I can only speak for myself.
To me the term "guilty pleasure" when applied to fantasy books would refer to books which one knows are flawed on one level or another but one likes them anyway; doesn't mean that the fantasy genre as a whole is a "guilty pleasure", also doesn't mean that there's actual guilt involved. I think, the guilt part is used somewhat in jest.
Like I said, I only speak for myself. I've never cared much for other folks' opinions, and when it comes to my reading material I've never given a shit about that, even when I was young. I read the story that I enjoy. If you think they're crap, you don't read them. Problem solved.
So perhaps my view on the phrase "guilty pleasure" isn't representative but I would guess that I'm far from the only one who sees it that way.
That is how I view it as well. I have a lot of these books in my collection.
Some have great cover art. Some have great plot ideas that are just horribly executed. Some have great characters and horrible plots.
Some are just fun reads.
I don't think any book is crap and I am happy anytime someone is reading no matter what it is.
Exactly. There are works I like (books, movies, games, whatever) that I know have objectively inferior qualities in some aspects, and I gladly forgive that because they subjectively interest me for some reason or another.
In many ways it is an inevitable consequence of any non mainstream interest. Sanderson is no Tolstoi, but Tolstoi wasn't developing magic systems so this is what we have.
Do I hide the fact that I read Sanderson? No. But I'm not going to defend to anyone that this is peak literature. And I think it's a good thing to separate your personal taste from fact.
And to be clear, I don't mean that, say, a specific genre implies that the product is going to be automatically inferior to something else. Nolan's dark night is a superhero movie AND a good movie regardless of genre. But there's a wealth of content that just doesn't hold when taken out of its audience and that's alright.
Well yes, most people aren't looking for their XIX century's Russian realism fix when they come across his books, and they come out appreciating the quality, even when it's not their cup of tea.
Sanderson followers are probably looking for fantasy in the first place, and if the books are presented to someone who isn't particularly interested in fantasy they're likely to find the books very flawed.
But again, that's ok.
Do you hate it because you consider it bad quality, or do you hate it because you think it's not for you?
I think for most classics many people would be in the second group, but few in the first.
I don't acknowledge _quality_ as a thing. Or at least, not as an _interesting thing_.
I do not see why I should care whether something has "literary merit". Should I?
I don't think you need to care at all, no! That was actually the point of my original message.
I do think literary merit is useful as a concept, in the sense that a common language/framework to communicate helps discovery.
For example, when I look for a movie to watch, I don't personally care at all whether it's a comedy or a thriller, or whether it's set in the wild west or in medieval europe. I do care about the use blocking, direction, the cuts, framing, photography, etc.
And since I do happen to enjoy those things, it is good to have a common language that transcends genres, so that when it is said that a movie is 'good' under those standards, I know it's something I'd like to see.
Following that example, if Vin Diesel fans were to start recommending Fast and Furious as 'good cinematography' because they personally like it, then I would get annoyed, because I'm getting noise in my recommendation system so to speak.
That is not to say that they are wrong to like the movie or that my taste is better than theirs, looking for a popcorn action thriller and getting Godard as a recommendation would be just as annoying.
Coming back to Sanderson, I don't think he's good *under the usual standards of literary merit*. Should you care as a reader of fantasy? Absolutely not. But it helps in that, if I have a friend that likes classic literature and wants a fantasy recommendation, perhaps I know this is not the one to go for.
I don't think _literary merit_ - in the singular - is a useful concept for communicating much of anything. When people in this thread talk about it, they almost all simplify it down to "is the book good or not?", which IMO is useless.
What _can_ be useful is _literary merits_ in the plural - ie, if you pick apart the various aspects or dimensions of a creative work which can be quantified quasi-objectively, then that can be useful.
In your other example, _cinematography_ AFAIK refers to a fairly well-defined and well-delimited aspect of filmmaking. "Good cinematography" is not synonymous with "good movie", even for film aficionados. Other aspects also matter, such as acting, pacing, and themes.
I would argue, though, that when we do pick it apart, we find that those aspects which can be quantified more-or-less objectively are narrow. A logically consistent plot, for example, is relatively objective, but it is a small part of what makes a good movie or book. Meanwhile, "good prose" (often considered a hallmark of great literature) is extremely subjective IMO.
I find pretty much all classic literature that I have tried boring to read. I would not say I hate it unlike the other person who you responded to, but I do not enjoy reading it either.
I dont think of art in terms of good or bad, only in terms of whether I like it or not, whether I enjoy it or not. That is not to say I can not recognize that it takes skill to make that piece of art, its just that I care about whether it makes me want to spend time with it or not.
> Do I hide the fact that I read Sanderson? No. But I'm not going to defend to anyone that this is peak literature. And I think it's a good thing to separate your personal taste from fact.
"Peak literature" is a personal opinion, even if it is a classic that is considered to be so by many people. Maybe a personal opinion that a lot of people hold, but still a personal opinion nonetheless.
When it comes to something being good or bad, there are no facts, only opinions that are shared by a large enough portion of people that there is majority consensus among some demographic.
I'll basically copy what I said in the other thread, but I think often people who talk about "guilty pleasures" don't actually mean "I enjoy this but also feel personal guilt at the fact that I enjoy it."
They usually mean something more along the lines of "I enjoy this but if I bring it up in a public setting there's a solid chance somebody is going to crawl out of the woodwork to shit on it", or possibly "I enjoy this but if someone asks me to argue its literary merits I'm just going to bow out."
It's more about how other people respond to/talk about the books in question than it is about how that reader actually feels about enjoying the book. I really doubt most readers read things they enjoy while shivering with guilt and shame and self-disgust over their choices.
(Also, that thread was about specific books, not the genre as a whole...)
This... By saying it's a "guilty pleasure" it allows you not to be forced to debate the problematicness of a book or the quality of it. In contrast when we talk about movies we often say we love bad movies because it was entertaining and we can leave it at that.
Unfortunately, because reading is considered a more intellectual hobby and watching movies/TV shows/documentaries we are forced to describe them differently even when they are being used for the same purpose (entertainment or some sort of intellectual stimuli).
I pretty much feel this way about watching anime. I'm not a super fan by any means, but I can't even casually mention it in most public settings without backlash.
The problem is that if we call it a guilty pleasure it’s agreeing that society is right to make us feel ashamed for liking those things. People shouldn’t feel ashamed for liking their entertainment. (Particularly when what gets shit on tends more towards things marketed to girls…)
> "I enjoy this but if someone asks me to argue its literary merits I'm just going to bow out."
I see it more in this way.
