4 ms·

The concept of a "guilty pleasure" is kind of weird, if you think about it. If you enjoyed reading a book, why does it matter that some narrow subset of humani

The concept of a "guilty pleasure" is kind of weird, if you think about it. If you enjoyed reading a book, why does it matter that some narrow subset of humanity doesn't like it? Critics are supposed to be good at judging on two criteria: 1. Will the average person enjoy this? 2. Is it actually good? Why does it matter to me whether a book is "actually good" or not? One reason is that it's a status marker to like books that are "actually good" and not just popular. Maybe all that "actually good" really means is that high status people like it. But in my opinion, true high status comes from setting the bar, not following it. Stop trying to chase status by following the tastes of high-status people. Instead, just enjoy what you enjoy without apology and without guilt.

qnleigh 2y ago
I would like to think that there is more to quality than status... I feel like this attitude backfires by discouraging people from talking about things they thought were good in certain ways for fear of being dismissed as a snob.
- GMoromisato 2y ago
  Maybe there's more to quality that status, but I don't know what it could be. One argument is that people who read a lot of books know quality. But I don't buy it: maybe people who read a lot of books have different tastes. And in any case, that just reinforces my definition: quality is what a certain (elite) group of people say it is. Another argument is that complex books are better than simple ones. But that just means elite taste-makers like complex books, maybe because they've read so many books that straightforward ones are boring to them. But there's value in books that are easily understood--that's the whole point of writing: to communicate. One shouldn't value opaque books just because they're opaque. Yet another argument is that smart people like good books and dumb people like popular books. Smart people are able to appreciate good books that are beyond most people. The convenient thing about this is that you can show how smart you are by liking certain books, which is way easier than winning a Fields Medal or Nobel Prize. Snark aside, this is just defining "good books" as "books smart people like", which is (in my view) morally equivalent to "books high-status people like". As for "discouraging people from talking about things," I'm not yet arrogant enough to think that my post on Hacker News(!) is going to influence anyone. But if I did, I would tell people to stop worrying what other people think. Stop worrying about whether others think you're a snob or a mid. Like what you like and talk about it as much as you want.
davkan 2y ago
If the only metric by which you judge your media consumption is enjoyment then I could see how a term like guilty pleasure is not relevant to you. If you generally seek media that challenges your comprehension, or grants you new insights into yourself or the world around you, then a Dan Brown book may feel a bit like eating a cookie. It’s not bad for you or anything, you might enjoy it a lot, but the calories may feel a bit empty after.
- GMoromisato 2y ago
  I actually do buy your argument. Yes, people have multiple goals for reading a book and pleasure is only one of them. And there are finite hours in your life, so you have to choose. But I'm mostly arguing against having an absolute, objective scale for "good book" other than popularity. If a book grants new insight, but it's so boring that few read it, then maybe it's not a very good book.
  - davkan 2y ago
    My friend is a poet and will be the first to say we can objectively judge art. I agree to the extent that there are certain criteria we can look at and objectively make a judgement on the quality of the work. I think bad and good are probably reductive, but we can evaluate prose or cinematography for example and make objective judgements on the qualities exhibited by the work. I think largely though the problem here is that “good” is too vague to mean anything to anybody without expansion. Good why? There’s a difference between saying a book is good and a book is well written. Likewise if someone tells me Dan Brown is bad they’ll have to tell me why. Maybe I’ll agree and no longer like the book, or maybe I’ll agree it falls short in plot or characterization but I’ll still like it, and then it will be a guilty pleasure.
    - cryptopian 2y ago
      The closest you can really get to objectivity is to observe which patterns of attributes tend to correlate well to people saying that that piece of media is good. In the end, "good" or "bad" is just my emotional reaction to receiving a piece of art, and there's plenty of art that have all of the usual attributes I associate with good art that leave me completely cold. I prefer to ask whether a piece of art is "effective" or not. An EDM club banger, a classical piano sonata, and a rap battle are all trying to achieve very different things with valued qualities coming from their various subcultures, so ask what the artist is trying to achieve (intricate composition, or shifting units etc) and judge it only in that context
paleogizmo 2y ago
I'm a little surprised to see this discussion in 2025, when people can now watch Netflix offline. The term "airport novel," is no longer in common use, meaning a book you would buy at the Hudson News and read on the plane. Complaints of a bygone era.

qnleigh 2y ago

I would like to think that there is more to quality than status... I feel like this attitude backfires by discouraging people from talking about things they thought were good in certain ways for fear of being dismissed as a snob.

