Reader's Manifesto: An Attack on Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose Book

Why is it okay for fans of so-called Serious Literature to make fun of genre writers without thinking twice, but when Myers turns the tables and skewers a few "respectable" modern authors people freak out and call him an idiot? If you have a problem with someone telling you they think Stephen King is better at the craft of storytelling than Cormac McCarthy, and you think that person should just shut his mouth because he clearly didn't (couldn't?) understand McCarthy as well as you did, you're being kind of an elitist. A Reader's Manifesto is an articulate and humorous counter to that elitism, which has ravaged the modern literary world. It's funny and it points out, using fine examples, the kind of crap that is being lauded as impressive writing these days.

I've noticed a couple of trends about the negative reactions to "A Reader's Manifesto":

1. That people think it is sleazy for Myers to cherrypick and mock certain passages from these authors' books

2. That people scoff at it because, after all, why should we need someone's permission to decide what literature to read/like? Why should we allow Myers to tell us what is and is not worthy of our time?

To number 1, I would invite a re-reading of the text (I know you won't do it, because you've already decided to hate it, probably because you like one or more of the authors he attacks). He makes it pretty clear that he took pains to avoid that kind of sleaziness, because it runs the risk of damaging the credibility of the entire theory. But some have decided to ignore that and attack him for the very thing he did not do. For them, I have no words. It's kind of a straw-man argument, which is annoying (I'm aware that my whole review reeks of straw-man, actually, but I don't care). Why waste my breath re-explaining that Myers analyzed passages that had already been singled out as praise-worthy by critics, thus analyzing, not the authors' "worst" moments, but moments that had been touted as their best? Okay, so I had a few words. So anyway, before you get your panties in a twist, I might mention that it's not so much an attack on the authors as it is the critics. I have not read all of the books mentioned, but I must say, the passages I've read are shockingly bad. Who are they speaking to if this is what they present as enticement?

As for number 2, the concern that people only like this essay because they like being told what is and is not okay to like...I will bring it home and say that the fundamental point of "A Reader's Manifesto" is that we should read what we enjoy, and I, for one, enjoy reading things that agree with my own preconceived notions of what makes literature enjoyable. It's fun to laugh at bad writing, just like it's fun to laugh at typos on menus and other signage. And I like to have fun. So there.