Taste, Bias, and Loving Problematic Books
Letters of Opiniongenre critique / Reader Habits13 Comments
dog with bad taste in mouth – english bulldog making funny expression
Longtime readers of this blog are aware that I am a huge sports fan and specifically a fan of the Green Bay Packers. For those unfamiliar, the Packers are a football team located in Green Bay, Wisconsin. It is one of the most storied franchises of the National Football League. The trophy awarded to the champion each season is actually named after one of the early coaches of the Packers—Vince Lombardi.
This year, during Thanksgiving, Green Bay will honor one of its most famous players. Brett Favre was the starting quarterback for the team for an astonishing fifteen years (1992 – 2007).
I didn’t grow up watching Favre play. Instead during my formative years Green Bay was mired in mediocrity. From 1970 through 1980, the team struggled mightily and lost more games than they won. Favre lifted us out of that and for years, we gloried in his abilities to bring home win after win, culminating in a Super Bowl victory in 1997.
In reading this, you may wonder where the problematic aspect of my fandom lies.
Favre’s career is not without controversy. There’s the sack Michael Strahan performed to set the all time sack record. Many accused Favre of falling down to give his buddy the record.
In March of 2008, Favre announced that he would retire. That summer he decided he would come back but Green Bay didn’t want him. They had already turned their attention to Aaron Rodgers (currently the number one quarterback in the entire league). There was a lot of animosity that developed between Green Bay, Favre, and the fans. Favre took himself to play for the Jets and then spent two years playing for Green Bay’s arch rivals, the Minnesota Vikings.
His final retirement was ignominiously brought about by a dick pic. (He officially retired because of a concussion). Yes, my beloved Favre was caught texting pictures of his penis to a Jets employee and leaving her inappropriate voice messages. Favre is married, of course, to a gorgeous woman named Deanna (I reviewed her memoir here!). It was just the awful cherry on a tainted cake.
Yet when I remember Favre, I think of the joyous way he played the game. How he loved his teammates, played multiple practical jokes, and exhibited unmatched toughness. His streak of 297 games started may never be reached again.
I block out all those unsavory things – throwing the sack, cheating on his wife (repeatedly and possibly even while she was recovering from cancer), sexually harassing an employee of his team, throwing the Green Bay team in tumult when he decided to un-retire, repeatedly.
I forget those things because of all the wonderful memories I have tied up in a Favre win and how much true joy I received watching him play. Fandom is blind and often filled with hypocrisy. If Favre wasn’t my guy, I’d probably despise him. I certainly can’t stand any number of players around the league who have won more, haven’t cheated on their wives, or play the game better (there’s no one who plays the game better, actually, so just ignore that last item).
In much the same way, I approach books. I recommended a rather coarsely written contemporary romance and one of my friends wrote to me astonished I liked it. Not only was she questioning my taste, but she couldn’t understand why I liked Book A when I didn’t like Book B which was so much better written.
It’s hard to explain and while I tried, pointing to specific examples, my friend’s reading of the text was miles apart from mine.
Articulating exactly why you love a book, despite it’s multitude of problems whether it is poor editing, thin plotting, weak characters, is often more difficult than herding cats. It all comes down to taste.
Robin wrote a piece several years ago on how there is a baseline of acceptable competency for books. (And some might argue that even now that baseline is being rubbed away by the lack of serious editing given to many popular books). Beyond that all grading is the result of differences in taste.
What some see as entertaining, others see as filth. What some see as boring, others see as true character development.
And because we all want to be arbiters of good taste, we often frame our recommendations in a way to reduce the value of the criticism.
- If you don’t like this book, you’re a pearl clutcher.
- If this book doesn’t appeal to you, you have a closed mind.
- If the blurb makes you roll your eyes, you don’t have a sense of humor.
In other words, in before the h8rs. We diminish the critiquer by qualifying disagreement as a character flaw when, in reality, it’s all a matter of taste. Good taste, if you agree with me; bad taste if you do not.
Yet taste is completely arbitrary and built upon our reading biases. We all have them and often our biases are impossible to pinpoint unless we make a concerted effort to study them.
Having biases doesn’t make you a less discerning reader or a more discerning reader. It merely makes you a reader with a certain worldview influenced by your constantly changing environment.
