Marydell,

The point is no one is denying anyone's right to like nor dislike anything. I like pro wrestling, soap operas, Godzilla films, Ed Wood films, bad B sci fi films from the 50s, etc.

But I do not equate pro wrestling with ballet nor Noh, soaps with Shakespeare, or the schlocky films with Kurosawa, Kubrick, nor Bergman.

For good or ill there are objective standards to quality. These sometimes overlap with likability, but not always. Can one reasonably disagree who was the greater scientist- Galileo or Copernicus? Yes, but Immanuel Velikovsky is not in the discussion.

Who was greater- Einstein or Newton? Arguable, but Deepak Chopra is not in the discussion.

Who was greater- Whitman or Rilke? Arguable, but Maya Angelou and Donald Hall are not in a league.

But, as I like Plan 9 From Outer Space, anyone is free to think Chopra a genius, or Angelou an intellect and real artist. But, just as you would justifiably ridiule one who said Ed Wood was the greater director than Fellini, so too do statements that equate Amy Tan with being great deserve ridicule.

She is not even as good as All My Children writers. But, I do not hold it against you if you enjoy her. How could I if I like seeing musclebound brutes slam each other across a ring?

It comes down to recognizing one's biases and transcending them. Tan's books will be out of print in 30 years, and the only place they'll be available is when eventually scanned online, as curios of a deliterate age.

Similarly, B sci fi films are curios- they tell us a bit of the lowest common denominator fears of an era, but little else, and to try to propound greater from them, or Tan, is plain silly. But, I love'em anyway. I just know they're bad art....and don't give a damn!

Dan Schneider | November 17, 2006 4:18 PM

Hello Marydell. I think your post is very honest and very good.
I started blogging almost a year ago, and took a long time reading other people's blogs before daring to comment. It also took a long time before anyone commented on my blog ;-)

All I can say is, don't give up. Some people in blog comments just write reflex and stupid things, which is very annoying.

I am sorry that you felt "chided", even in jest, on Petrona and I hope it wasn't me doing that. I am always delighted when anyone comes to comment on my blog, and I hope you'll do so again if you find anything there interesting enough to comment on.

I will take a raincheck on Dan Schneider, as I was singularly unimpressed by his comments on Books, Inq. Illogical, irrational and unfair. I don;t think you should take his views as in any sense representative of bloggers -- certainly he is right off the scale compared with any bloggers with whom I have interacted.

All my best
Maxine.

Maxine | November 17, 2006 5:23 PM

Dan, thanks for your comment. I completely understand your point and realize that there is a difference between what someone likes and what is truly great. Objectifying greatness runs into difficulty since, as you mention, we all look at things through our own lenses of bias and taste.

Amy Tan is a great writer to me because she is like me. I can relate to what she writes because I have had many of the same experiences. When I mentioned her, I added the statement about my bias because I knew throwing her name into the mix would be controversial. I expected differences of opinion, but I don't think I "deserve ridicule."

There are ways to disagree without turning to insults. Your comment here explains your position in a reasonable manner, and I'm glad to know that you don't hold my enjoyment of Amy Tan against me even if we disagree on her merits as an author. Let's revisit this conversation in 30 years, after we know whether or not her books are still in print. ;)

marydell | November 17, 2006 6:21 PM

Hello, Maxine. Thanks for the encouragement regarding comments. Although I've been blogging since 2001, I had never been much of a commenter before recently. I don't think the recent vitriol is going to drive me off the Internet, but it has taught me to be careful when choosing my words. As for the chide on your blog, no offense was taken. My reaction was more like a comical, "Whoops! Stepped in it again."

Part of the problem, I think, with the Books, Inq., discussion was that people were answering different questions. Dan and Jessica talked about all men vs. all women, Susan brought up women regardless of nationality, and I mentioned American women regardless of era. You were the only one who tried to stick to the original question about great American women authors from the last 25 years. With everyone being so all over the place, it's no surprise the discussion turned into a rumble.

marydell | November 17, 2006 6:39 PM

I know exactly what you mean. I tried to get involved on some activist sites but I had to leave because some people decided that the best way to counter arguments was by personally attacking the individual instead of coming up with logical statements. As for the similepedia guy, he needs to look up the definition of similes in a literary dictionary.

enygma | November 18, 2006 8:26 AM

I have to say this week has certainly been an 'interesting' one. I've been blogging since 2001 (I used to handcode my stuff and upload things by FTP, how ancient that sounds now!!) and I've always tried to live by the rule of 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all', which is not to say I don't state my opinions, I just choose my words carefully and try to keep the insults in check! The vitriol experienced this week has somewhat shocked me, because I would never treat other bloggers in this way. In some respects it was a David and Goliath battle because my blog is so little (about 140 blogs link to me, according to Technorati) whereas the likes of Ed Champion (more than 400 links) and Miss Snark (more than 1,200 links!) decided to drown me out by simply shouting louder and ridiculing my opinion. That's not really playing fair.

