Charlie Brooker on Literature: "Apparently 65% of us have lied about reading the great works of literature. We needn't have bothered"

"The other irony is that while people lie about having read highbrow novels in order to impress each other, a massive percentage of highbrow novels aren't worth reading anyway because the authors are too busy trying to impress the reader (who, we now know, probably hasn't bothered turning up). That's why so many contemporary novels seem to largely consist of a thinly veiled version of the author discussing politics and art and quantum theory over a carefully selected bottle of wine with the devastatingly beautiful mixed-race wife of an impotent international statesman and/or gangster (delete where applicable) before whisking her off to a swish hotel room to have expert animal sex with her all weekend until a pigeon symbolising the unions or something crashes into the window and blah blah blah blah BLAH. I mean, really, who cares? Mr Tickle had 20 times the raw entertainment value - and it came with pictures - so if you can't beat that, don't bother."

Full article here.

LOL.

Cue dullards calling him 'anti-intellectual'. There's nothing particularly 'intellectual' or worthy about stuck-up, elitist bullshit. I think Brooker's seen through the Emperor's New Clothes..

Canon? Balls.

I've an abiding hatred of being told what to like, what is supposed to have worth and what is not. The prescription of canon, of taste, of such a nebulous thing as quality - it has always struck me as parochial at best and elitist and fascistic at worst. We're all guilty of making value judgments, but those that have the weight of an establishment behind them seem to me the worst by far - they have the most influence and can do the most damage.

As a student of English Literature I've had to keep my natural instict to rail against the supposedly high-minded and gentil tyranny of the literary establishment at bay. It's meant that I've broadened my horizons somewhat: instead of remaining predisposed against certain writers and movements (e.g. the Modernists) simply because they are so critically acclaimed amongst the makers of canons, these sneering self-styled arbiters of worth and genre (or "chutney and jam" as Graham Joyce so aptly puts it in his editorial piece in 'Postscripts 13') I've decided to dismiss both this reaction against and also any pushes in their favour and merely judge them on their merits according to my own reading. I enjoyed and learned from these works not because they belonged to some bullshit 'official reading list' of high literature but according to my own judgment. I really do find the glorified herd mentality quite sickening: I thought that was something you only got in low culture, eh chaps?

I suppose in this post I'm announcing my own hostile intent toward canons. Add another 'n' and you get what I realise is a truly bad pun, but hear me out: canons are created to defend/maintain the status quo. Canons are destructive - but they create walls and barriers rather than breaking them. Canons are used by those within against those outside.

The only canons I believe in are the ones we create for ourselves and are only relevant to ourselves. Don't tell me what's "of high value" or "important": tell me what you like. Don't preach, recommend. I'll make up my own mind.