[taeric]

This essay's main accusation at crime fiction, captured in the callout that these particular books are "not entirely a waste of time", is kind of insulting. Does anyone actually know the parts of reading that make a book a non-waste of time?

This is the kind of arrogance in criticism that would lead parents to be ashamed that their kids are reading Pokemon fan fiction. Heaven help you if they are writing it?!

Do I sympathize that sometimes I feel like I want some time back from something I have read? Yes. But do I truly know what is a good use of my own time? Probably not.

Take this article, as an example. I find the conceit in it wholly unwarranted and it casts scepticism in how I read the rest of it. That said, it does have me thinking on it. And while I can't help the lyrics, "a dangerous past time, I know" from entering my head, I have a suspicion that is a great use of my time.

[vanderZwan]

> This is the kind of arrogance in criticism that would lead parents to be ashamed that their kids are reading Pokemon fan fiction. Heaven help you if they are writing it?!

Meanwhile, Tolkien only wrote Lord of the Rings to create a world for the constructed languages he liked to make up for fun. The latter of which he was a little ashamed of and considered a self-indulgent waste of time. But look what that lead to.

Or as Lindsey Ellis recently put it in a YouTube video on that subject: "Don't be ashamed of that 'secret vice.' Post that cringe!"

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFlyQk_uVAI

[groovy2shoes]

I'm reminded of Sturgeon's Law [1].

And of something I heard Brandon Sanderson say once, about how absurd it is to belittle someone for liking some genre or another: he compared genres to food, and said it's equally absurd to belittle someone for liking or not liking seafood, or some flavor of ice cream, łs.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

[billfruit]

Yes, but with so much material out there to read, it is good to have at least some vague indication of the worth of a work.

Also writers of crime fiction often have themselves question ed the worth of much of the production, see Raymond Chandler's Essay "The Simple Art of Murder'.

Why should we read Christie when we could rather read Graham Greene sounds like an interesting question to me

[taeric]

My assertion is there is no global ranking of value. The answer to the question is interesting; but as much for how personal the answer is than anything else.

[js2]

The author is being ironic and having a laugh at himself. He does not think reading Agatha Christie is a waste of time at all. At worst, he considers it a guilty pleasure.

[taeric]

Right, the attack wasn't against Agatha Christie, but on crime fiction as a genre. Called out these as an exception to the genre bring a waste of time.

My assertion is to drop that stance entirely. It turns what could be a normal compliment into a backhand one. And sets a negative tone for reading the rest.

[js2]

I gather you're getting that from this single sentence:

> Quite apart from the pleasure she gives, reading her is not entirely a waste of time.

But let's look at the paragraph:

> I am a great admirer of Mrs. Christie. I enjoy her irony, and she sometimes reveals herself to be an acute psychologist. Quite apart from the pleasure she gives, reading her is not entirely a waste of time. She conveys to the reader the impression of enjoying the human comedy without bitterness or rancor, and thereby acts as an antidote to our resentment of the imperfections of the world and existence. There is also something deeply comforting about her fairy tales in which evil suddenly erupts into a pleasantly settled world only to be quickly defeated and for order to be restored. The world is not really like this, of course, and no one imagines that it is, but which of us never needs imaginative escape from reality?

That's an entirely complementary paragraph unless you read "not entirely a waste of time" to mean that it is somewhat a waste of time. But the author is clearly using "not entirely" ironically, iow, that reading Christie is not at all a waste of time.

The piece opens by declaring itself "an essay on the transcendent meaning and value of crime novels."

I see no attack on crime fiction in this piece.

[taeric]

That is the line. And I still fail to read it as anything other than a backhand compliment. Drop that one sentence, and the paragraph is far stronger.

[js2]

Ah, well, I read it as the opposite of a backhanded compliment, if there's a name for such a thing. It's a complement disguised as criticism.

[taeric]

That is a more charitable read. I think I can see how you mean it. I will make an effort to read that tone in the future.