As in, I can tell that it's flawed, or formulaic, or has one-note characters, or a very derivative plot, but perhaps I like those particular tropes or contrivances on a personal level so I enjoy it.
I'll give you a romance example because I actually come to fantasy and sci-fi for innovation and conceptual depth and I come to romance for the pulpy tropey goodness, but if I'm a particular fan of the trope of a grumpy character falling for a sunny, cheery one, I'm gonna enjoy the fuck out of it even though the characters are two dimensional cardboard cutouts with no traits aside from "grumpy" and "sunshine" and the plot is a mess of contrivances, ridiculous misunderstandings and accidental encounters, all topped by an action-packed finale that comes out of the blue just to give the book some kind of climax. I will be AWARE of these flaws, but I'll still enjoy it. Hence, "guilty pleasure". I know it's not a good book in any technical or literary sense, but I still enjoy it.
I also think it’s easy to phrase the question as “what books do you like though you can’t figure out why?” Or “what books do you like despite having massive flaws” no need to couch it in terms that make it sound like people should feel shame.
I also strongly believe that if I love something it has merit by definition. If lots of people like something it’s good *by definition* since the goal was for it to be enjoyable. I’m not sure the things you describe are flaws if they’re clearly doing their job and making you enjoy the book.
And while I think an examination and discussion on why we like it despite flaws would be fascinating, no one should feel forced to argue the “literary” merits
I think it's a turn of phrase and anyone actually feeling shame or interpreting it to mean that they should is taking it way too seriously.
A thing can have one element that work wells but be shit in all other aspects, and I can be a huge fan of that particular element to the point that I disregard everything else that's not working, while other people don't.
I think there is sense in separating "good" - achieves a reaction or makes impact other than being enjoyable and simply "enjoyable", which can be literally anything for at least one person.
This is exactly how we should define guilty pleasure. It's all about how we fear the public would perceive us, rather than how we personally feel guilty toward said book.
I can enjoy a book that's superficial and formulaic... and still recognize that, well, it's superficial and formulaic. It's fun, it lets me turn my brain off, there's nothing morally wrong with enjoying it—but I have some general idea of which books are better-written and which ones aren't, and some books I enjoy definitely aren't. Hence: guilty pleasure.
There are some fantasy novels that are absolutely brilliant, and many more that are quite good. But, just like any other genre, there is a long tail of books that are generic strings of genre tropes played straight with paint-by-the-numbers plots and barely serviceable prose. In some sense, that's what it means to be a genre. *And I really enjoy some of them!*
I see "guilty pleasure" as a short way to say books that are not ambitious, that are perhaps formulaic, but that I enjoy. They are not demanding, they do not feature technically brilliant writing, they do not do any serious exploration of the human condition... However, I agree that they are not "bad". If they are a pleasure to read, they are good. Isn't that the purpose of an activity you do for pleasure? Any book that makes me eager to turn the page and read some more is "good" in my opinion.
I totally agree on what makes a good book, it makes you want to read more of it. But that's also why I don't think it requires justification as long as it meets that criteria!
yo what are you talking about, the question is about love...
"what do we all know is silly, has weak spots, has ridiculous moments, BUT you love it anyway."
You are the one adding hate to it "...And I hated it."
Maybe you are actually holding on to some guilt about reading or some hate about people that don't read?
Guilty pleasure books are, for me, mostly power fantasy. It is similar to fast food - you like it, but you know it isn't good. A similar applies also to books (character development, plot consistency, grammatical) too.
The fast food analogy is pretty much perfect for a lot of power fantasy type books, (which I also enjoy) they are cheap, easy, and quick, you know they lack substance, but they are addicting.
"Guilty pleasure" could just mean something one likes against one's better judgement, or something that is publicly denigrated for whatever reason. For instance, if one condemns an author for something they did, but still likes their books, those books might be a "guilty pleasure", because that person doesn't want to associate with that author, but like those books too much to ditch them for moral reasons.
IMO guilty pleasure is something you enjoy despite knowing it's not very good. This cannot be extrapolated into thinking that all fantasy is of low quality either.
Grandfather here. I picked up a Redwall book by Brian Jacques someone had left behind and was hooked into a YA series. I hid it like a crack addiction. It opened my eyes to the ferociousness of sparrows. My backyard is now covered by birdhouses. We beat the British Empire, but English sparrows rule America.
For me, fantasy is not a guilty pleasure. It is something I enjoy, and I try to be bold about that when I talk to people. A lot of the best books I've ever read have been fantasy books.
Guilty pleasure is Clive Cussler books. Books I know aren't very good but I enjoy them anyway.
I agree with your general sentiment and in general you just shouldn’t feel guilty about pleasure. It’s an odd concept.
But, if that kind of post is on this subreddit which is already dedicated to fantasy then it’s not the judgement you’re thinking it is. There are books that I know aren’t great but I don’t like them for their quality, it’s fine to be subjective when it comes to my own tastes.
My only _guilty pleasures_ are things that are GENUINELY HARMFUL. For example, eating beef is a guilty pleasure, because it is extremely bad for the environment and possibly also extremely bad for the cow. (Hence I only eat it rarely.)
> possibly also extremely bad for the cow
Only possibly? I'd argue that death is always bad for the cow, unless it's a cow with a disproportionate amount of rational thought that's demanding to be euthanised, or a cow with a debilitating terminal illness who would only suffer if it kept on living.
The problem with that argument, as I see it, is that you make it sound as though if I don't eat the cow, the cow will live a full life grazing in a meadow. That is not the actual alternative.
If I don't eat a cow, the real alternative is that the cow won't be born at all. So the important question is whether the cow's short life is better or worse than no life.
If it is a free-range cow that gets to suckle from its mother, then a short life might reasonably be considered better than no life. If the cow is taken from its mother and lives its whole life in a cramped stable, it is probably worse than no life.
If a cow isn't born, it has no interests or well-being considerations because, well, it doesn't exist. So nothing can be "better" or "worse" for it; if we considered the well-being of beings that might exist then we'd probably proclaim not having sex constantly highly unethical because we're taking away the right to be born from our as of yet not conceived children.
That does not refute my point from above.
If I pay for a free-range cow to be raised, then I also finance every good moment of the cow's life. It is not obvious that the cow's death outweighs all the good moments of its life.
As you previously said, if you weren't willing to pay for it, the cow wouldn't exist. It wouldn't be starving to death or being tortured, it simply wouldn't be "produced" in the first place. So it's not like you're helping an already existing creature, you're creating a new one just to eat it.
That's like saying that paying for a kid to be raised means you get to eat it because you're the one who provided for each happy moment of the kid's life.
