• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Am I a snob?

I'm not an expert by any means, but part of the discrepancy between Western and Eastern audiences, is probably because the West is a low context culture and the East is a high context culture. In the East the context of a situation carries a significant amount of unsaid cultural baggage/expectations with it. The West carries little to/none of such baggage/expectations.

Are we talking east and west as it pertains to contemporary art and culture, or throughout history?
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
Are we talking east and west as it pertains to contemporary art and culture, or throughout history?

I'm talking generally about culture, as in the West is a low context culture vs. the East as a high context one. Though, I must admit that the lines I'm drawing are very broad ones. High and low context cultures aren't as simple as East and West, but for this discussion I think they will do.
 
I'm talking generally about culture, as in the West is a low context culture vs. the East as a high context one. Though, I must admit that the lines I'm drawing are very broad ones. High and low context cultures aren't as simple as East and West, but for this discussion I think they will do.

If I understand your meaning correctly, it certainly is applicable to comedy for instance.
 

Guy

Inkling
Schools of thought come to be because they create a system or at least some basic guidelines that describe how they are approaching the subject.

You have to come up with some "rules" (for lack of a better term) by which you are judging the material (doesn't mean it's a moral judgement) in order to discuss it. Otherwise there's no point. If we just say "well everything is subjective" and "nothing is better than anything else" then there's no point in even discussing the subject.

If someone wants to argue that Winnie the Pooh is on par with The Great Gatsby or 1984, so be it. I won't take what they say seriously as I believe there are varying levels of artistic genius and quality of work. Dilbert isn't in the same league as Botticelli's "Birth of Venus". You can argue that it is but I'm going to assume you are a moron.

If that makes me a snob or an elitist then that is fine by me.

I believe people are drawn to certain standards when it comes to beauty (and I don't mean physical beauty, though some argue that certain face shapes are more attractive to more people). The golden mean is a perfect example. You can find it everywhere, even in nature. I don't think it's mere coincidence that this ratio is appealing to a lot of people in it's various forms, whether its paintings or architecture.
This.

I freely admit I look down my nose at certain things, that I think some things are better than others. I look down on the erotica genre, but there are plenty of others who look down their noses at my genre. I consider this normal human behavior. They have their standards and I have mine. Like you, I feel like I'm in a wasteland. Mind you, it's not as though I spend my free time listening to Mozart and watching Masterpiece Theater, but I like stories that make you think, that celebrate the higher aspects of the human experience, and that feature characters you care about and seem so real they're like old friends. I am constantly amazed how I can have hundreds of channels and yet there's nothing on T.V. I can browse a book store for hours and maybe - maybe - find two or three books I'd like to read. Don't even get me started on music or movies. If that makes me a snob, oh well.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
I have a bachelor's in humanities (worthless degree for the real world) and my experience at university had one common theme, the works of the past are just historical footnotes and very little time needs to be spent on them. Most classes spent the first week flipping through a couple hundred years of literary works, just so the instructor could get to what had been produced in the past few decades.

You took the wrong classes, Miskatonic. You ought to have taken ancient and medieval history. We regularly mock modern sensibilities there. :)
 

Incanus

Auror
Thanks for all the great thoughts on this, everyone.

Apologies for posting this in the wrong section--it was a thoughtless mistake, but an honest one. The post was intended for the Good Writing thread, but at the last minute I realized it was probably its own topic and created a thread where I was without thinking. I brought it to the attention of a moderator--so it may get moved.

Any snob worth his or her weight would never have made such an error--
 

Gryphos

Auror
I freely admit I look down my nose at certain things, that I think some things are better than others. I look down on the erotica genre, but there are plenty of others who look down their noses at my genre. I consider this normal human behavior. They have their standards and I have mine. Like you, I feel like I'm in a wasteland. Mind you, it's not as though I spend my free time listening to Mozart and watching Masterpiece Theater, but I like stories that make you think, that celebrate the higher aspects of the human experience, and that feature characters you care about and seem so real they're like old friends. I am constantly amazed how I can have hundreds of channels and yet there's nothing on T.V. I can browse a book store for hours and maybe - maybe - find two or three books I'd like to read. Don't even get me started on music or movies. If that makes me a snob, oh well.

