Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The taste test proves it
Laurie Fendrich, in her ongoing series on aesthetic taste, says that people in a democracy love equality more than they love freedom. This is why they can’t stand to think that someone has – and is capable of having – better “taste” than they do.
The mere thought that some people might have better taste than other people seems to make a lot of people go bonkers. (It’s funny, though, how they accept the fact that some people are just plain better at sports than other people, or that some people have better singing voices than others do. Even if you’re born with sports talent or musical ability, you have to work hard to improve them, and people accept that. But they don’t like the idea that the same things might apply to taste.)
Oh, I love this. This works really well when you suggest to people that the book they’re reading is actually very mediocre literature. There, I bet some of you just got angry. I’ll bet some of you think I’m being elitist. I’ll bet you think I’m talking about Harry Potter books and other books that people read on airplanes. Well, I am. And if you think those books are Great Books, then you have Bad Taste. And now you’re mad at me. Congratulate yourself. You have tasted of the Radical Egalitarian Kool-Aid. But don’t take my word for it. Read the essay.
back to top11 Comments to “The taste test proves it”
I freely admit to having little fashion sense (apparel or furnishings). No one is going to have good taste across the board.
Report comment to moderator
And if you think those books are Great Books, then you have Bad Taste. And now you’re mad at me.
Yes … I read the first Harry Potter. It was a bunch of fun to read (Rowling has a neat imagination), it was really poorly written.
Report comment to moderator
There is a segment of our society to which her theory might apply.
These people live in a static world where there is only so much of everything and those with less are that way because there are those with way too much. To them, and in the name of fairness—which is what democracy is or should be all about—equality is the only good and nobel goal to be sought and achieved for society as great as ours. Once that happens, all is good.
Since sharing is difficult, they think it is the job of government, using the contents of the Constitution—actual or perceived—to remedy this natural deficiency. They seek to redistribute all stuff including stuff like rights and other nonphysical necessities as they think their fairness recipe demands. If it weren’t for the unfounded notion, held by some, that this process impinges on the freedoms of others, they would be able to remake this world, our society, into a far better example for the world.
Of course, those who have managed to arrange their personal lives in accord with this fairness theory are able to demonstrate to those who haven’t how to live. For Laurie, this all translates into some having better taste than others and is apparently not part of our original fairness problem because it is so desirable—I guess.
Report comment to moderator
You didn’t make me mad. I agree wtih you.
I actually made peace with being a snob a long time ago. Once I came to grips with the fact that liking good things, like good music and good books, does not make me a superior person, I no longer felt guilty about having “refined tastes.”
I also realized that I can enjoy mediocre things when I feel like it, and better things when I feel like it. If I want to read a John Grisham novel, I can read it and enjoy it for what it is. If I’m in the mood for a Virginia Woolf novel, then I can read it instead and revel in its superiority.
Report comment to moderator
HSK,
Before you deride the “Bad Taste” of all Harry Potter lovers, please consider what Alan Jacobs says in his Chestertonian defense of the series as examples of the penny dreadful genre.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/005/1.47.html
Report comment to moderator
So I have bad taste… What ya gonna do about it?
Report comment to moderator
I enjoyed all the Harry Potter books. But ya know, I enjoyed CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, and MacDonald too.
I also enjoyed for a time, Louis LAmour, Zane Grey, and Max Brand. I’ve even read a few books by the current authors of popular action genre… what’s their name, Cussler, et al.
I’ve also read a few Chesterton books and didn’t “get” them. I may have to re-read a couple now that I have an inkling what they are about.
So, you can say I have bad taste. You can even say I read stories mindlessly. I blame it on my English and Literature teachers who insisted that there be some greater meaning behind all these stories. I reacted against that, and asked, “What’s wrong with a story just being a story?” I suppose I’m stuck in that mode.
It’s not so bad. You oughta try it.
Report comment to moderator
MIM, I agree with you that anything can be read and appreciated for what and why it was written. There is such a thing as bad writing that just cannot get a point across effectively. It seems they make these writings into pointless movies.
A couple of years ago I read a book titled “The History of Roads in America”. Surprisingly, it was very interesting because it was well written.
“Undaunted Courage” about the Lewis and Clark Expedition did a very effective job of bringing the events to life from the entries of Lewis’s journals.
I can read anything and enjoy it, though sometimes I have to read things twice to grasp the point. This is true especially with biblical theology and apologetics.
I also am guilty of reading stories “mindlessly”, probably because I just enjoy reading.
Report comment to moderator
I doubt that anyone who cares about the concept “Great Books” would think Harry Potter falls in that category, whether they like the books or not.
So what? I enjoy the HP books. Books don’t have to be written, or read, only for their high literary quality. I’d have missed a lot of good books – not great books but good books – if I had stuck to the approach I had as a young adult of only reading the kind of books you find in English Lit syllabi.
Report comment to moderator
I read this article hoping the author would give us some objective tips on how to judge literature, but she didn’t.
Is there a right way to judge art? I think Catcher in the Rye and Catch 22 are garbage, but try telling that to any English teacher. Modern art is a joke, but trying telling anyone what we all know to be true. It’s just not said.
I took a class in college on short stories and they were all about sadistic murderers who enjoyed their morbid work. Ah, but it was good writing my professor assured. I guess content is secondary.
Umberto Eco wrote a book called The History of Beauty. It is basically a book full of nudes which is supposedly OK to look at. Why? Because it’s art, that’s why. So then I pretend to be a snob who cares about fine art.
How is a Renaissance nude different than a modern nude? If you look objectively, they are identical. Yet one is refined to look at one and not the other.
Beauty has a lot to do with perceived value. And perception is controlled by many factors other than the object itself. Advertising proves this. We are easily persuaded that something is valuable based on what other people think.
I am always curious about finding some objective way to evaluate beauty. Many have tried and failed in my opinion.
I assumed that people got caught up in the Harry Potter craze just like any other craze. It had nothing to do with the product itself, but everyone had to have one. And saying “it helps the kids” is just one more marketing ploy. “Buy one for the kids”.
Whether it was good literature was entirely beside the point. But try telling any Potter fans that and they’ll harrumph you with a fling of the head.
Report comment to moderator
Morality cannot be dismissed from what makes good taste. Just as Christians base their knowledge of what’s pleasing to God from the Bible, non-Christians have their value systems as well.
I would not like to separate content from form. If something is exquisitely put together, but the content was objectionable to God, then I find it distasteful. I don’t have to accept the world’s idea of art for art’s sake. What is art anyway but one’s attempt to express oneself? Is there an immoral and grotesque way to produce art? Certainly…we see it more and more. Why is that? What is acceptable and pleasing to God is not so to the unbeliever. And the more the Christian persists in following after the non-Christian in his interests and pursuits, the more his tastes will follow suit.
I haven’t read any of the Harry Potter books. I believe I shall find them tasteless as well as objectionable reading in light of what the Bible teaches about abstaining from appearances of evil. Since I haven’t read the books, the latter supports the former for me. What if I’m wrong and these books actually do no more than appeal to my flesh and desire for interesting reading? That is the risk I’m willing to take for the sake of taking the higher road. I don’t love books enough to think that I’m missing out too much. I used to though. I read whatever I came across. Now my tastes have changed. I truly have no desire to read any more romance novels, among other books of different genres. I’d like to think my tastes have been refined by the Master Writer.
If I sound elitist in a legalistic way, please excuse me. I really wanted the credit to go to the One who has not made Romans 12:1 a burden but a delight.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!