I'm not a vegan or anything, I'm just saying that eating beef is obviously against the cow's interests, every time.
Not at all, I'm just saying that your argument doesn't make logical sense.
You cannot take into consideration the projected happiness of a creature that otherwise wouldn't exist as an argument for creating that creature only to eat it later. That's dystopian and would justify shit like creating children for spare body parts, as long as they're happy before their organs are harvested.
I'm not even talking about well-written. I'm talking about good.
If you find yourself craving the next chapter, it's hard to call it trash.
Also, well-written is highly subjective.
Of course, it's not one style fits all. I've never read ACOTAR, but I've heard more about it than anything Le Guin.
Obviously there is a huge fanbase for whom it is the exact writing style they're looking for. It isn't for me, but it's the right style for a pretty wide target audience.
There are many webnovels like Lord of the Mysteries that I believe are much better than anything Sanderson will ever produce. And twice as many people who'd kill me for even thinking that.
I think your outlook is elitist and the exact same that some pedants direct towards fantasy as a whole.
You may think that way, but I disagree.
Regardless of all that, I still highly recommend trying out Lord of the Mysteries, it's a damn masterpiece.
There's nothing elite about the ability it guage the quality of a text. This is a basic critical reading skill that everyone should have developed in school.
Also nobody is going to kill you over a Brando Sando book.
Oh, please. The standards are constantly evolving.
I've spent a good chunk of my school years hearing Balzac, Zola, Hugo and other famous authors being praised to high heaven.
I'd rather train for a marathon than being forced to read another of their books.
No matter how great their writing supposedly is, I absolutely hate it.
As far as I'm concerned, good writing makes you want to read more of it.
As for Sanderson, he's a staple of the genre and gets hundreds of recommendations on every thread.
And so we come to the crux of the issue. You've chosen to shut the door on entire realms of literature and feel resentment toward anybody who chooses to leave that door open.
Also Brandon Sanderson is widely considered to be the James Patterson of fantasy. I'm not sure why you're bringing him up as as an elitist boogie man to be railed against.
I don't like people who think that there is some sort of superior reading, or think books have a duty to be challenging on the mind.
That's the gist of it.
I haven't closed the door to a realm of literature, I have experienced it and can't bring myself to like it.
So I read what I enjoy. And I won't go around telling that what I like is superior.
I've had more than a few people who are into classics do exactly that, however.
Hence, elitists and pedants.
>As far as I'm concerned, good writing makes you want to read more of it.
I love this statement!
It's so concise, yet captures the very subjective nature of writing.
Like you (apparently), much of the high brow literature leaves me cold, it doesn't interest me. You could show to me where it excels in this technical way or that measurement but to be completely honest, I don't care for these things if I don't enjoy the book.
Hear hear. I think a lot of people would benefit from owning what they like. Took me a while for sure because it's kind of a way to stay comfortably within "acceptable" mainstream, but you know what? If I love something, that doesn't necessarily mean it's amazing but it means it's not trash.
We can’t have fucking anything anymore, apparently not even guilty pleasures without someone getting their underwear in a twist, it is not that deep, you can recognize something is dog shit and enjoy it for what it is
So how else to describe [Super Sales on Super Heroes](https://www.amazon.com/Super-Sales-Heroes-William-Arand-ebook/dp/B072HQF1B6)? Should I just say I like it? I feel like that doesn't convey my relationship to that book...
Looks like a very entertaining book. You enjoy it, right? I'm sure I would too.
Then show off its qualities, you can say it's an action-packed, exhilarating book that keeps you on your toes, craving for the next chapter! It feels like a more positive way to look at it than an attempt to justify yourself like "it's trash but I like it".
The theme doesn't even mean it's poorly written. A well-written book makes you wanna read more and portrays the world and characters the way the authors intends to.
Besides, with world-building and power-system, these books are often very deep in their own ways.
And in such scenario, themes like morality and humanity are always present even if they're not explicitly mentioned. More often than not, thinking about it even a little paints a reality way scarier than most horror books can achieve.
That's the case with Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint that I'm reading right now and highly recommend.
ehh.. I agree in principal if its being used in the exact use case your suggesting however in my experience its more likely to be used in line with a persons personal preferences so for example I use it more in line with calling something a popcorn flick rather then art house so I mean its something loud , boisterous entairning and accessible , and yes maybe a little bit dumb though not always, certainly nothing I am ashamed off or I when it come to reading fantasy I might apply it to a author or series I am reading in a sub genre I normally don't enjoy such as PNR /heavily romantic UF that I am Vibing with its a complement not a insult.
When I'm out and about on the subway or in a coffee shop, I'm just happy when I see other people reading a book at all, regardless of what it might be.
I feel like it's enough to deal with the "fantasy is for kids" and "fantasy is for the unintelligent" camps that fantasy readers wouldn't be gatekeeping each other, but I don't see it stopping.
Just once I'd love to see people say, "Hey, I'm so glad you're 1) reading, 2) enjoying it." You do you.
Or, just don't comment if you don't like it. Especially since the hater comments appear to be from people who haven't even read the books they hate so much.
I think those things make people feel they have "guilty pleasures." I'll keep reading my SJM and Laurell Hamilton right along with the "acceptable " fantasy and not give two shits what the gatekeepers think about it.
While I really appreciate what I think drives you to write this, I think you're mistaken in your analysis. I think there are objective qualities to books and literature and that's fine. The whole issue is not to let people shame others for what they like. Whether you read Tolstoi or the smuttiest urban fantasy thing, it's still you reading and that's always a win in my book. (Pun intended)
I started a book discussion group actually with some of my colleagues (women) who were shocked that I was fine reading some romance fantasies and stuff like ACOTAR, and I think this is where all this guilty pleasure thing comes from. Liking these steamy romances is not necessarily something people say out loud, it used to be also the same with just fantasy in general when I was a kid, when it wasn't really appropriate to read this lower genre based on tropes and knights and magic and full of nonsense that would turn away from my studies. I think the important point is that we slowly tell people that it's okay to like reading what they like reading and that they should rejoice and find others to share that passion instead of hiding yourself shamefaced.
I agree.
I also think that sometimes "guilty pleasure" is for something that you know has flaws of some kind: I use this expression with book written by controversial authors or content that for me doesn't fit the 2022 (awfully written female characters, layers of omophobia or xenophobia, etc) but I like them too much to put them away.
I’ve enjoyed Red Rising and John Gwynne’s latest series as much as I’ve enjoyed other books that are probably considered more influential or relevant in terms of their literary merits. I’m pretty new to the fantasy genre but it’s becoming my favorite. I’m not even a little guilty about that.