Actually, this reminds me of a post I wrote on my general blog a few years back. I was reminiscing about what it was like to go on the Stop The War march through London on Feb 13, 2003. I got so many derogatory comments from right-wing pro-war people, not only slamming me but others who had posted comments agreeing with my opinions, that I had to turn the comment facility off. I didn't like having my blog sabotaged by immature mud-throwers because I like to think my blog is a safe, friendly haven where people (me and my commentators alike) are free to state their opinions without being abused or insulted.

Unfortunately, this meant I started to self-censor. I stopped writing political or controversial posts. I stuck to safe subjects. Eventually, I stopped writing that general blog altogether and deleted three years' worth of posts! (Although I've recently restarted it - couldn't help myself.)

Anyway, I guess what I am saying is that it's sad that we can't state our opinions without being shouted down in a torrent of abuse by people who refuse to try and see whether there's actually any merit in what we have to say.

And for the record, I appreciated you wading in on my behalf over at MetaxuCafe. I'd like to say it was fun... well, that's what I'd like to say.

kimbofo | November 18, 2006 8:45 AM

Of course you shd not take my views as representative as bloggers. I'm not one. Nor do I represent any other group- black males, lesbians, or Jews with bursitis. One of the problems with blog commenters is that they rarely read what others say. Maxine is a prime example of this.
They tote their biases around and answer with canned replies to anything that pops in their head- regardless of its relation to what another said.

Marydell, you said, 'but I don't think I "deserve ridicule."' in regards to liking Amy Tan.

Here's what I said: 'so too do statements that equate Amy Tan with being great deserve ridicule.'

Is there a difference? Yes, I said the statement deserves ridicule. I never attack ad hominem, unless, with a Susan or people like Maxine, who do so first, or willfully distort. Again, reread the two quotes, and if you're being honest, you will see that you claimed something I did not write.

Bad ideas must be attacked and destroyed. If one does not stand up to the little idiocies and evils of the qworld that explains why the Hitlers, Stalins, Capones, bin Ladens, etc. get a hold of people.

Too many people talk the talk, but few actually stand behind their words. If you Google around, you'll see I've argued with wimpy pro-abotionists, who won't even stand up to defend themselves. They are as bad as the anti-abs.

Cowardice, not incest, is the one human trait reviled in all cultures.

A mature person can distance themselves from their beliefs and opinions. I'm an agnostic, and do not go around denouncing religion. But, if asked, I will point out all its silliness. If you're a devout Jew, Catholic, etc, and get offended, that's YOUR choice. Taking offense is always a choice. It also make a great weapon to hurl against another as a 'bigot' or 'bully'. The Left Wing PC crowd does this well, as do Right Wing Christians.

If you look at th Wilson convo, you will see it devolved the moment Susan got on her high horse, and was knocked off by Jess. All blogs work this way. there are a few people in a clique who feel their word is golden. When someone newer and more informed comes along, the anointed cry foul, resort to deperate tactics, and if they get their head handed to them (if they do not 'piss away' the competition) they set out to destroy all dialectic and claim it the interloper's fault.

This is blogging 101. From a non-blogger.

Dan Schneider | November 18, 2006 9:02 AM

PS- publication does not equate quality. There is still plenty of schlock from 50+ years ago in print.

Dan Schneider | November 18, 2006 9:03 AM

Agh. No surprise that a discussion on, basically, what makes a book great would turn into a heated battle. Personally, I support your defense of the underdogs and your resistance against an elitist, invariable definition of "great." The Inquirer's definition of greatness is "a combination of beauty, relevance, a touch of the sublime, hindsight, and a matter of reputation, acclaim and critical acceptance." Who can define relevance? Is Amy Tan relevant to everyone? No, but to many readers her works might be more relevant than 99% of the canon.

Of course, one could argue that "great" works have universal relevance. Those same critics would argue against mass appeal as being a worthwhile criterion, however, even if the appeal stems from relevance. If a million people read an Amy Tan book and love it and are impacted by it, why is your defense of her so laughable?

So props to fighting the good fight. :) The blogosphere needs a good argument now and then as a break from the incessant navel-gazing.

Sara | November 18, 2006 3:20 PM

Sara: "a combination of beauty, relevance, a touch of the sublime, hindsight, and a matter of reputation, acclaim and critical acceptance."

Interesting to note how skill and craft are not in this definition. Also that the definition comes from A Lowest Common Denominator source.

