Breaking the rules

Charles Dickens

In her book Blurb Your Enthusiasm, Louise Wilder says Charles Dickens committed the three cardinal sins of commercial fiction: He liked plots, he was popular and he was funny.

I think she meant to say "literary fiction," not "commercial fiction." Most readers love novels with strong plots and that provide a few laughs, and they also enjoy reading what other people are reading. The intellectual elite, however, views things differently.

The books most favored by literary critics and high-brow readers tend to have weak plots, or even no plots at all. Laughs, or even happy endings, are frowned upon. And if the masses like something, it must not be very good.

Yet Dickens was taught in literature classes when I was in college, and perhaps he still is, even though he is a dead white man. The literary elite seems more forgiving of pre-20th century novels guilty of the three cardinal sins than the work by more recent writers. Thus Pride and Prejudice and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, despite their humor, strong plots and popularity, are still recognized as great. The snobbiest critics are much less sure about To Kill a Mockingbird, The Catcher in the Rye, All the Light We Cannot See and other 20th and 21st century novels that break one or more of those rules.

Just as I wish more movie comedies won Academy Awards, I wish more light-hearted, plot-driven novels won literary prizes. Just because people like something doesn't make it inferior.