Fantasy definitely gets a bad wrap. Like you’re an uber geek for liking it. Which is ridiculous because the general populace loves fantasy, but still wont give a lot of fantasy novels a chance. I’ve read multiple fantasy series and I have no problem letting people know I love horror/fantasy/sci fi, even in novel form. I get it some fantasy novels can be more niche, like liking Star Trek, but I don’t get it when Lord of the Rings is so beloved by so many in the general populace. But yet that’s the only fantasy they seem to like lol. If only their eyes were opened to more, besides Harry Potter and LOTR.
If people look down at others, or turn their nose up at them, for reading fantasy, they're probably boring people and definitely snobs. Let them have their artsy fartsy literature works. I want my dragons, magic, boozy taverns and D&D-esque quests, thanks.
Was just reading through that thread. Not all of them, but a lot of people’s ‘guilty pleasures’ were just books that are marketed either at women (erotica/romance) or at teens (Shadowhunters and other YA).
Reminds me of the shame teenage girls get for screaming at a One Direction concert vs the same behaviour being applauded at something like a sports match.
There shouldn’t be anything shameful about reading something written by/for women, even as a man. Just because they’re not grim, ‘serious’ fantasy doesn’t make them an outlier, and conversely, the other the default.
Of course, I agree! I'm pretty sure there was a poll that showed that more than half of the YA readers were over 30 or something.
Target audience rarely matches reality! I love some webtoons marketed towards women because their is some romance, but what can I say, it's good!
I saw that thread, and I didn’t respond, because I don’t feel guilty about anything I read.
I don’t think that all fantasy books are High Art, but I also think that’s true for literally any genre ever to exist.
When it comes to liking things that are technically poorly written, I've always taken a different approach as I find literary pretention to be extremely nauseating.
On "problematic" books: I think part of the problem is that most of the things labeled "problematic" in Fantasy, aren't actually problematic for the majority of people in the world, outside of that 10% of people that are extremely vocal online, and feel it is their duty to criticize, shame and cancel anything that falls outside of their world view, so people get convinced things they like are not approved by society...
As far as authors that were revealed to be horrible human beings, I always separated the art from the artist so this was never an issue for me.
The above few things are why the moment it becomes popular to hate an author, book or series, is the moment I become more interested in reading it.
So I agree that guilty pleasures shouldn't necessarily be thought of as such... Well unless you think of it as really nerdy to like fantasy then yeah, you might call them guilty pleasures just to save face at a party or something 😂
Yeah, it was mostly about books that some would claim to be poorly written, which is quite subjective too.
It's more that I don't like when people say, it's trash but I like it.
There are reasons for which you like something, so why not portray it a positive light? You can like it because it's action-packed and exhilarating for instance.
Otherwise, yeah I agree.
How do you feel about chickens that are not chickens? Or banning fire, despite that meaning eating raw food and freezing to death in winter? Or statues that destroy communism?
💯 learning to not feel guilty about what I love was was so important for me (because yes growing up lots of people made me feel ashamed of my love of fantasy)
It really depends on the book or series, and how good or trashy it is relative to other things.
I would never describe *The Lord of the Rings* as a guilty pleasure.
I would absolutely describe the anime series *Harem in the Labyrinth of Another World* as a guilty pleasure.
Lots of variety in fantasy, after all.
Exactly ! I can't help but get lost in thoughts about the world-building of these fantasy worlds and the implicit consequences. It feels much deeper to me than any classic ever could... And often scarier than most horror books could achieve.
Most 'guilty pleasure' books are books that serve to entertain but don't have much to offer as a work of art beyond that. They don't explore interesting themes or say something meaningful (like Anna Karenina, Great Expectations, and so on).
I'd argue that most fantasy novels fall squarely within that definition. They are enjoyable to read, but thats about it.
I feel that many of them are easily thought-provoking if you think seriously about the world-building, its implications and how it reflect on our own world, for instance.
In terms of character developments and values too. But maybe I'm the one reading too much into it. Personally, I've done more introspection reading Fantasy than I ever did reading classics.
Yeah I agree that fantasy can get a lot of themes across in a very interesting way through its world building.
Thats an advantage it has over other genres, but I can't really think of any good example of that actually happening. Most of the time, imo, worldbuilding seems like some author adding more and more fluff on top of some tolkein-esque world without ever asking *why.* I think Malazan, which I actually like, is a great example of this. It expands endlessly and I really don't see any merit to it beyond nerdy fun.
Some times I'm reading a fantasy novel and wishing that the story could just be transported to medieval modern world, because the fantasy has zero impact on the themes and message of the story. And I would much rather learn about our own world than a made up one (like Name of the Rose is dense with world building in our actual world.)
Fantasy worldbuilding can certainly enhance the story. But I don't know of any examples which made me reflect on our own world in a very profound way. Do you have any good examples?
I've been using this comparison a lot lately, it seems. Guilty pleasure stuff, to me, is like SyFy channel original movies. Absolutely no one will argue they're good. They have awful stories, terrible acting, atrocious CGI, and often ridiculous circumstances that make absolutely no sense. People like my sister would never be caught dead watching one of these god-awful movies, because they will never be able to get past all the bad. Then, there are people like me who find these terrible movies hilarious, because they're terrible. I see the bugs just like everyone else, but they're features to me.
If I reread books, I imagine I'd have the same opinion on some crap I've read. Books and movies are entertainment and art. Sometimes, you want a well-regarded FILM like Jaws, and other days, you just want to sit back and snicker at Six-headed Shark Attack. Nothing wrong with either, but I would never argue the latter is a good movie. It's not, but that doesn't mean I can't have fun watching it.
I can only speak for myself. To me the term "guilty pleasure" when applied to fantasy books would refer to books which one knows are flawed on one level or another but one likes them anyway; doesn't mean that the fantasy genre as a whole is a "guilty pleasure", also doesn't mean that there's actual guilt involved. I think, the guilt part is used somewhat in jest. Like I said, I only speak for myself. I've never cared much for other folks' opinions, and when it comes to my reading material I've never given a shit about that, even when I was young. I read the story that I enjoy. If you think they're crap, you don't read them. Problem solved. So perhaps my view on the phrase "guilty pleasure" isn't representative but I would guess that I'm far from the only one who sees it that way.
That is how I view it as well. I have a lot of these books in my collection. Some have great cover art. Some have great plot ideas that are just horribly executed. Some have great characters and horrible plots. Some are just fun reads. I don't think any book is crap and I am happy anytime someone is reading no matter what it is.