GMoromisato 2y ago
Maybe there's more to quality that status, but I don't know what it could be. One argument is that people who read a lot of books know quality. But I don't buy it: maybe people who read a lot of books have different tastes. And in any case, that just reinforces my definition: quality is what a certain (elite) group of people say it is. Another argument is that complex books are better than simple ones. But that just means elite taste-makers like complex books, maybe because they've read so many books that straightforward ones are boring to them. But there's value in books that are easily understood--that's the whole point of writing: to communicate. One shouldn't value opaque books just because they're opaque. Yet another argument is that smart people like good books and dumb people like popular books. Smart people are able to appreciate good books that are beyond most people. The convenient thing about this is that you can show how smart you are by liking certain books, which is way easier than winning a Fields Medal or Nobel Prize. Snark aside, this is just defining "good books" as "books smart people like", which is (in my view) morally equivalent to "books high-status people like". As for "discouraging people from talking about things," I'm not yet arrogant enough to think that my post on Hacker News(!) is going to influence anyone. But if I did, I would tell people to stop worrying what other people think. Stop worrying about whether others think you're a snob or a mid. Like what you like and talk about it as much as you want.

davkan 2y ago

If the only metric by which you judge your media consumption is enjoyment then I could see how a term like guilty pleasure is not relevant to you. If you generally seek media that challenges your comprehension, or grants you new insights into yourself or the world around you, then a Dan Brown book may feel a bit like eating a cookie. It’s not bad for you or anything, you might enjoy it a lot, but the calories may feel a bit empty after.

GMoromisato 2y ago
I actually do buy your argument. Yes, people have multiple goals for reading a book and pleasure is only one of them. And there are finite hours in your life, so you have to choose. But I'm mostly arguing against having an absolute, objective scale for "good book" other than popularity. If a book grants new insight, but it's so boring that few read it, then maybe it's not a very good book.
- davkan 2y ago
  My friend is a poet and will be the first to say we can objectively judge art. I agree to the extent that there are certain criteria we can look at and objectively make a judgement on the quality of the work. I think bad and good are probably reductive, but we can evaluate prose or cinematography for example and make objective judgements on the qualities exhibited by the work. I think largely though the problem here is that “good” is too vague to mean anything to anybody without expansion. Good why? There’s a difference between saying a book is good and a book is well written. Likewise if someone tells me Dan Brown is bad they’ll have to tell me why. Maybe I’ll agree and no longer like the book, or maybe I’ll agree it falls short in plot or characterization but I’ll still like it, and then it will be a guilty pleasure.
  - cryptopian 2y ago
    The closest you can really get to objectivity is to observe which patterns of attributes tend to correlate well to people saying that that piece of media is good. In the end, "good" or "bad" is just my emotional reaction to receiving a piece of art, and there's plenty of art that have all of the usual attributes I associate with good art that leave me completely cold. I prefer to ask whether a piece of art is "effective" or not. An EDM club banger, a classical piano sonata, and a rap battle are all trying to achieve very different things with valued qualities coming from their various subcultures, so ask what the artist is trying to achieve (intricate composition, or shifting units etc) and judge it only in that context

paleogizmo 2y ago

I'm a little surprised to see this discussion in 2025, when people can now watch Netflix offline. The term "airport novel," is no longer in common use, meaning a book you would buy at the Hudson News and read on the plane. Complaints of a bygone era.