Actually universality and greatness are different things. There can be great works that are universally acclaimed and others ignored.

If Whitman's Leaves Of Grass were tucked away in an attic. wd they not be 'great' simply because no one had yet published them? Of course not. One can argue about what defines greatness, and what is or is not great, but only the PC Elitists and Postmodernists defend the myth of subjectivity. And only bad artists ever seem to be parts of such noxious groups. Why?

'If a million people read an Amy Tan book and love it and are impacted by it, why is your defense of her so laughable?'

Jackie Susann, Dan Brown, Danielle Steel, Tom Clancy, Richard Bach....All have far outsold Tan. Are they even greater? Different criteria have different sources. And, would Tan be 'Amy Tan- anointed PC Elitist Asian Female voice of the culture' were she Amy Rabinowitz, Amy Schmidt, or Amy Falcone? Just as being a white male, years ago, gave you a leg up, being part of an oppressed group- physically, sexually, racially, religiously, ethnically, gives you a leg up now.

I want a bit more than a mawkish Terms of Endearment with Lo Mein when I read, don't you?

Dan Schneider | November 18, 2006 8:25 PM

Enygma, it's a shame that certain topics, i.e. those people feel passionately about, too often cause discussions to degenerate into attack fests. Emotions get the best of us, but I have to admit that such fuel makes a lot of heated arguments interesting.

After a brief e-mail exchange, Like or As conceded that my first example might not be a simile but that the second one was where I needed to do research. In the end, he said I had a chip against his site. If that were true, I wouldn't have mentioned it at all.

I hope you'll be stopping by again for the Wuthering Heights discussion!

marydell | November 19, 2006 11:17 AM

Kim, we slatterns in arms need to stick together. :) I feel that the whole fight with Ed was unfortunate considering that he did have some good points countering your argument, but what set me off was the way he presented his side. I'm probably over-sensitive to name-calling from having taught special education. Since I would never tolerate such bad behavior from students, I most certainly could not laugh off an insult from an adult, even if he was trying to be funny with an anachronistic slur.

In terms of David battling Goliath, I'd have to say that the Goliaths freaked out unnecessarily. It was interesting to see how many indignant posts popped up saying, in essence, "How dare she assume I know nothing about publicity and insinuate that my opinion can be bought?" Your post, which I saw as targeted mainly toward non-insiders, was taken personally by some Goliaths. I found this aspect of the argument especially interesting since the self-importance and unabashed hubris exhibited by many of the counterpoints was enlightening.

It's a shame that you feel the need to self-censor because it means that the squawkers have won in a way. However, the shouting down and insult hurling exposes their personal weaknesses and the flaws in their argument. They think they know everything, but I agree with Socrates: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." Ignore them and keep on fighting the good fight as Sara mentions above.

marydell | November 19, 2006 1:08 PM

Dan and Sara, I also want to respond to your comments since it is my habit to respond to every comment, but I have to run out for the rest of the afternoon. I will be back later this evening.

Dan, I have tried to authorize you to leave comments without moderation (anti-spam rather than censorship). It doesn't seem to work for you, perhaps because your computer frequently renews its IP address?

marydell | November 19, 2006 1:15 PM

Gee, thanks for this comment, Dan:

"Maxine is a prime example of this.
They tote their biases around and answer with canned replies to anything that pops in their head- regardless of its relation to what another said."

And also for this one: "people like Maxine, who do so first, or willfully distort."

As I mentioned, I have luckily encountered very few bloggers like Dan. From what I have seen of his comments on Books, Inq. and here, I remain unimpressed. I guess I will just have to accept that he's going to call me rude things as a result. Too bad.

Incidentally, on the Kimbofo debate, I like Kim's blog a lot and am a regular there. I don't happen to agree with her views on this occasion and have written so (I hope, in restrained tones as it isn't something I have "emotions" about, just an opinion.) Even so, if Ed Champion and Miss Snark (both of whose blogs I follow) have been insulting to Kim, boo to them too. What is it with people that feel the need to be so darn rude and personal, like this Dan guy?
(That is a rhetorical question.)

Maxine | November 19, 2006 5:22 PM

Maxine,

How you can call the two quotes you quote rude says far more of your insecurities and desire to distort, than my pointing them out says of any claimed rudeness.
Note, despite my website not having blogging software, and my never having had a blog, you still bizarrely call me a blogger- which is a 'canned reply', as I stated, and not one that deals with the facts. My wife blogs, not me. At least my claims of your bias and distortion are in cyber black and white. Yours are merely in your cranium.
Wanna two step back over to Frank's?

Marydell,

If my computer is up to antics it is of its own volition, not mine.

Dan Schneider | November 19, 2006 9:32 PM