#I bet someone��s already made this joke. it’s low hanging fruit

[snarktheater]

Stranger Than Fanfiction — An addendum

So, I have a Twitter account. I know I hardly ever mention it, and the link to it is easy to miss in the blog's theme, but it exists. I almost forget about it myself, because I am the kind of human being who does that. Ahem.

All this to say, it feels like a semi-miracle that someone actually replied to one of my tweets on the Snark Theater account (specifically, the one about my Stranger Than Fanfiction review, and like another semi-miracle that I noticed it within just a few hours and not…like, months later. And I guess that adds up to a full miracle, because my miracle math is flawless like that.

Let's have a look (Disclaimer: I do not endorse people reading this blog post going after this Twitter user, so please don't do that, guys.)

Transcript:

The book is a NY Times best seller so a lot of people disagree with you. "It ain't Shakespeare." I bet he laughs all the way to the bank!

Hoo boy. Well, on the plus side, thank you, Twitter user gobbledguck, for reminding me about a crucial point I completely missed in my original review. Let's discuss. And I'm warning you in advance, this is probably going to be a little rambling. More than usual, I mean.

Now, I'm not talking about the tweet in general. "But if popular, how can it be bad?" is a question to which I've had a definitive answer for five years now: Fifty Shades of Grey. We live in a post-Fifty Shades world and popularity has been thoroughly debunked as a measure of quality.

So I'm not going to argue with the fact that the book is a best-seller, especially in the case of this specific book, which, in case you forgot, is written by a person who has millions of pre-established fans for something that has nothing to to with writing and who would buy anything he puts out there. Including, reluctantly so, this guy right here typing this blog post. I did not mention having a celebrity crush on Chris Colfer as a joke. It is well documented.

With the ritual self-depantsing out of the way, let's talk about the actually interesting thing in this tweet, and the one that actually ties back into the book. The (incorrect, but let's ignore that detail) quote. Let's put it back in context, which is from page 2 of Stranger Than Fanfiction.

Naturally, when it first premiered the critics treated the show [Wiz Kids, the fictional show protagonist Cash Carter stars in] like a piñata. […] However, with each fatal blow Wiz Kids only received more attention. People tuned in to see the "absurdity" for themselves, but they were not repulsed as promised. Audiences found the show's campiness to be rather charming, its unique underdog spirit resonated with them, and a global phenomenon was born. No, it wasn't Shakespeare, but on the bright side, it wasn't Shakespeare.

The low-hanging fruit response to this tweet is pretty simple. They are, after all, referencing the fact that the show is terrible, in the book's own text. It is beloved, but even the book's protagonists admit in hindsight that they don't like the show for itself as much as they like it for the community it gave them. (Which is pretty comparable to Chris Colfer's own Glee).

But let's not reach for the low-hanging fruit, because I think choosing Shakespeare of all points of comparison to be incredibly interesting. You could rephrase that last sentence of the quote as "it wasn't high art, but on the bright side, it was accessible." Which is funny to use Shakespeare for that, who…you know, made low-brow entertainment. Yeah, Shakespeare's popularity didn't stem from him writing stuffy, obscure stuff that only a tiny amount of elites could understand. It came from him writing (mostly) good stuff.

There's this weird trend these days to present critical acclaim and commercial success as antithetical, and I don't really get it. Or actually, I do, but the anti-intellectualism it derives from is kind of scary to me and I'm already planning an essay of sorts about anti-intellectualism, so I'm not sure I want to examine it in detail right about now.

The point is: anyone who criticizes something is immediately dismissed as wrong, a buzzkill, or in this specific case, fighting in vain against an overwhelming tide. It's become common to glorify being panned by critics, and it makes me wonder: what exactly are the ambitions of the people doing that?

I mean, look at Chris Colfer. What's his motive for writing this book? Is it to make money, as is implied by our Twitter user above saying he'll be "laughing all the way to the bank" at my little review? I have some serious doubts, considering he's already pretty successful. Is it because he had a story to tell, and wanted to tell it? If so…why would he consider critics to be the enemy? Wouldn't it be preferable to listen to them and strive for the best version of that story you can tell? Is it because he wanted to send a message about LGBT kids (Sam and Joey, sort of Topher), kids from toxic family environments (Mo and Joey), kids raised by single parents (all but Joey)? Then, once again, why not listen to people telling you your message might not really convey as well as you thought it would?

