Is it inevitable that good writing will only be appreciated by writers?

I hope not. However, I do see where you're coming from. Someone on here mentioned the damage teaching of 'classic books' by schools had done to their appetite for reading, although I suspect this would be a phenomenon more common amongst older members. Maybe this accounts for a certain reluctance to read 'good' writing - and it's probably the reason for James Patterson's existence. Maybe an audience will at least in part be like the writer addressing them. I don't see how you can be a writer if you're unable to walk in someone else's shoes though. There are more quotes than I could count about the dispassionate (cold) nature of writers, which supposedly enables them to observe. Maybe only really great writers can observe and describe so well that empathy is surplus to requirements. Anyway, Mills and Boon's bluff northerner in his flat cap is one of their best sellers. I have (male) friends whose only published work is in Bella and Women's Weekly, although maybe that wouldn't qualify as good writing for you. (Or me). What did you think of Zadie Smith's comments about literary prizes? regards Ewan

I see the dangers too. The poetry editor of Faber & Faber told an inquirer from the Arts Council, who was asking why more black UK poets didn't exist, the editor replied that it's not racism it's publishing conservatism which causes black poets to be neglected. The normal/whiter poets have prizes and publishing histories, he said, whereas the darker skinned ones tend not to have them. (Had I been at the interview I'd have suggested to the editor that he should spend more time reading the poems and less time reading the poet's CV :-) So I think the systems of literature and literary appreciation have inbuilt social barriers in them, yes. And consequently, inevitably, that restricts the number of people who can be included and will be responsive. (It's deliberately so.) On the whole does anyone care? The short answer is mainly: no. Personally I think the decline in enjoyment of literature is regretted by only a few individuals. It's not often you hear people saying, "I wish the nation would receive a modern poem as Tennyson's Charge of The Light Brigade was received." Instead of Tony Blair saying, "..hand of History.." he might have written a poem, in a more literary age. (Benjamin Disraeli wrote, as did Churchill.) So on the whole I think the majority of people don't give a stuff about literature in particular and culture in general. Only money matters. And the concentration on an artist's CV/background makes a bad situation worse. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

A while back I read an article attacking the over-heavy use of audio compression (not to be confused with digital compression) in modern music production. The author (an audiophile) bemoaned the way most people on the train listen to their expensive mp3 players through tinny little in-the-ear headphones - he reasoned that they were not actually listening for the music, they just wanted to block out the daily horror of their commute. I think most people read for the same reason. They don't want to be troubled by great writing, surprising similes and clever metaphores. They just want a bit of escapism. The most successful authors are not the best writers, but they are all good story-tellers. Writing is a craft like any other, in order to even spot good writing you need some expertise in it (for instance I couldn't tell good pottery from bad until it breaks beneath my spoon - but a potter could). It is only natural that people with the expertise have either learned it by doing it, or have at some point put their skill to use.

Generally agree with Dan. Easily digestible, escapist stuff doesn't have to be badly written (and is often well-written) but the point is that people who aren't either writers or students of literature are less likely to read with the specific intention of admiring the writing as 'good writing'. Poetry's a different question because while on the one hand most people aren't reading good poetry, on the other hand they're generally not reading bad poetry either. The few big-selling living poets include people at the good (Seamus Heaney) and bad (Pam Ayres) ends of the spectrum. But most of the other poetic unit-shifters are people who, to a lesser or greater extent, are both pretty good writers and populists - Carol Ann Duffy, Roger McGough, Benjamin Zephaniah, John Hegley, Wendy Cope. There aren't, thankfully, bookshops full of 2 for 1 offers of collections by Pam Ayres imitators.

Depends what we mean by 'good.' Most people think good means enjoyable, and want 'something good' to read and also to avoid whatever they consider to be bad, or unenjoyable. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

"There aren't, thankfully, bookshops full of 2 for 1 offers of collections by Pam Ayres imitators." And yet her books sell, as do those of Dan Brown (although why anyone would buy a second book having read the first is beyond me). I think sales are more to do with the reading public wanting to escape (as has already been stated) than it is to do with what makes for good or bad writing. You only have to look at the prolific increase in so-called celebrity books to know that books sales don't depend on what is written as much as they do on who is (supposedly) writing them. www.lorrainemace.com

Hi Mark, I feel somewhat lucky to be able to write things that people "get" straight away! And I think it's a mistake to equate "good" writing with what is simply "inaccessible". I sometimes feel that my creative writing degree was a hindrance more than anything, as it seemed to push me down the "inaccessible" route. It's taken me about twelve years to unlearn a lot of that and start writing work that gets read and published. Also, I've never seen myself as a serious poet, but I do read a lot of poetry. Gareth

