In Rainbows

So, I think I understand how this applies to literature for me:

To quote the great Chris Farley from the Oscar-award-winning movie Tommy Boy: "...if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guarantee I will, I've got spare time... but all you've really got is a guaranteed piece of shit."



What makes a Shakespeare play any different? Or, a Whitman poem, or Beatles song, or Picasso painting?



It is easy to assume that because you had to read The Great Gatsby in high school that it is a great and important novel. Then, what does it mean about me if I think it sucks? Nothing.



I've had this discussion before with different people. I love the band Radiohead. Radiohead, in my opinion, has made some of the greatest albums and greatest songs of all-time. Radiohead still makes albums and they actually just released one (I thought it was great, download it). But, just because Radiohead makes a song or an album, does that make it good? (Is there such a thing as self-hegemony?)



How about the radio? After hearing any song a thousand million billion kagillion times you start to sing the lyrics while sleepwalking and chewing gum at the same time. Must be good if the radio is playing it all these freakin' times, right? Must be good if it wins a Grammy, right? Record sales boost every year for any album/song that is nominated for a Grammy, even moreso if it wins. People are influenced by the powers that be. Because Amy Whinehouse won a Grammy her songs sound better to you?



It's all damn hegemony.



So, being told Shakespeare is a genius doesn't make him a genius, and some of the Beatles songs don't work, and whatever Radiohead comes out with next is guaranteed to be good. But, check out all their old stuff first - immediacy on The Bends, OK Computer, and KID A.

Wait, Tommy Boy didn't win an Oscar? Well, that movie sucks.