Knowing what you like doesn't make you a snob. I know what I like. Personally, I can't stand 'The Great Gatsby', and when I plug in some tunes I never find myself searching for the Mozart (I don't even have any Mozart – I don't give a shit about Mozart). I think it's pointless to try to define some objective measure of what's good art, because art by definition is subjective in that it affects people differently. As I said, I hate The Great Gatsby, but I would never in a million years say it's objectively bad.

Now,don't get me wrong, if person comes up to me saying how they think The Great Gatsby is amazing, I'm gonna debate that with them. Accepting that artistic value is subjective doesn't mean you can't debate what's good or not. Just like saying 'it's my opinion' is not a shield against criticism.
 

Giya Kusezu

Dreamer
Good thread! I find myself relating to a lot of the responses here.

To me, a snob is someone who feels that their education, experience, or viewpoint is superior to someone else, and they then try to put down the other person or their tastes because they believe them to be inferior. Depending on the, ahem, strength of a snob's conviction, I think this can sometimes verge on "snot" status.

I'm definitely guilty of being an English snob, in the sense of grammar, punctuation, etc. I make an effort not to be snotty, though, because I understand that everyone is at a different level of learning and that just because I may know more about something, does not make me better than the next guy.

(Edited for typos)
 
Last edited:

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
If I understand your meaning correctly, it certainly is applicable to comedy for instance.

I think comedy is related. And it's obvious that some types of humor go off better in different cultures.

But this extends to all aspects of life. Again, not an expert, but for example, two people going into a business meeting to hammer out a deal. For the sake of clarity, let's say one is Japanese and the other American. The Japanese person goes in with the unspoken cultural expectation that this is to establish a long term working relationship. The American has no such expectation. This meeting is for this one deal. End of story.

During the course of negotiation, they come to a deadlock. In order to break the deadlock the Japanese person relents and gives the American the better end of the deal, with the expectation that this will be a long term working relationship. With this expectation comes the unspoken understanding that the Japanese person gave the American the better end this time, but it is expected that next time the American will give the Japanese person the better end next time. Give and take, and over the long haul, things will be good for both of them.

But the American doesn't understand this. They only understand the singular deal and what is explicitly stated, so when they meet again for the next deal and doesn't give in, it's a ripe situation for misunderstanding and perceived breech of etiquette.

The example is probably out of date, because I think there's better understanding now. Especially as the world gets smaller and cultures mix and become more exposed to one anther.
 

Caged Maiden

Staff
Article Team
yes.


HA! I'm kidding!!! Jeez, lighten up. Snobby people don't consider whether they're snobby. They have a sense of entitlement that supersedes anyone else's feelings or needs, and that certainly isn't you. Rest assured, you, sir, are no snob. You're a person who has pride in what he does and expects a certain level of competent execution from yourself (and maybe others), and that's very different from thinking your shit don't stink. :poop: :eek2:
 
I think comedy is related. And it's obvious that some types of humor go off better in different cultures.

But this extends to all aspects of life. Again, not an expert, but for example, two people going into a business meeting to hammer out a deal. For the sake of clarity, let's say one is Japanese and the other American. The Japanese person goes in with the unspoken cultural expectation that this is to establish a long term working relationship. The American has no such expectation. This meeting is for this one deal. End of story.

During the course of negotiation, they come to a deadlock. In order to break the deadlock the Japanese person relents and gives the American the better end of the deal, with the expectation that this will be a long term working relationship. With this expectation comes the unspoken understanding that the Japanese person gave the American the better end this time, but it is expected that next time the American will give the Japanese person the better end next time. Give and take, and over the long haul, things will be good for both of them.

But the American doesn't understand this. They only understand the singular deal and what is explicitly stated, so when they meet again for the next deal and doesn't give in, it's a ripe situation for misunderstanding and perceived breech of etiquette.

The example is probably out of date, because I think there's better understanding now. Especially as the world gets smaller and cultures mix and become more exposed to one anther.

My dad worked for a company that is in the nuclear power development area, among other things, and when countries like, Germany, France and Japan were still fledgling nuclear power users, he and representatives form his company went to these sites to inspect and work with these companies to make sure they were up to speed.

He said being in meetings with the executives and their yes men (for lack of a better term) was really strange. It was almost like the Japanese were gathering intelligence while on the same time trying to give out as little information as was necessary. One guys was basically the leader and everyone else was differing to his opinion with no exceptions.

