But Twilight–ugh. I’m with Jake: “Twilight isn’t bad because it’s popular; it’s bad because it’s bad.”

And to cite the ever-delightful Paul Constant again, even teenagers admit that wizards beat vampires: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/constant-reader/Content?oid=1192339

Twilight is brain candy. Not literature. Easier to digest and less nutritious than the paper it is printed on.

Perhaps time will reveal its quality – will Twilight be on bookshelves next to Marquez in 100 years (assuming there are bookshelves)?

That having been said, I don’t particularly care for Jane Austen. I can’t seem to get through all the girly giggling and love at first sight. I’d rather read about a Lyra, a Hermione, or a Sarene over a Bella (or any of the equally flat and forgettable Austen characters).

To be sure, there is an element of opinion in virtually any form of art and criticism, and just as there is in some fields more scientific: in economics, should we value making the resource pie larger through public policy like lower tax rates and flatter tax rates, or should we try and distribute what we have more evenly? Nonetheless, some people simply know much more about the trade-offs involved, and by the same token, some know far more about books and literature than others. The closer you get to hard sciences that are describing rather than interpreting the world—math, physics, chemistry, and the like—the farther you get from pure opinion, but as soon as you reach the application phase, judgment calls arise again: what would be more useful to sell—product derived from X or from Y? What would be a more useful use of physicists during World War II: having them build mechanical calculators and the like, or having them work on the atomic bomb? Someone had to make those decisions, and they’re closer in some respects to artistic choices than to ones regarding proof and experimentation.

In art and literature, there aren’t experiments, but taste exists. Not everyone’s is the same but not everyone’s is equal, either. Mine is well-developed enough to have some opinions of at least some validity, I hope, and I’m looking for others who can say the same, and who know something of science fiction—hence my appreciation of those who pointed out the Clarke Awards and made other suggestions. If I read through the Clarke books and decide I’m wrong, you’ll probably hear about it in a year or two. Although I’m not a scientist, I do have interest in all intellectually honest fields and all intellectually honest practitioners in those fields, and so I turn again to Feynman, who described what he wants to instill in Caltech grads and what they should inculcate in themselves: “It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards.” Literary critics should hold themselves to the same standards, and I strive to. How well I succeed I will leave to others to argue.

Being a critic is about learning to to develop that taste, which can never be fully formed, but, rather, is always in a Hegelian process of “becoming” if the critic is to be any good. As for Twilight itself, a book and a half convinced me that the writing is crap. Paul Constant lays out some reasons why in The Stranger at more length than I care to. For, Twiglight isn’t bad because it’s popular; it’s bad because it’s bad. Very good (and popular) writers like Tolkien or Elmore Leonard aren’t affected by their popularity either. That to me is the major question and always has to be.

A book doesn’t have to be an everlasting piece of literature to be worth reading. And sometimes Garcia Marquez makes me want to tear my hair out. There, I said it. Sometimes great literature can be boring. I was a book snob until I fell in love with Harry Potter, and then I realized that there are plenty of books out there that are wonderful in ways that my high school lit teacher and college professors could never understand.

I used to be a book/literary snob myself. Now I appreciate that the joy that great writing provides is only one of the many joys that books can provide. Genre fiction – be it scifi, mystery thrillers, or tales about wizards (;); I must be one of the few in this world who has neither seen a single Potter movie nor read any of the books) – has its place. I have come to appreciate that any book that succeeds in making the reader keep turning the pages is a good one. After all getting readers to reader – isn’t that the first mandate of success for a writer?