"One can be a pluralist and have taste."

Granted, but using one's alleged taste to enforce a unitary standard is contrary to the definition I cited earlier for pluralism, which involves respecting the different spheres of operation. The definition was primarily meant to be applied to spheres of society but its applicability to literary evaluation should be obvious. From statements like the following I don't get any impression that the autonomy of these spheres of operation really gets any respect:

"That does not preclude having domain-general expectations which cross genres, much less having expectations themselves (e.g., the generic sounding 'good vs. evil' sounds generic)."

If these domain-general expectations are basically judging whether or not the domain-specific expectation is even valid, then the former is just an attempt to invalidate the latter, which is pretty much par for the course whenever anyone makes an argument based primarily on taste. Taste is an inescapeable factor in literary evaluation but it should never be allowed to sit in the driver's seat. It's more of a backseat-driver that one can't entirely disregard, but the primary consideration of the driver has to be the road in front of his eyes.

Taste, having these generalized expectations, is often incapable of seeing the bigger picture. In his book THE BOSOM SERPENT Harold Schechter observes a tendency on the part of many academic critics to assume that popular forms of art are simply degraded versions of "real" art. You come pretty close to this with your "more good things" dictum, but that's one reason I brought up the "lived question/raised question" dichotomy: to emphasize that the difference between popular art and what some call "canonical art" is not one of degree (as is implied by "more good things") but one of kind.

Incidentally,that IS a place where I will cheerfully admit to making a high/low distinction, and if several pages back you'd backed up your accusation by applying it to something concrete that I'd written, I would have had a better idea of what you were talking about.

An example of why the difference is one of kind rather than degree will be forthcoming, though probably not till tomorrow.

I don't disagree about what you say about pluralism above, just how you apply it. As for taste, you separate it too much from aesthetics for my liking. I think taste can change based on how one thinks about art. And how one thinks about art can change from increasing experience with art. This will lead to a developed taste, which informs further aesthetic views by what's selected for experience. The connection between aesthetics and taste isn't arbitrary, in other words. As for political/class distinctions making for essential distinctions in art, I don't agree. I've cited Lem as one example for why this clearly isn't so: he's writing in a genre which is politically classified as "low" or "mass," but he's just as good or better than writers working within the "high" or "literary" realm. All of this has already been covered, so I'll wait until you catch up to this page before responding any futher.

Re: the kind/degree formulation--

(Edited 11-14 to warn people that if you don't know the ending to any of the works discussed here, they are spoken of herein)

Let's take three works that have, unlike THE STRANGER and X-MEN, some narrative-element in common. I choose Doyle's A STUDY IN SCARLET, Borges' DEATH AND THE COMPASS, and Eco's THE NAME OF THE ROSE. As I've not read the last one, I'm making suppositions based on (a) the film adaptation of the work, generally said to be a faithful one, and (b) knowledge of Eco's novel-writing proclivities as evinced in FOUCAULT'S PENDULUM, which I have read. As you Charles rendered a judgment on LAST UNICORN w/o having read the book this can hardly be objectionable to you.

Doyle's STUDY IN SCARLET is patently what I consider a readerly work. It is a work in which the solution of a specific mystery is the goal, and the goal is accomplished to the satisfaction of the general readership of mysteries and allied thriller-stories.

Borges' DEATH AND THE COMPASS is patently a writerly story in that it seeks to undermine the expectations of the mystery-story, in large part by having the Holmes-imitator Lonnrot bungle the solution of the mystery so that he's killed in the end.

Eco's NAME OF THE ROSE is one of those works discussed earlier, like Shakespeare's plays, that successfully balanced the two concerns. There is a mystery to be solved, and it is successfully solved by Eco's medieval version of Sherlock Holmes, providing satisfaction to the casual reader. However, the book also ventures into analytic territory that is not the specialty of the readerly work, through dramatizing ancient Christian sectarian struggles which arguably still affect Western culture today.

SCARLET gives us a lived question, "Can Holmes learn the identity and motives of the killer," to which the answer is yes.

COMPASS gives us a raised question, which has more to do with analyzing the expectations created by the detective genre.

Between the two of these there is not a difference of degree, but of kind. They are asking questions that have as little to do with one another as the two questions I used for the lived/raised dichotomy: calculating whether one can dash across a street to beat a truck versus evaluating the status of one's life in the face of death.

Clearly "more good things" does not apply when you are faced with a plate of apples versus a plate of oranges.

Ah, but what of ROSE? If it's a blend of writerly and readerly elements, as I myself have so defined it, then maybe it can be deemed to be different than SCARLET both in degree and in degree. If so then it would indeed be "more good things," for one would be choosing a place of apples and oranges over a plate of just apples.