But then they go out on the town and those guys drink like fish and know how to have a good time. An interesting culture to say the least.
 
Knowing what you like doesn't make you a snob. I know what I like. Personally, I can't stand 'The Great Gatsby', and when I plug in some tunes I never find myself searching for the Mozart (I don't even have any Mozart — I don't give a shit about Mozart). I think it's pointless to try to define some objective measure of what's good art, because art by definition is subjective in that it affects people differently. As I said, I hate The Great Gatsby, but I would never in a million years say it's objectively bad.

Now,don't get me wrong, if person comes up to me saying how they think The Great Gatsby is amazing, I'm gonna debate that with them. Accepting that artistic value is subjective doesn't mean you can't debate what's good or not. Just like saying 'it's my opinion' is not a shield against criticism.

I just threw out The Great Gatsby on a whim, lol. I'm more of a fan of Chopin and Vivaldi.

When it comes to my opinions on art it's more focused on the technical, craftsman aspect of it and not necessarily the subject matter. I am not religious by any means but I can certainly appreciate the art of the Renaissance period for example. My appreciation is increased that much more knowing they did everything with a technology that was nowhere near as convenient as it is now. You see only a handful of people on the planet that can chisel a full human body out of marble with classic proportions that make the sculpture look almost lifelike.

When I read I can usually pick up on the ability of the author to use the language with extreme effectiveness rather quickly. Everything flows well, the word choice is perfect and adds to the whole. Some authors are just so talented that they are able to invoke such inspiration that it transcends culture and time.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I just threw out The Great Gatsby on a whim, lol.

Not commenting on Gatsby, but this makes me think about classics of literature and broad reading habits in general, which I think are good for writers. I've known a number of writers who have very narrow reading habits. That's foreign to me. I like to write because I love literature of all kinds, and I think there is plenty of interesting work out there across time and the confines of genre. It's incredible, really, the body of work that is out there for a reader. I think reading the greats, and reading across a wide range of genres - reading anything and everything, really, so long as it is done well - opens up a lot of possibility to a writer whose idea of what can be done is too limited. I think lack of proper background in reading leads to a lot of "Can I do X" questions on writing forums.

A writer who isn't familiar with a large part of the corpus of literature is, to me, like an architect who doesn't know anything about the great structures of the field, or even the various components of them. Instead, he only knows how to draft plans for tract housing. And that's fine, if you're only going to draft tract housing you can do that perfectly well and make a living in the process, but to my mind it's an alien approach to why you're doing it.

Almost anything you can think of is likely to make you more money than writing, and faster. Because of that, I always assumed everyone got into writing because of how they felt about literature generally. Turns out, that's not the case (and there are even a few in it to try to make quick money, which seems foolish to me but lightning strikes for some).
 

Heliotrope

Staff
Article Team
To be brutally honest, when you read the literature from the early 20th century on back you are pretty much given a standard of quality that is hard to find an equivalent to these days. The same goes for painting, sculpture, etc.

Art took a bizarre twist during the latter half of the 20th century. It became less about working hard to become skilled at your craft, having at least some modicum of respect for what came before you and taking pride in using art to celebrate the beauty and complexity of culture and life in general. Now it's almost like an anti-art mentality where talent and hard work is laughed at and anybody can slap together some amateurish mess and be celebrated as a genius."

This! Oh so much this! I studied literature in university and we focussed mostly on the greats of the past, when art really truly mattered, and writing was practiced and practiced and studied and drafted and re drafted over and over again. Back when Lit really truly meant something, was a voice about the world and all the problems in it… just like… well… art.

Writing used to be a craft. It took writers ages to get it right. Yes, Hemmingway wrote a lot of books in his lifetime, a few of them only took him a year or two to write, but many of them took ten years or longer! In the fantasy realm, it took JRR Tolkien ten years to write The Lord of the Rings. Today it seems like the scope of writing has changed. People are more interesting in pushing out as much material as possible to make as much money as possible and the quality has changed dramatically. People try to blame the reader "the reader is too busy to read real lit anymore' 'the reader is too dumb and just want action'.. but I don't believe it. I believe the market is driving what the reader is reading. The books are chosen for us by the publishers, so we read what we are given, which seems to be lower quality mass appeal stuff…. I totally get this. I get why this is the case.