There is a distinction between medium and content. A really well done painting of a brick wall may delight art lovers but is never going to hang on many living room walls. Walls that are frequently adorned with dsitinctly average pastoral landscapes and flowers and the like. Similarly most people want a good story before good writing - or just want to read about something that interests them (like celebrities). Of course there is no reason they can't have both. You have to assume that Dan Brown's readership either cannot tell the difference between good prose and bad (they lack a 'reading ear'), or simply cannot see any value in the good if it tells the same story. The fact that those people who can tell the good from the bad often can't stand to read the bad, leads to the rather uncharitable conclusion that the former is the case. The fact that I can recognise that HP Lovecraft wrote abysmally but I still love his books leads to the latter. The analogy to music is possibly a good one. The analogy to painting breaks down for economic reasons; I suspect there would be a lot more groundbreaking conceptual works of fiction that take years of study to understand, if an author only had to sell each book once.

Many cultures had letters, salons, clubs, debating societies, coffee houses, fora, stoa/academies or any other of an endless variety of meeting places where ideas could be gathered and shared. Perhaps we've gone too far in the direction of having "authorities", academics and scientists telling us what is and what ought to be. Maybe we ought to return to the earlier days when having an enquiring mind was a great thing in and of itself. I'm sure an appreciation of all kinds of culture and cultures (of all colours) would arise naturally from that. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

"Many cultures had letters, salons, clubs, debating societies, coffee houses, fora, stoa/academies or any other of an endless variety of meeting places where ideas could be gathered and shared." Well, at the time the coffee houses were a big focus of culture in the UK, most people couldn't even read. And the average person in the street (or more often, the field) didn't generally live long enough to do much reading or debating. It was hardly a less elitist cultural situation.

Yes, in general, Modern Art is much more popular these days.

It's an interesting point that you make about elitism and coffee houses. Some historical accounts would disagree with you. G. M. Trevelyan observed: "The 'Universal liberty of speech of the English nation'...was the quintessence of Coffee House life." That suggests an idea of relative equality. With the exception of men of letters, most of my examples are for verbal debating. Although men of ideas tended to read those before they could be debated. Most of my examples were [male] elites of various kinds (in practice.) The debating principle itself isn't elitist (or sexist,) though. Having the Latin bible was deliberately intended to impede the progress of reading in England and Tyndale was put to death for translating it into English so that commoners could read it. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

I think that particular types of good writing may have appeal mainly to a certain type of person (though not necessarily writers). People from particular demographic groups are more likely to consume certain types of art, music, literature. Of course this is not an absolute as my friend 'Big Dave' (double-negative-ridden cockney, ex-criminal, educationally under-average addict alcoholic) proves by having a great liking for Russian Ballet. I have been howled at on this forum before for saying it but I believe Eminem is a talented and popular poet with mass-appeal.

"Although men of ideas tended to read those before they could be debated. Most of my examples were [male] elites of various kinds (in practice.) The debating principle itself isn't elitist (or sexist,) though." Well, populist debating still going strong now. In The Sun, on Trisha and radio phone-ins. I was challenging your original point about the academics and authorities telling us what to think being something that's true to a greater extent now than previously. In the case of academics, I think they primarily tell each other what to think while the rest of the world gets on with it. "I have been howled at on this forum before for saying it but I believe Eminem is a talented and popular poet with mass-appeal." I like Eminem, too. Whether he's a poet brings us back to the old 'what is poetry' question.

"I like Eminem, too. Whether he's a poet brings us back to the old 'what is poetry' question." At least he rhymes *runs for cover*

I do not mind if the writing is average just so long as there is a good story or it makes me laugh. I read for entertainment mainly. I can spot really bad writing, but I cannot tell good writing from very good writing.

I think it was Jeremy Bentham who said that shove ha'penny is as good as poetry (as long as the quantity of pleasure is the same). jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Boo to Bentham! The Utilitarians had to cobble together a Harm Principle to prevent the most obvious of paradoxes which is: If five of 'us' get pleasure from torturing one of 'them,' Utilitarianism ought (mathematically,) to be used [here] to justify torture, the satisfaction of five against one. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

The Prospect article is interesting in that it highlights the leveling-off effect of internet and new media and how the distribution channels have multiplied and changed things. I like reviews and reading the critics. I do think they play an important and legitimate filtering role. IMUHO, I think those who have more or less read and studied the history of literature and spend their waking hours reading and writing about it have a comprehensive perspective, and I respect historians. Having said all that, I disagree with the critical consensus all over the place on various things such as Bukowski and political correctness. The literary community is in one sense an elitist snob mafia (why wouldn’t they be?) but I’d rather take their learned recommendation than some guy blogging in his underwear, or Oprah’s. If serious about being successful in writing, and I am only 32% serious, I would take their lead. Also, I too like Eminem and bought all his product, but from the critical perspective, he really is another white boy who boosted his art from the hood. The tag name for these white boys is very politically incorrect. I have a set of poems about this somewhere, if I can find them…