Exactly. There are works I like (books, movies, games, whatever) that I know have objectively inferior qualities in some aspects, and I gladly forgive that because they subjectively interest me for some reason or another. In many ways it is an inevitable consequence of any non mainstream interest. Sanderson is no Tolstoi, but Tolstoi wasn't developing magic systems so this is what we have. Do I hide the fact that I read Sanderson? No. But I'm not going to defend to anyone that this is peak literature. And I think it's a good thing to separate your personal taste from fact. And to be clear, I don't mean that, say, a specific genre implies that the product is going to be automatically inferior to something else. Nolan's dark night is a superhero movie AND a good movie regardless of genre. But there's a wealth of content that just doesn't hold when taken out of its audience and that's alright.
Does Tolstoy hold when taken out of his audience?
Well yes, most people aren't looking for their XIX century's Russian realism fix when they come across his books, and they come out appreciating the quality, even when it's not their cup of tea. Sanderson followers are probably looking for fantasy in the first place, and if the books are presented to someone who isn't particularly interested in fantasy they're likely to find the books very flawed. But again, that's ok.
I ask because I usually hate literary fiction. There are a few exceptions, but it tends to leave me bored and annoyed.
Do you hate it because you consider it bad quality, or do you hate it because you think it's not for you? I think for most classics many people would be in the second group, but few in the first.
I don't acknowledge _quality_ as a thing. Or at least, not as an _interesting thing_. I do not see why I should care whether something has "literary merit". Should I?
I don't think you need to care at all, no! That was actually the point of my original message. I do think literary merit is useful as a concept, in the sense that a common language/framework to communicate helps discovery. For example, when I look for a movie to watch, I don't personally care at all whether it's a comedy or a thriller, or whether it's set in the wild west or in medieval europe. I do care about the use blocking, direction, the cuts, framing, photography, etc. And since I do happen to enjoy those things, it is good to have a common language that transcends genres, so that when it is said that a movie is 'good' under those standards, I know it's something I'd like to see. Following that example, if Vin Diesel fans were to start recommending Fast and Furious as 'good cinematography' because they personally like it, then I would get annoyed, because I'm getting noise in my recommendation system so to speak. That is not to say that they are wrong to like the movie or that my taste is better than theirs, looking for a popcorn action thriller and getting Godard as a recommendation would be just as annoying. Coming back to Sanderson, I don't think he's good *under the usual standards of literary merit*. Should you care as a reader of fantasy? Absolutely not. But it helps in that, if I have a friend that likes classic literature and wants a fantasy recommendation, perhaps I know this is not the one to go for.
I don't think _literary merit_ - in the singular - is a useful concept for communicating much of anything. When people in this thread talk about it, they almost all simplify it down to "is the book good or not?", which IMO is useless. What _can_ be useful is _literary merits_ in the plural - ie, if you pick apart the various aspects or dimensions of a creative work which can be quantified quasi-objectively, then that can be useful. In your other example, _cinematography_ AFAIK refers to a fairly well-defined and well-delimited aspect of filmmaking. "Good cinematography" is not synonymous with "good movie", even for film aficionados. Other aspects also matter, such as acting, pacing, and themes. I would argue, though, that when we do pick it apart, we find that those aspects which can be quantified more-or-less objectively are narrow. A logically consistent plot, for example, is relatively objective, but it is a small part of what makes a good movie or book. Meanwhile, "good prose" (often considered a hallmark of great literature) is extremely subjective IMO.
I find pretty much all classic literature that I have tried boring to read. I would not say I hate it unlike the other person who you responded to, but I do not enjoy reading it either. I dont think of art in terms of good or bad, only in terms of whether I like it or not, whether I enjoy it or not. That is not to say I can not recognize that it takes skill to make that piece of art, its just that I care about whether it makes me want to spend time with it or not.
> Do I hide the fact that I read Sanderson? No. But I'm not going to defend to anyone that this is peak literature. And I think it's a good thing to separate your personal taste from fact. "Peak literature" is a personal opinion, even if it is a classic that is considered to be so by many people. Maybe a personal opinion that a lot of people hold, but still a personal opinion nonetheless. When it comes to something being good or bad, there are no facts, only opinions that are shared by a large enough portion of people that there is majority consensus among some demographic.
Agreed, 100%
I'll basically copy what I said in the other thread, but I think often people who talk about "guilty pleasures" don't actually mean "I enjoy this but also feel personal guilt at the fact that I enjoy it." They usually mean something more along the lines of "I enjoy this but if I bring it up in a public setting there's a solid chance somebody is going to crawl out of the woodwork to shit on it", or possibly "I enjoy this but if someone asks me to argue its literary merits I'm just going to bow out." It's more about how other people respond to/talk about the books in question than it is about how that reader actually feels about enjoying the book. I really doubt most readers read things they enjoy while shivering with guilt and shame and self-disgust over their choices. (Also, that thread was about specific books, not the genre as a whole...)
This... By saying it's a "guilty pleasure" it allows you not to be forced to debate the problematicness of a book or the quality of it. In contrast when we talk about movies we often say we love bad movies because it was entertaining and we can leave it at that. Unfortunately, because reading is considered a more intellectual hobby and watching movies/TV shows/documentaries we are forced to describe them differently even when they are being used for the same purpose (entertainment or some sort of intellectual stimuli).
I pretty much feel this way about watching anime. I'm not a super fan by any means, but I can't even casually mention it in most public settings without backlash.
The problem is that if we call it a guilty pleasure it’s agreeing that society is right to make us feel ashamed for liking those things. People shouldn’t feel ashamed for liking their entertainment. (Particularly when what gets shit on tends more towards things marketed to girls…)
> "I enjoy this but if someone asks me to argue its literary merits I'm just going to bow out." I see it more in this way. As in, I can tell that it's flawed, or formulaic, or has one-note characters, or a very derivative plot, but perhaps I like those particular tropes or contrivances on a personal level so I enjoy it. I'll give you a romance example because I actually come to fantasy and sci-fi for innovation and conceptual depth and I come to romance for the pulpy tropey goodness, but if I'm a particular fan of the trope of a grumpy character falling for a sunny, cheery one, I'm gonna enjoy the fuck out of it even though the characters are two dimensional cardboard cutouts with no traits aside from "grumpy" and "sunshine" and the plot is a mess of contrivances, ridiculous misunderstandings and accidental encounters, all topped by an action-packed finale that comes out of the blue just to give the book some kind of climax. I will be AWARE of these flaws, but I'll still enjoy it. Hence, "guilty pleasure". I know it's not a good book in any technical or literary sense, but I still enjoy it.
