But here's the real rub- Let's start comparing stuff like A Different World or Living Single or In Living Color to Seinfeld or Friends or Monty Python. What's "Great" in that case is much more defined by our cultural upbringing and what we're familiar with (on average).I would start by saying you're making an apples and oranges comparison. You're comparing a written, scripted situational comedy show vs. a semi-reality personality show with comedic elements. Seinfeld has a plot structure, this really doesn't. They have completely different target audiences and serve completely different purposes in providing entertainment. It's a bit like comparing a 3 minute rock song to a 90 minute mass. Both music, but distinctly different audiences and goals. Wouldn't the more appropriate comparison be more something like MTV's Cribs or like, a comedic version of The Real World or something like that? Not to mention, people seem to be using this one program as a stand-in for all Korean TV. Survivor is a wildly possible show, as was The Apprentice. Same with American Idol. I mean, one might question why Western audiences derive pleasure from watching a host berate someone to the point of tears, humiliating them in front of an entire country. OR one could say that's not necessarily a representative example and that sort of show has a target audience that is looking for that sort of thing.What I'd do is look at other shows of that type and see how well it did compared to them. I'd try and follow the Roger Ebert style of criticism which is "Did it meet the audience's expectations?" Yes there is some consideration for the absolute, but that is when it starts to veer into "Why doesn't this exist to make me happy?" and you have to be careful. A good evaluation of content should be able to consider the target audience and what they are seeking.I mean, you haven't even listed any evaluative criteria.
I'd say historical influence and their popularity amongst the people of the period would be a good place to start. That's not a commentary on whether such work was "good", only that it was significant and influential and widely consumed
Do you think it'd be a good idea for people to study 50 shades of Grey and the Davinci Code on future Eng lit courses, for example?
just so i'm getting this right... you're saying 50 shades of grey will become a future literary classic that will be studied in future lit university courses?
Ever hear of Nabokov?
Not sure I get your point here. Lolita was about sexual perversion and was considered a classic novel, so 50 shades of Grey should be too? is this really your argument? Even by your standards that's pretty nonsensical. At The Eng Lit faculty meeting 'Is Moby Dick on the syllabus this year?' Yes of course, it's a classic.'How about 'Jaws', that's another book about someone chasing a big sea animalGood point, stick it on the list.
Not sure I get your point here. Lolita was about sexual perversion and was considered a classic novel, so 50 shades of Grey should be too? is this really your argument?
It wasn't considered a classic at the time. It was considered obscene. It's classified as a work of erotic literature. Sure it deals with social taboos, but then so does 50 Shades. Who knows what time will do? I doubt when Lolita was first published, people expected it to be in English Lit classes. Now it is. And I'm sure we've all read some "classics" in school that we thought were crap and poorly written. History is not under our control or our standards. Works that would have never even been considered even 20 years ago are now being added in the name of diversity. Who knows what forces and trends will have materialized 50 years after 50 Shades?Again, we have the recurring trend that so many on this site seem to fall into- Just because YOU don't find it interesting or significant or great, doesn't mean it isn't. I mean, I heard excerpts read on the radio and thought "Yawn". But I also recognize that just because I don't find it significant, doesn't mean that it isn't significant. Ever notice how the people who deem stuff "great" or "deep" or "higher art" invariably put what they are into in the list?
It wasn't considered a classic at the time. It was considered obscene.
As an English major with a specialization in literature, I can't help but hop in on this one. I can only speak for universities in the US, but most schools also have special topics courses for literature. That is where you would find people analyzing and discussing books like 50 Shades. I took a special topic course on American haunted house literature and a friend of mine took a class that was only James Bond novels. In the same semester I've had a class where we read The Odyssey and then my very next class we were reading Ender's Game. That's the beauty of the literature department, anything can be pondered and written about. I was lucky enough to have professors that didn't really care or push onto us the argument of "Literature" vs "literature", it's what you can pull from the works that matter rather than how it ranks in prestige. I did however have a prof that called Pride, Prejudice and Zombies "sacrilege".
I understand (to an extent) the value of reading canonical works alongside contemporary popular work and applying particular lenses to both. And while we can call on the intentional fallacy here, for a layperson's purposes, Lolita and Fifty Shades are written to very different standards and intended for very different effects. Where I take issue is with the suggestion that Lolita is intended or ever effective as an "erotic" work in anything like the same way Fifty Shades attempts to be erotic, and is marketed and read for that purpose.
Oh I agree. I don't think they'd be studied together, they don't really belong in the same category. I'm just pointing out that even something traditionally considered lowbrow (like 50 Shades) has a place in academia.