Because of the uniqueness of each individual, their approach to a book will also be different. And it might be different for each book read. Thus, Book A featuring a mafia hero doing bad things might be enjoyed verus Book B featuring a mafia hero doing bad things which the reader might have detested. Long ramblings works by Author A work but long rambling works by Author B.
To the outsider (anyone outside of your own head), the seemingly incomprehensible enjoyment you get from Book A versus Book B is a headscratching puzzle. To you it makes perfect sense.
It’s also why some negative traits of a book can be overlooked by one reader but not by another.
In my twenties I read an article about the chemistry of falling in love. The article theorized that who we end up “loving” is based on components of our formative years. Were you saved by a firefighter? You might grow up seeking out a rescuer. Did you and your pipe smoking grandfather have a special relationship that generated dozens of good feelings and memories? You may end up marrying a pipe smoker. And so on and so forth. Have a type? It’s based on your environment and the way you were nurtured (or not).
Similarly, a reader’s response to problematic books is much the same. But it might not play out the same way. During a time of tumult, a reader might seek out safe, secure, reads with schmoopy endings. During a time of relative personal harmony, she might choose to read more turbulent books.
The point is that we all overlook elements in some books that we might not overlook in others. Maybe it’s because the prose appeals or maybe it’s got that particular hurt / comfort trope you adore or maybe it’s just so fun and ridiculous you don’t care that nothing makes sense.
Taste and bias are arbitrary elements. There’s no explaining them. They are so wrapped up in who we are, how we are made, that exploration of those elements would be like peeling a never ending onion.
Some books are going to be like Favre for me—filled with wonderful feelings that overshadow all the very bad that might exist in the text. And others will be like, well, Brady who despite all his outward perfectness inspires nothing but rage and distaste for me.
That’s taste and bias for you!
Thank you for this thoughtful reflection. I’ve noticed the same thing when I found myself at odds with others about many books. I think there’s another parameter in the mix worth noting, and that’s related to the dimension of time: where a reader is in her relationship with the genre.
I can mark my love of romance novels to a pretty specific point in my life—just a few years ago in my case. I was so infatuated that my tolerance was higher for aspects that I eventually came to find tiresome. Early on the thrills came more easily, the tropes were all fresher, the delight in successful resolutions more intense. Inevitably, as I flung myself into reading every recommended book, my tastes refined. I grew less patient with insta-love and deus ex machina resolutions, and editing oversights. And I think that’s pretty much to be expected.
I still adore my “first loves” from when my romance reading began, still pine for the next installments in series by favorite authors, still crave the discovery of new voices as they emerge. But I am aware that my tastes are evolving. Something I might have loved in early days may very well fall flat for me now. So it’s not just what a particular book has to offer, it’s also where I happen to encounter it along my journey.
In the spirit of good editing, please add “am” to your first sentence (“…I huge sports fan…”).
I enjoyed your article. I have never concerned myself much with disagreements about books- as you say “taste and bias are arbitrary elements”. However, I still shake my head in amazement at the harsh discussions and name calling that accompany books such as The Book That Shall Not Be Named (FOG). Wow- that was quite the eye opener for me!
I’m from Wisconsin and am therefore a huge Packers fan as well. Favre’s “will he/won’t he retire” antics broke my heart and left a bad taste in my mouth so I decided my loyalties remained with the team instead of one player (it helps that Rodgers proved that GB made the right decision in moving on from Favre). It wasn’t until this year that I’ve found my bitterness towards him fading and am willing to look upon him again as one of the best players in football instead of a spoiled child. I’ll still never forgive him for playing for the Vikings though.
Writing is medium of communication. Communication requires two or more people. A reader can bring as much to a story as a writer does. I’m constantly amazed at how readers interpret my stories.
That’s why, IMHO, there’s no such thing as a poorly written bestseller. The book might be grammatically incorrect and break the rules of proper English. But it clearly ‘spoke’ to readers. They interpreted something meaningful (even if that something meaningful is entertainment) from the book.