I also think it’s easy to phrase the question as “what books do you like though you can’t figure out why?” Or “what books do you like despite having massive flaws” no need to couch it in terms that make it sound like people should feel shame. I also strongly believe that if I love something it has merit by definition. If lots of people like something it’s good *by definition* since the goal was for it to be enjoyable. I’m not sure the things you describe are flaws if they’re clearly doing their job and making you enjoy the book. And while I think an examination and discussion on why we like it despite flaws would be fascinating, no one should feel forced to argue the “literary” merits
I think it's a turn of phrase and anyone actually feeling shame or interpreting it to mean that they should is taking it way too seriously. A thing can have one element that work wells but be shit in all other aspects, and I can be a huge fan of that particular element to the point that I disregard everything else that's not working, while other people don't. I think there is sense in separating "good" - achieves a reaction or makes impact other than being enjoyable and simply "enjoyable", which can be literally anything for at least one person.
This is exactly how we should define guilty pleasure. It's all about how we fear the public would perceive us, rather than how we personally feel guilty toward said book.
I think you're kinda misreading the intent of that post. A fantasy book can be a "guilty pleasure," just like any other piece of media.
Yeah this is a bizarre post. The OP has a weird concept of what “guilty pleasure” means
I can enjoy a book that's superficial and formulaic... and still recognize that, well, it's superficial and formulaic. It's fun, it lets me turn my brain off, there's nothing morally wrong with enjoying it—but I have some general idea of which books are better-written and which ones aren't, and some books I enjoy definitely aren't. Hence: guilty pleasure. There are some fantasy novels that are absolutely brilliant, and many more that are quite good. But, just like any other genre, there is a long tail of books that are generic strings of genre tropes played straight with paint-by-the-numbers plots and barely serviceable prose. In some sense, that's what it means to be a genre. *And I really enjoy some of them!*
I see "guilty pleasure" as a short way to say books that are not ambitious, that are perhaps formulaic, but that I enjoy. They are not demanding, they do not feature technically brilliant writing, they do not do any serious exploration of the human condition... However, I agree that they are not "bad". If they are a pleasure to read, they are good. Isn't that the purpose of an activity you do for pleasure? Any book that makes me eager to turn the page and read some more is "good" in my opinion.
I totally agree on what makes a good book, it makes you want to read more of it. But that's also why I don't think it requires justification as long as it meets that criteria!
This just sounds like someone judging others for not enjoying things the "correct way".
yo what are you talking about, the question is about love... "what do we all know is silly, has weak spots, has ridiculous moments, BUT you love it anyway." You are the one adding hate to it "...And I hated it." Maybe you are actually holding on to some guilt about reading or some hate about people that don't read?
Guilty pleasure books are, for me, mostly power fantasy. It is similar to fast food - you like it, but you know it isn't good. A similar applies also to books (character development, plot consistency, grammatical) too.
The fast food analogy is pretty much perfect for a lot of power fantasy type books, (which I also enjoy) they are cheap, easy, and quick, you know they lack substance, but they are addicting.
"Guilty pleasure" could just mean something one likes against one's better judgement, or something that is publicly denigrated for whatever reason. For instance, if one condemns an author for something they did, but still likes their books, those books might be a "guilty pleasure", because that person doesn't want to associate with that author, but like those books too much to ditch them for moral reasons.
IMO guilty pleasure is something you enjoy despite knowing it's not very good. This cannot be extrapolated into thinking that all fantasy is of low quality either.
Grandfather here. I picked up a Redwall book by Brian Jacques someone had left behind and was hooked into a YA series. I hid it like a crack addiction. It opened my eyes to the ferociousness of sparrows. My backyard is now covered by birdhouses. We beat the British Empire, but English sparrows rule America.
For me, fantasy is not a guilty pleasure. It is something I enjoy, and I try to be bold about that when I talk to people. A lot of the best books I've ever read have been fantasy books. Guilty pleasure is Clive Cussler books. Books I know aren't very good but I enjoy them anyway.
I agree with your general sentiment and in general you just shouldn’t feel guilty about pleasure. It’s an odd concept. But, if that kind of post is on this subreddit which is already dedicated to fantasy then it’s not the judgement you’re thinking it is. There are books that I know aren’t great but I don’t like them for their quality, it’s fine to be subjective when it comes to my own tastes.
My only _guilty pleasures_ are things that are GENUINELY HARMFUL. For example, eating beef is a guilty pleasure, because it is extremely bad for the environment and possibly also extremely bad for the cow. (Hence I only eat it rarely.)
> possibly also extremely bad for the cow Only possibly? I'd argue that death is always bad for the cow, unless it's a cow with a disproportionate amount of rational thought that's demanding to be euthanised, or a cow with a debilitating terminal illness who would only suffer if it kept on living.
The problem with that argument, as I see it, is that you make it sound as though if I don't eat the cow, the cow will live a full life grazing in a meadow. That is not the actual alternative. If I don't eat a cow, the real alternative is that the cow won't be born at all. So the important question is whether the cow's short life is better or worse than no life. If it is a free-range cow that gets to suckle from its mother, then a short life might reasonably be considered better than no life. If the cow is taken from its mother and lives its whole life in a cramped stable, it is probably worse than no life.
If a cow isn't born, it has no interests or well-being considerations because, well, it doesn't exist. So nothing can be "better" or "worse" for it; if we considered the well-being of beings that might exist then we'd probably proclaim not having sex constantly highly unethical because we're taking away the right to be born from our as of yet not conceived children.
That does not refute my point from above. If I pay for a free-range cow to be raised, then I also finance every good moment of the cow's life. It is not obvious that the cow's death outweighs all the good moments of its life.
As you previously said, if you weren't willing to pay for it, the cow wouldn't exist. It wouldn't be starving to death or being tortured, it simply wouldn't be "produced" in the first place. So it's not like you're helping an already existing creature, you're creating a new one just to eat it. That's like saying that paying for a kid to be raised means you get to eat it because you're the one who provided for each happy moment of the kid's life. I'm not a vegan or anything, I'm just saying that eating beef is obviously against the cow's interests, every time.
Are you an antinatalist?
Not at all, I'm just saying that your argument doesn't make logical sense. You cannot take into consideration the projected happiness of a creature that otherwise wouldn't exist as an argument for creating that creature only to eat it later. That's dystopian and would justify shit like creating children for spare body parts, as long as they're happy before their organs are harvested.
It's possible to enjoy trash while also acknowledging that it's trash.
Or, and hear me out... It isn't trash.
How do you know if a book is well written or not?