True up to a point. Except that, historically speaking, SCARLET was not a one-time story, as both COMPASS and ROSE were. Of those two, COMPASS could not conceivably be a series since the hero is killed at story's end. Eco could have done more "adventures of Baskerville" had he cared to, but he did not. Thus both COMPASS and ROSE are single plates, and SCARLET is one in a series of dishes, not all identical to SCARLET in their contents even if they are still all of the same "kind."

Conclusion: COMPASS is definitely not "more good things" than SCARLET. ROSE might be judged to be "more good things" than SCARLET alone, but it's questionable whether or not ROSE trumps the entire panoply of stories which SCARLET spawned.

"Do you believe that Shakespeare's remembered and so respected because of his filling in plot points, or because of all the ideas and gift with language that he applied to telling the stories? Even though you refuse to admit it, you're still making a distinction between Shakespeare writing for those who can really appreciate his writing, not those who can't. Those who can fully appreciate him are the same ones who are most likely to be reading things you deem as high art, or writerly fiction. I can't imagine any current reader saying it's easier to read Shakespeare than it is to read Camus."

I'm not sure where you get "filling in plot points" from what I've written. I'm saying that the readership of Shakespeare's time which desired what Durgnat called "simpler textures" were probably pleased by the basic romantic appeal of ROMEO AND JULIET. What ROMEO AND JULIET had to say about New Testament Christianity's take on revenge-killings probably went over their heads, and it may go over the heads of moderns who like the basic "idea" of R & J even if potential deeper themes mean nothing to them. I imagine that even in Shakespeare's time some average viewers didn't like his stuff, even as some don't today. But it seems plain to me that the "readerly" aspects of Shakespeare communicate themselves to the average readers about as well as they ever did, especially considering that readers today have to struggle with an almost alien diction (which I would say rather invalidates your comparison between the Bard and Camus). Even with the diction problem, kids who are forced to labor their way through Shakespeare in school nevertheless generally retain the knowledge of what ROMEO AND JULIET is about, which demonstrates the strength of the play's readerly aspects. But, forced to labor their way through THE STRANGER, would they still remember what its conflicts signified?

"Funny that. In another time and place, you'd be arguing with him about his snobbishness for not putting Robert Wise on the same level as Bunuel."

That's quite a stretch. Where did it come from?

"The only example/counterexample you've given for Durgnat's approach being similar to the one you take is that he used the word 'myth.'"

Well, this definitely proves that the wheels are spinning, though I tend to think they're yours. I've given reasons why he doesn't value the "higher level of writing" to the exclusion of others, which is the implication of the "more good things" dictum. This is far more important than simply using the word "myth," but maybe it's impossible for you to see how he uses it to validate popular culture, mired as you are in a predominantly-negative evaluation of it-- even to the extent of overvaluing his anti-auteur statements to a position of false prominence.

Durgnat: "To me there’s a divide between Renoir and Hitchcock."

Hmm, like a "high/low divide," perhaps? But hey, you've said that's bullshit, so I guess you don't agree with Durgnat on that. What was it you did agree with him on then?

"Whatever would he think about arguing Stan Lee versus Vladimir Nabokov? I think that's enough about how close you are to Durgnat."

He seems to be making the same basic point that I'm making with the readerly/writerly distinctions: that it's fallacious to put them all in a great crockpot and claim that the ones that the critics *think* have risen to the top are the best. I'm sure that Durgnat and I differ on a number of points, but we certainly seem to be agreed that it's wrong to treat popular culture as having the same underlying features as elite culture, since he says that very thing.

You're forgetting that the main reason I compared Lee and Nabokov was to establish exceptions to the pecking-order: that is, to say that while I might allow that LOLITA is on the whole a greater work than SPIDER-MAN, not all works aimed at the elite culture are equally worthy, which means PNIN wouldn't get saved from the fires of Fahrenheit 451. I note that Durgnat has reservations about the overall validity of elite culture too:

"It tries to treat mass culture as if it were elite culture. But in many ways it isn’t. In fact, elite culture isn’t either, though that’s another story."

Since he doesn't expand on this other "story," one might extrapolate that he has some doubts about its own conceits and self-image. It's significant that after rating most Hollywood "first-line" creators as being up to the "third line" of great literature, he admits that "adjustments" should be made: that a "popular" creator like Wilder might actually be of greater consequence than an overrated elite-culture representative like Scott Fitzgerald. Would he save SPIDEY over PNIN? Maybe so, maybe no, but the structure of his argument-- "elite doesn't always trump popular"-- is identical to my own.

"Undoubtedly, morality isn't the end-all-be-all of aesthetics. However, you were asking about a great story dealing with morality as one of its main themes, so I focused on that. I can think of plenty great works of art which don't focus on morality, but that wasn't what you were asking about. You've quoted your question, now read it."