Of course, this is all hypothetical, and reviews aren't really meant for the author anyway. I don't expect Chris Colfer to read my review of his book, nor do I really want to, because I'm writing for potential readers, not for him. I'm talking about the attitude to dismiss critics and present a dichotomy of quality entertainment (here symbolized as "Shakespeare") versus enjoyable entertainment (i.e. Wiz Kids or the book itself). Not just because it doesn't apply to me personally (to paraphrase Lindsay Ellis on her Top Ten Guilty Pleasures video—which is apparently off Youtube at the moment—"no, I don't want to turn off my brain, I'm using it"), but also because it doesn't really seem to apply…in general.

Again, take Shakespeare. Am I supposed to just agree that it's adapted so much because people hate it? Every teenager in love sees themselves as Romeo and Juliet because that play is just so inaccessible and stuffy and high-brow? Yeah, right. (And that's without getting into a debate on whether Romeo and Juliet is a romance, a cautionary tale, or a mix of the two; it's still a pretty well-made play regardless of how you read it)

In fact, it's pretty easy to find things that are good and extremely popular, because it tends to be what survives the test of time (like, you know, Shakespeare). It's not universal, and it doesn't mean you personally have to like any of it. I hate Emile Zola's books and most of the music made before I was born, and for all I've defended him, I'm not a super fan of Shakespeare. But it doesn't mean I can't see the quality in all those things, or the fact that they had some pretty wide appeal, both then and now.

So that dichotomy is bullshit. What about the idea that critics themselves are wrong? You know, the idea that critics are a tool of the status quo rather than a measure of quality. Recently, you see that a lot whenever people criticize anything enjoyed by teenage girls (and not unreasonably so). Except…then you have to consider your definition of a critic. After all, to quote an overused phrase, everyone's a critic. All it takes is having thoughts about a thing. And in the Internet age, once can share those thoughts pretty easily, regardless of how much institutional power they hold. There's a reason this is a blog, is what I'm saying.

Point is: saying any criticism is automatically wrong by virtue of being criticism (so long as you have mass appeal) is a pretty weak counter-argument. And it feeds into a culture where critical thinking itself isn't encouraged, because you don't want to be one of those critics who just can't have fun and enjoy things, do you?

Look, I'm not mad at Twitter user gobbledguck for their reply. I'm not going to say I don't care since…you know…this post exists…but I'm not mad about it. It's symptomatic of a larger, self-perpetuating problem. Which this book is part of, by virtue of this quote, and, in a larger sense, all of Cash Carter's "how dare people criticize what I, a highly public figure with a huge influence on impressionable minds, do while in the public eye" speeches. Which Chris Colfer is a part of too, by virtue of writing this book as a highly public figure with a huge influence on impressionable mind, and publishing it for consumption.

So no, I'm not mad at that Twitter user, but I am mad at this book for participating into a culture that makes that tweet a possibility, and allows this user to go on without questioning their own biases.

I feel like there's probably a better rant about anti-intellectualism and the rejection of all critics in me. Hell, I feel like there's a better rant about it in relationship with this book. But, well, this is a hot take on a tweet. Maybe I'll even regret it in a few days. I've had a streak of regretting some of my recent posts and all.

But what I'm pretty sure I won't regret is the main point, the tl;dr as we are used to saying here on the Internet: "No, it wasn't Shakespeare, but on the bright side, it wasn't Shakespeare" is more or less equivalent to admitting you have no interest in writing (or reading) a good story, and honestly, I feel kind of sad for you and your admitted creative bankruptcy.

Now I'll get off my high horse before someone points out to me that that Twitter account has all of four tweets, and the other three are dedicated to shipping Chris Colfer with his co-star, and I'm probably being played by a troll and/or falling on deaf ears with this one. Reviews aren't meant for the author anyway, and I suppose this is no exception.

Okay, that should be enough self-deprecating humor that this post doesn't come across as too insufferable. Now I'll go back to bitching about a popular TV show or something.