For myself, as a writer, born and raised and fed on old fashioned Lit (as a child Wuthering Heights was my favourite book…) I just can't let myself write like that, and I still yearn for the true artistic lit of the olden days.

So I guess I'm a snob too :(

I am also trying to write a smart fantasy, maybe we should chat about the challenges of doing that it a mass market world ;)
 
Unfortunately it all goes back to business and profit. A publisher can either publish a formulaic book, pretty much bank on selling enough copies to turn a decent profit, or take a risk on something that may not have as much mass appeal and may or may not make a profit.

It's easier for a publisher to put out a new Clive Cussler novel than it is to give something a little more high brow an opportunity to find a fanbase.
 

Heliotrope

Staff
Article Team
Exactly. Too bad though. There are a lot of decent literary frictions coming out recently though, which is nice to see. It would just be nice to marry lit fiction with genre fiction. I have a book called writing 21st fiction by Donald Maas where he basically begs the author to do just that. Genre bending he calls it.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Exactly. Too bad though. There are a lot of decent literary frictions coming out recently though, which is nice to see. It would just be nice to marry lit fiction with genre fiction. I have a book called writing 21st fiction by Donald Maas where he basically begs the author to do just that. Genre bending he calls it.

There are authors who do this. Going back a ways, I'd argue Peake and Delaney. Shirley Jackson too. Gene Wolfe. More current examples would include Caitlin R. Kiernan, Mark Danielewski. Umberto Eco may crossover at times. Glen Duncan qualifies, in my view.
 

Russ

Istar
Writing used to be a craft. It took writers ages to get it right. Yes, Hemmingway wrote a lot of books in his lifetime, a few of them only took him a year or two to write, but many of them took ten years or longer! In the fantasy realm, it took JRR Tolkien ten years to write The Lord of the Rings. Today it seems like the scope of writing has changed. People are more interesting in pushing out as much material as possible to make as much money as possible and the quality has changed dramatically. People try to blame the reader "the reader is too busy to read real lit anymore' 'the reader is too dumb and just want action'.. but I don't believe it. I believe the market is driving what the reader is reading. The books are chosen for us by the publishers, so we read what we are given, which seems to be lower quality mass appeal stuff…. I totally get this. I get why this is the case.

For myself, as a writer, born and raised and fed on old fashioned Lit (as a child Wuthering Heights was my favourite book…) I just can't let myself write like that, and I still yearn for the true artistic lit of the olden days.

While I think we probably have some very similar tastes in writing, I think these kind of "golden age" comments lack a little bit of perspective.

I am pretty sure that if you went into a bookstore when Tolkien or Hemmingway were writing, the vast majority of the books, serials, etc on sale were forumalic or completely forgettable crap, turned out by some not very talented and dedicated writers. But we just don't talk about or study those writers anymore because they were not significant. There has always been a low end mass market for writing that allows for assembly line type work to make some money.

I am also pretty sure there were lots of crappy playwrights in Shakespeare's day who we don't talk about and most of Mozart's peers are long forgotten and not talked about.

Same thing with writing today, 50 or 100 years from now most of the published works will be long forgotten and only the important or significant works will be discussed.

I too am trying to write an epic fantasy work that carries deeper and more important messages about things I see in the human condition. I think it is just as easy to write that now as 70 years ago. Selling...we will see :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While I think we probably have some very similar tastes in writing, I think these kind of "golden age" comments lack a little bit of perspective.

I am pretty sure that if you went into a bookstore when Tolkien or Hemmingway were writing, the vast majority of the books, serials, etc on sale were forumalic or completely forgettable crap, turned out by some not very talented and dedicated writers. But we just don't talk about or study those writers anymore because they were not significant. There has always been a low end mass market for writing that allows for assembly line type work to make some money.

I am also pretty sure there were lots of crappy playwrights in Shakespeare's day who we don't talk about and most of Mozart's peers are long forgotten and not talked about.

Same thing with writing today, 50 or 100 years from now most of the published works will be long forgotten and only the important or significant works will be discussed.

I too am trying to write an epic fantasy work that carries deeper and more important messages about things I see in the human condition. I think it is just as easy to write that now as 70 years ago. Selling...we will see :)

Certainly as easy to write, and I hope appreciated even more so. :)
 
Top