Tomorrow I am traveling with my family from our home in northern California to my husbands homeland in Green Bay to participate in the Packers Hall of Fame Induction Banquet. Apparently, we will be among the fans experiencing “A ticketed viewing opportunity will be held inside the seating bowl for fans who would like to be at Lambeau Field to watch the ceremony live on the TundraVision video boards.” Such is my husband and sons love for Brett Favre. Honestly, I think Favre is a great football player and a so-so husband. Dick pics are gross, but not in the same league as throwing punches. I see his inability to decide on retirement as his a side effect of his love of the game, and somewhat immature decision making skills off the field.
Thanks for giving me the space to talk about BF – never expected at my go-to romance book blog!
Tomorrow I am traveling with my family from our home in northern California to my husbands homeland in Green Bay to participate in the Packers Hall of Fame Induction Banquet. Apparently, we will be among the fans experiencing “A ticketed viewing opportunity will be held inside the seating bowl for fans who would like to be at Lambeau Field to watch the ceremony live on the TundraVision video boards.” Such is my husband and sons love for Brett Favre. Honestly, I think Favre is a great football player and a so-so husband. Dick pics are gross, but not in the same league as throwing punches. I see his inability to decide on retirement as his a side effect of his love of the game, and somewhat immature decision making skills off the field.
This is SO well said.
I have quite a few problematic books that I love. I often find myself appoligizing when I recommend them to people “I’m sorry about ____ but I really loved _____!”
I’m aware of some of my reading biases but certainly not all as I don’t make the effort to study or identify them. And I’d like to think the romance community as a whole is more tolerant since many of us have had the “Oh, you’re reading one of those books” judgments heaped upon us. While I fully admit I’ve had the “you actually like that book?” reaction a few times, mostly I wonder what I’m missing when a popular book leaves me scratching my head as to why people like it.
Great article. I found myself thinking about problematic books a lot recently, especially after reading Captive Prince — which is a riveting and beautifully crafted book. There are some truly hideous things the heroes do, but they don’t make the book any less enjoyable. Meanwhile, there’s some very tame heroes I can’t stand.
Books are meant to be enjoyed, and no reader should be shamed for enjoying a book.
Great essay Jane.
I’ve been thinking lately about how we describe books and how the words “good” and “bad” are just insufficient to explain anything of use to anyone but the reviewer. I had a conversation on Twitter about it but 140 characters is really limiting to that kind of discussion.
It seems to me, that my own definition of “good” changes depending on what book I’m talking about but I think for others “good” is a more fixed idea. To some readers, “good” is about the story, to others it’s about the technical – grammar and editing for example, or whether the plot makes sense (eg, could a lawyer actually do that without being disbarred?). And there’s a vast range in between. Sometimes I can appreciate one aspect as “good” so much that the lack of “good” in other areas is overshadowed. Somtimes I can’t.
It is a matter of taste. Speaking as a reviewer (and only for myself), the challenge is to try and convey what I liked/didn’t like, what I thought was “good” or “bad” about a particular book, by examples and other descriptive adjectives sufficient to convey to a reader whether or not they might like the book. And sometimes, that is harder than it might look.
I have an additional note to add about problematic love or fandom. I noticed that the picture at the top of the article is of a breed of dog that many people love I don’t know if you know how appropriate the picture of an English Bulldog is in your post, but let me enlightene you. English Bulldogs have gorgeous temperaments usually. They are also very cute because of their structure and faces. However, because of that structure and those faces their average age at death is 6 years old. They are unable to regulate their body temperatures or run or exercise correctly because of their malformed faces, legs, and pelvic assembly. Because of their malformed legs and pelvis, 95% of males are unable to mate with a female naturally and 98% of females are completely unable to deliver puppies rnaturally. 99% of English Bulldog births are by c-section. 40% of Bulldogs die of cancer directly caused by excessive inbreeding and 40% die from heatstroke caused by their malformed muzzles. Only 20% die of age-related causes.
@Kaetrin:
That’s true for me too. It’s often about the sum of the whole more than its parts. I also think all books have some problematic aspects, and that’s not acknowledged often enough.
@Jennifer: HBO’s Real Sports did a segment about bulldog breeding last year that was just heartbreaking. They compared a sketch of a 19th century bulldog with today’s bulldogs and it was astonishing how much the breed has been altered. They also interviewed vets about the health issues resulting from their malformed muzzles. It’s sad that dog shows still reward this type of breeding.