Since you expressed the notion that the good vs. evil theme in POTTER sounded "generic," I wanted to see if there was a work in which you would validate the theme in a non-generic treatment. "Good vs. evil" does require that an author articulate a vision in which a particular type of good (intrinsic to the story, not extrinsic and directed at the reader) is defined against a particular type of evil. Bad authors will define this vision without nuance, while good ones will bring some sort of nuance to it, as Beagle does. However, while the theme doesn't have to be generic, I do think that it needs to be broad on both sides. Kafka presents us with a broad,somewhat-allegorical vision of evil, but no vision of good. I allowed that you were certainly entitled to choose an allegorical version of the good/evil theme if you liked:

"that's as may be if that's how you translated my original question"

But this comment--

"Personally, I can think of a lot of great works of art which are great more for reasons of aesthetics than morality"

--was meant to suggest that maybe your vision of the good/evil dichotomy might be a little too moralistic, and that maybe you don't appreciate the role of the aesthetic. However, that was little more than a side-comment, possibly not any more justified than your Robert Wise allusion, so we may as well drop that.

"I didn't make an ad hominem, but you do and then say it's turning it back on me. Anyway, your ad hominem is bullshit, as demonstrated by the example you give: I actually complimented your FF analysis in that thread. And the only problems I have with you is what you've argued on this board over the years and the way you often argue. I don't have as much of a problem with Durgnat, because I like his approach and what he has to say about stuff I'm interested in."

I consider the whole armchair psychology thing to be an ad hominem attack, but we've already gone over that ad nauseam. I don't remember any compliment of the FF analysis but will check to see what you're referring to when I've time.

"So, Durgnat's answer is "yes." I don't agree with everything he says, nor do you, but we both agree he's a great critic."

The thrust of his argument is that though the texture may be simple, the audience is responding to something that he calls both mythic and poetic and so is clearly runs counter to the more elitist notion of the "lowest common denominator." Your "average factor" is just the "LCD" dressed in different clothes, so no, I don't think he agrees with that position.

"Maybe our agreement on him is an indication that we have some overlap in what we like or think about particular things (as I've often stated before, only to have you disagree with me)."

And my views about our alleged agreements haven't changed, particularly when you haul out the old "flip side of the snob" canard. But I'll admit that Durgnat could well be an elephant, and that the two of us are focusing on different parts of his anatomy as if it were the whole thing. You focus more on his points of agreement with the Frankfurters, and I focus more on his validations of popular art as its own thing. Possibly we agree on the difference in perception, if nothing else.

"For a snob, he can safely put it in a box and not deal with anything important it might have to say on it's own terms."

I guess you think you've proved that this applies to me. I've consistently demonstrated that the "terms" you believe in are misrepresentative and condemnatory, even if the condemnation takes an indirect form.

"Rather, you've come up with a system of sorts that simply defends what you've always liked."

Whoa, the Return of the Armchair Psychologist! I never expected that! (Sarcasm smilie.)

"it's not difficult to find a much better work than TIE that deals with the same important issues in a much more insightful manner"

And the Return of the Blinkered Elitist, too! Wow! Who says this isn't the age of the Resoundin' Reecian Rhetoric?

"that's a debate really worth having."

Ho hum. I expect your answer to that debate (BODY SNATCHERS vs. SWEET & SMELLY) would take the same shape as whatever answer you'll make to my assertions about how STUDY IN SCARLET can't nohow compete with either DEATH AND THE COMPASS or NAME OF THE ROSE. You will naturally ignore all the "qualitative distinctions" I identify for the former because they just don't count for much in a world where high literature always trumps low. And in so doing you wil nicely prove yourself to be the one confined in that nice box called "Frankfurt Follies." Enjoy the cramped quarters, man.

1. I made no judgement on LAST UNICORN. I haven't read it. The only thing I said was that it's a kid's book, which is how I've always heard it classified. I hear it's a classic of children's literature. 2. The film NOTR is to the book as FROM HELL the movie is to its source.

I still don't buy the distinction you're trying to make between readerly versus writerly. At least, you pick a bad example to make your case. Picking Doyle, who was largely responsible for creating the socalled readerly expectations of a certain subgenre of mystery writing doesn't serve to make the case that he was writing for reader expectations. In terms of writing, I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have about these 3 authors. I haven't read enough Doyle to consider him, though. I'd rank Borges higher than Eco, in terms of imagination, originality, influence and breadth (at least in terms of fiction, Eco's a more signficant and better philosopher). All 3 have written mysteries, and, therefore, have written stories of the same kind. As I suspected, you're coming pretty close to saying that following conventions is readerly and toying with those conventions is writerly. I'm always going to rank writing that isn't predictable as being better than writing that is. If that's snobbish to you, so be it.