@font-face { font-family: "?? ??"; }@font-face { font-family: "?? ??"; }@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; }.MsoChpDefault { font-family: Cambria; }div.WordSection1 { page: WordSection1; }
I just had tea with someone who reminded me of my reason for doing what I do. He is a lover of books to his very core and in the course of that conversation I was pleased to learn that there are still some people in this world who have an admiration for the art of literary print. An artform that I have been told was antiquated and dying in this digital age. An artform that I have admired but I don't believe I have truly experienced, having come from a generation of technology going on hyper speed.
A book is a book, that is what he said. An apt summary of the topic of our discussion, which is the great divide. A divide almost as epic as its name, I refer to the invisible boundaries that have been drawn from one type of literature to another. A fact that even those who don’t enjoy going to bookstores can easily see. There seems to be this stigma attached towards certain genres that can be felt beyond the words of even the most verbose literary critics.
If I don’t seem to be making sense then let me ask you this.If you see two people in a coffee shop, both dressed alike and concentrating on their respective books. One is reading Shakespeare’s Othello and the other is reading a comic book. Would you say that they are exactly alike? Would you say one was better? If so, which one and why?
What makes one opinion better than the other? Does it take a doctorate? Is there perhaps a quota of the amount of books that one has read to be able to have the privilege to be considered an expert?
Who determines popularity and even more importantly who even determines the quality? Is it the people? Because if that is so then how come I found out that Raymond Chandler's contributions to literature has only really been accepted a few months ago? How come Stephen king is highly criticized, or Tolkein not regarded as highly in his own country as he is in others?
It's all quite confusing for me. As a young reader, for some reason I was drawn to classics. It was strange to see a thirteen year old reading over and over again a worn out copy of Pride and Prejudice. As years passed, I welcomed other genres in my bookshelf. At the time, I didn't know there was such a difference as " high lit", " Chick lit', and whatever other classifications there are. In college, I began to see the difference more, and maybe most people would blame my lack of knowledge regarding the differences to my youth. I do admit that I still have much to learn. However, of the many things regarding art and literature that I hope to learn in my future years, learning to judge one type of literature as better than the other, isn't one them. To see their differences, to see their strengths and appreciate their innate beauty even if it's something that don't suit my own tastes. Those are what I hope to gain, and in learning I hope my mind is broadened and not narrowed. A book is a book indeed.






