's what it probably
is.
Which brings me to the subject of critics and criticism and
how I figure out
what I might like to read next. I find it most useful to know
the critic or
editor. Do I usually like what she likes or is it the
opposite -- and under
what circumstances? For instance, Leonard Maltin has a
predeliction for
Sci-Fi B movies, which I share. I've yet to pick up a Black
Lizard book I
didn't really enjoy. And Lin Carter and I have pretty much
the same taste
in old fantasy stories. In any case, once I understand how
the critic's or
editor's tastes relate to my own, I've found a critic who can
guide my
reading. That's pretty subjectivist, because "quality" only
exists in my
relationship with the critic or editor and is more-or-less
equal to "what I
like."
Speaking of cultures, I've noticed Rara-Avis does expend some
effort
defining what's on topic and what's off. In terms of this
list, I think I
may just have gotten off topic. :)
Best,
Greg
swan@poboxes.com
Kevin Smith wrote:
>
> As for if there are any "really" good or bad books,
I'm sorry, but just
> because someone likes a book (or a play or a song or
a hamburger) doesn't
> immediately bestow an aura of quality on it. Some
kind of objective quality
> must exist, or there ceases to be any reason to seek
it, or attempt to
> create it, and if that happens, we might as well roll
over and die. If mere
> popularity is a sign of quality, Danielle Steele is a
better writer than
> Daly, Hammett and Chandler combined. Democracy is
good in politics, lousy
> in art (imagine if Ringo wrote one quarter of the
Beatles songs).
>
> Having gone this far out on the limb, I might as well
swing a bit. There's
> also nothing wrong with liking "bad" books. Bill
Pronzini calls them
> alternative classics in his Gun in Cheek and Son of
Gun in Cheek, I call
> them Cheese. In fact, July is Cheese Month around
here. I put away the
> "good" books, grab a few cold ones, hit the hammock,
shove a tape in the
> machine, and plow through some so-bad-they're-good
no-brain, no-gain Cheese
> Classics. Some of my favorite cheese classics include
the Honey West
> series, the Rocky Steele books, Dan Turner stories,
some later Mike
> Shaynes, and a whole bunch of one-shot wonders,
mostly old bargain bin
> paperbacks with the standard babe and gun on the
cover.
#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.