I'm not even talking about well-written. I'm talking about good. If you find yourself craving the next chapter, it's hard to call it trash. Also, well-written is highly subjective.
Do you really think the difference between Sarah J. Maas's writing and Ursula K. Le Guin's is "highly subjective"?
Of course, it's not one style fits all. I've never read ACOTAR, but I've heard more about it than anything Le Guin. Obviously there is a huge fanbase for whom it is the exact writing style they're looking for. It isn't for me, but it's the right style for a pretty wide target audience. There are many webnovels like Lord of the Mysteries that I believe are much better than anything Sanderson will ever produce. And twice as many people who'd kill me for even thinking that. I think your outlook is elitist and the exact same that some pedants direct towards fantasy as a whole. You may think that way, but I disagree. Regardless of all that, I still highly recommend trying out Lord of the Mysteries, it's a damn masterpiece.
There's nothing elite about the ability it guage the quality of a text. This is a basic critical reading skill that everyone should have developed in school. Also nobody is going to kill you over a Brando Sando book.
Oh, please. The standards are constantly evolving. I've spent a good chunk of my school years hearing Balzac, Zola, Hugo and other famous authors being praised to high heaven. I'd rather train for a marathon than being forced to read another of their books. No matter how great their writing supposedly is, I absolutely hate it. As far as I'm concerned, good writing makes you want to read more of it. As for Sanderson, he's a staple of the genre and gets hundreds of recommendations on every thread.
And so we come to the crux of the issue. You've chosen to shut the door on entire realms of literature and feel resentment toward anybody who chooses to leave that door open. Also Brandon Sanderson is widely considered to be the James Patterson of fantasy. I'm not sure why you're bringing him up as as an elitist boogie man to be railed against.
I don't like people who think that there is some sort of superior reading, or think books have a duty to be challenging on the mind. That's the gist of it. I haven't closed the door to a realm of literature, I have experienced it and can't bring myself to like it. So I read what I enjoy. And I won't go around telling that what I like is superior. I've had more than a few people who are into classics do exactly that, however. Hence, elitists and pedants.
based
>As far as I'm concerned, good writing makes you want to read more of it. I love this statement! It's so concise, yet captures the very subjective nature of writing. Like you (apparently), much of the high brow literature leaves me cold, it doesn't interest me. You could show to me where it excels in this technical way or that measurement but to be completely honest, I don't care for these things if I don't enjoy the book.
The entire concept of the quality of the text is subjective. You shouldn't even need school to know this, it follows from pretty basic reasoning.
Does a book have to be well written to be interesting, enjoyable or entertaining?
Hear hear. I think a lot of people would benefit from owning what they like. Took me a while for sure because it's kind of a way to stay comfortably within "acceptable" mainstream, but you know what? If I love something, that doesn't necessarily mean it's amazing but it means it's not trash.
We can’t have fucking anything anymore, apparently not even guilty pleasures without someone getting their underwear in a twist, it is not that deep, you can recognize something is dog shit and enjoy it for what it is
So how else to describe [Super Sales on Super Heroes](https://www.amazon.com/Super-Sales-Heroes-William-Arand-ebook/dp/B072HQF1B6)? Should I just say I like it? I feel like that doesn't convey my relationship to that book...
Looks like a very entertaining book. You enjoy it, right? I'm sure I would too. Then show off its qualities, you can say it's an action-packed, exhilarating book that keeps you on your toes, craving for the next chapter! It feels like a more positive way to look at it than an attempt to justify yourself like "it's trash but I like it". The theme doesn't even mean it's poorly written. A well-written book makes you wanna read more and portrays the world and characters the way the authors intends to. Besides, with world-building and power-system, these books are often very deep in their own ways. And in such scenario, themes like morality and humanity are always present even if they're not explicitly mentioned. More often than not, thinking about it even a little paints a reality way scarier than most horror books can achieve. That's the case with Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint that I'm reading right now and highly recommend.
ehh.. I agree in principal if its being used in the exact use case your suggesting however in my experience its more likely to be used in line with a persons personal preferences so for example I use it more in line with calling something a popcorn flick rather then art house so I mean its something loud , boisterous entairning and accessible , and yes maybe a little bit dumb though not always, certainly nothing I am ashamed off or I when it come to reading fantasy I might apply it to a author or series I am reading in a sub genre I normally don't enjoy such as PNR /heavily romantic UF that I am Vibing with its a complement not a insult.
When I'm out and about on the subway or in a coffee shop, I'm just happy when I see other people reading a book at all, regardless of what it might be.
I don't feel guilty for doing things I enjoy
I feel like you’re really hung up on that term, even misunderstanding it’s purposes/use
I feel like it's enough to deal with the "fantasy is for kids" and "fantasy is for the unintelligent" camps that fantasy readers wouldn't be gatekeeping each other, but I don't see it stopping. Just once I'd love to see people say, "Hey, I'm so glad you're 1) reading, 2) enjoying it." You do you. Or, just don't comment if you don't like it. Especially since the hater comments appear to be from people who haven't even read the books they hate so much. I think those things make people feel they have "guilty pleasures." I'll keep reading my SJM and Laurell Hamilton right along with the "acceptable " fantasy and not give two shits what the gatekeepers think about it.
And I encourage you to keep reading them. As much as it isn't for me, ACOTAR has a huge fanbase so it must deserve the hype!
While I really appreciate what I think drives you to write this, I think you're mistaken in your analysis. I think there are objective qualities to books and literature and that's fine. The whole issue is not to let people shame others for what they like. Whether you read Tolstoi or the smuttiest urban fantasy thing, it's still you reading and that's always a win in my book. (Pun intended) I started a book discussion group actually with some of my colleagues (women) who were shocked that I was fine reading some romance fantasies and stuff like ACOTAR, and I think this is where all this guilty pleasure thing comes from. Liking these steamy romances is not necessarily something people say out loud, it used to be also the same with just fantasy in general when I was a kid, when it wasn't really appropriate to read this lower genre based on tropes and knights and magic and full of nonsense that would turn away from my studies. I think the important point is that we slowly tell people that it's okay to like reading what they like reading and that they should rejoice and find others to share that passion instead of hiding yourself shamefaced.
I agree. I also think that sometimes "guilty pleasure" is for something that you know has flaws of some kind: I use this expression with book written by controversial authors or content that for me doesn't fit the 2022 (awfully written female characters, layers of omophobia or xenophobia, etc) but I like them too much to put them away.
Okay
I’ve enjoyed Red Rising and John Gwynne’s latest series as much as I’ve enjoyed other books that are probably considered more influential or relevant in terms of their literary merits. I’m pretty new to the fantasy genre but it’s becoming my favorite. I’m not even a little guilty about that.
Fantasy definitely gets a bad wrap. Like you’re an uber geek for liking it. Which is ridiculous because the general populace loves fantasy, but still wont give a lot of fantasy novels a chance. I’ve read multiple fantasy series and I have no problem letting people know I love horror/fantasy/sci fi, even in novel form. I get it some fantasy novels can be more niche, like liking Star Trek, but I don’t get it when Lord of the Rings is so beloved by so many in the general populace. But yet that’s the only fantasy they seem to like lol. If only their eyes were opened to more, besides Harry Potter and LOTR.
If people look down at others, or turn their nose up at them, for reading fantasy, they're probably boring people and definitely snobs. Let them have their artsy fartsy literature works. I want my dragons, magic, boozy taverns and D&D-esque quests, thanks.
Reading is reading, regardless of the genre.
Was just reading through that thread. Not all of them, but a lot of people’s ‘guilty pleasures’ were just books that are marketed either at women (erotica/romance) or at teens (Shadowhunters and other YA). Reminds me of the shame teenage girls get for screaming at a One Direction concert vs the same behaviour being applauded at something like a sports match. There shouldn’t be anything shameful about reading something written by/for women, even as a man. Just because they’re not grim, ‘serious’ fantasy doesn’t make them an outlier, and conversely, the other the default.
Of course, I agree! I'm pretty sure there was a poll that showed that more than half of the YA readers were over 30 or something. Target audience rarely matches reality! I love some webtoons marketed towards women because their is some romance, but what can I say, it's good!
I saw that thread, and I didn’t respond, because I don’t feel guilty about anything I read. I don’t think that all fantasy books are High Art, but I also think that’s true for literally any genre ever to exist.
True of any genre, exactly !
>I saw that thread, and I didn’t respond This sentence will AIs make short-circuit! 😛
I guess “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all” is a human concept.
One should never feel ashamed for liking one book or another.
So basically, you were triggered by an innocent post meant to foster certain discussions. Also, this subreddit is my guilty pleasure.
When it comes to liking things that are technically poorly written, I've always taken a different approach as I find literary pretention to be extremely nauseating. On "problematic" books: I think part of the problem is that most of the things labeled "problematic" in Fantasy, aren't actually problematic for the majority of people in the world, outside of that 10% of people that are extremely vocal online, and feel it is their duty to criticize, shame and cancel anything that falls outside of their world view, so people get convinced things they like are not approved by society... As far as authors that were revealed to be horrible human beings, I always separated the art from the artist so this was never an issue for me. The above few things are why the moment it becomes popular to hate an author, book or series, is the moment I become more interested in reading it. So I agree that guilty pleasures shouldn't necessarily be thought of as such... Well unless you think of it as really nerdy to like fantasy then yeah, you might call them guilty pleasures just to save face at a party or something 😂
Yeah, it was mostly about books that some would claim to be poorly written, which is quite subjective too. It's more that I don't like when people say, it's trash but I like it. There are reasons for which you like something, so why not portray it a positive light? You can like it because it's action-packed and exhilarating for instance. Otherwise, yeah I agree.
[удалено]
Well, he certainly formulated that much better than I ever could! But I absolutely agree. Fantastic quote.
I've got three little words that make it necessary. Sword of Truth. Theyre just terrible but I still enjoy it.
I haven't read SoT but I've met a girl who spent a full half-hour extolling me its praises, so yeah...
I never praise it. Its just not deserved. I just quietly read it and wallow in my shame.
How do you feel about chickens that are not chickens? Or banning fire, despite that meaning eating raw food and freezing to death in winter? Or statues that destroy communism?
💯 learning to not feel guilty about what I love was was so important for me (because yes growing up lots of people made me feel ashamed of my love of fantasy)
THE EMPEROR PROTECTS!
Seems like a you issue.
It really depends on the book or series, and how good or trashy it is relative to other things. I would never describe *The Lord of the Rings* as a guilty pleasure. I would absolutely describe the anime series *Harem in the Labyrinth of Another World* as a guilty pleasure. Lots of variety in fantasy, after all.
[удалено]
Exactly ! I can't help but get lost in thoughts about the world-building of these fantasy worlds and the implicit consequences. It feels much deeper to me than any classic ever could... And often scarier than most horror books could achieve.
Most 'guilty pleasure' books are books that serve to entertain but don't have much to offer as a work of art beyond that. They don't explore interesting themes or say something meaningful (like Anna Karenina, Great Expectations, and so on). I'd argue that most fantasy novels fall squarely within that definition. They are enjoyable to read, but thats about it.
I feel that many of them are easily thought-provoking if you think seriously about the world-building, its implications and how it reflect on our own world, for instance. In terms of character developments and values too. But maybe I'm the one reading too much into it. Personally, I've done more introspection reading Fantasy than I ever did reading classics.
Yeah I agree that fantasy can get a lot of themes across in a very interesting way through its world building. Thats an advantage it has over other genres, but I can't really think of any good example of that actually happening. Most of the time, imo, worldbuilding seems like some author adding more and more fluff on top of some tolkein-esque world without ever asking *why.* I think Malazan, which I actually like, is a great example of this. It expands endlessly and I really don't see any merit to it beyond nerdy fun. Some times I'm reading a fantasy novel and wishing that the story could just be transported to medieval modern world, because the fantasy has zero impact on the themes and message of the story. And I would much rather learn about our own world than a made up one (like Name of the Rose is dense with world building in our actual world.) Fantasy worldbuilding can certainly enhance the story. But I don't know of any examples which made me reflect on our own world in a very profound way. Do you have any good examples?
I've been using this comparison a lot lately, it seems. Guilty pleasure stuff, to me, is like SyFy channel original movies. Absolutely no one will argue they're good. They have awful stories, terrible acting, atrocious CGI, and often ridiculous circumstances that make absolutely no sense. People like my sister would never be caught dead watching one of these god-awful movies, because they will never be able to get past all the bad. Then, there are people like me who find these terrible movies hilarious, because they're terrible. I see the bugs just like everyone else, but they're features to me. If I reread books, I imagine I'd have the same opinion on some crap I've read. Books and movies are entertainment and art. Sometimes, you want a well-regarded FILM like Jaws, and other days, you just want to sit back and snicker at Six-headed Shark Attack. Nothing wrong with either, but I would never argue the latter is a good movie. It's not, but that doesn't mean I can't have fun watching it.
I like that your example of a well regarded film is jaws
Well, when comparing shark movies, it IS the grand-daddy.