I agree that low brow is not a great or useful term. For me I tend to think whether a book is plot-driven (engaging to read) or very literary (writing focused) but the ideal for me is to find a book that is both and those books can be genre fiction or literary fiction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg. You are my people. I love Valley of the Dolls with a passion, and IRL I know only one other person who liked Swet Valley High. This is awesome!

Jessica or Elizabeth?

Lila Fowler.

Hahaha I can’t get over finding other SVH readers. This is a blast.

You SVH fans better be listening to the Double Love podcast.

NP, and seeing all the SVH talk made me wonder what happened to Elizabeth and Jessica when they grew up!? You know, as they are real people and all. Have all of you read Sweet Valley Confidential? I had no idea it existed until I popped my question into Google.

Ok...but that's just 10 years later, in their mid-late 20s? I remember reading about 16 year old Jessica and Elizabeth when i was about 12--so they are at least several years older than me. I'm 47, so they'd be in their early 50s now?

Anonymous wrote:Miss Fortune Series.

Love these books - light hearted and fun and very unique. Jana Deleon is the author

Anything by V.C. Andrews.

Crazy Rich Asians. Not my usual type of book AT ALL. But I loved them.

Lurlene McDaniel was a favorite YA trashy author. The teenage protagonist always had some chronic illness, often terminal, and there would be a soap opera tragedy. Like, two friends on the heart transplant list needed the same organ. Or a girl was in a horrible car accident with her mother and her mother died and she lived but the blood transfusion gave her AIDS. Or the girl with the fatal brain tumor finds her true love, who has cystic fibrosis. Or the other girl with the type 1 diabetes and eating disorder has a huge fight with her hemophiliac boyfriend but then he gets kicked by a horse. Absolutely maudlin garbage and I loved it. My mother bought me the books but I thought her eyes would about roll out of her head every time she did.

Anonymous wrote:Bukowski

That's so funny, his work is "low-life" but it's not "low-brow"

Jenny Colgan books. Can’t get enough!

Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones

Any kind of regency/victorian romance- I used to read them when I was a high school nerd. Now, they're hardwired into my brain as "comfort reading."
I think it's because British high society during those times was structured like a John Hughes movie, so I identified.

I guess for me it’s lowbrow if it made me laugh or brought me joy.

Highbrow if it made me weep or feel bad about others or myself.

Apparently, ‘highbrow’ and ‘lowbrow’ come from phrenology, the nineteenth-century science of regarding the shape of the skull as a key to intelligence. A ‘high’ forehead meant intelligence; a ‘low’ one meant stupidity. Phrenology thrived as a popular science in the late nineteenth century and led eventually to the racial theories of the Nazis, for whom the Jewish cranium and pale, sunken face were clear indications of Jewish racial inferiority.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is lowbrow?

People may have different opinions, but I think of it as books that aren’t considered “literature” and more likely to be viewed as genre books - romance, sci-fi, horror, fantasy, westerns, mysteries, thrillers, etc. Of course there are lots of gray areas and overlap. Also, if something stays popular long enough, it eventually gets redesignated as a classic, which by definition is “highbrow” regardless of literary merit (Beowulf? Canterbury Tales?).

But what does it mean? Does it mean, not intelligent? What does that have to do with low brow? Is that eyebrows? Does it mean it’s like, what, are we talking Neanderthal? Does it mean unintelligent? I’m really trying to understand. Why would reading be considered unintelligent?

PP here. I’ll try to clarify, but maybe others can jump in and offer their perspectives as well.

Here is a google search of definitions of lowbrow. The general theme seems to be that something does not provide significant intellectual or cultural benefits, nor does it demand significant intellectual work or background to enjoy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lowbrow+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#ip=1

Perhaps you could look at it as lowbrow books are meant more for gratification than edification. While you may learn some vocabulary or trivia or run across a quote that is meaningful, you’re probably not reading them to learn something in particular, to gain deep insight into yourself or your fellow man, to delve into spiritual or philosophical matters, to revel in the mastery of a consummate wordsmith, etc., you just want to enjoy yourself for a while. If you compare books to food, lowbrow books would be cotton candy.

Ah. So like, tv. The term seems kind of offensive. Also, I think most books, regardless of genre, give insight into other humans, so that doesn’t really resonate.

PP back again. I agree that lowbrow books can have value in a lot of ways, including insight into others. As I said earlier, there’s a lot of overlap and gray areas. I think maybe it has to do with what an average person’s primary purpose in reading the book would be. For example, while somebody might read Harry Potter to get insight into human behavior, or into English boarding school practices, or a comparative study of how witches have been portrayed in literature through history, I think most people would agree that the average reader reads it just for fun and appreciates any other benefits as a positive side-effect, so it would probably be generally categorized as lowbrow. I thoroughly enjoyed the series and personally read it sheerly for enjoyment. I think, however, that as popular as it is it will last long enough to eventually be considered a literary classic. Scholars will analyze it with a microscope and unlike contemporary readers who used to complain about how badly it was written (not me - I thought it was a great tale - my only criteria) they will marvel at Rowling’s extraordinary skill at using literary devices, some of which she probably had no idea she’d featured).

Yes, it’s like TV - and music, paintings, sculpture, computer programs, social media, etc. Value is highly subjective. Lowbrow and highbrow are just general descriptors. While lowbrow may have some negative connotations, I wouldn’t view it as offensive. Lowbrow material is probably more popular than highbrow material. A lot of people might say that highbrow material is dull and only pretentious snobs like it because they want to impress others. I disagree with that perspective as well, for the reasons stated above. I personally have enjoyed and found value in both lowbrow and highbrow works. I have also found works in both categories that I’m indifferent to, and some I actively dislike. Clearly, the posters in this thread find value in lowbrow books and are not trying to denigrate them.

Now that you understand the topic of the thread, I encourage you to share with us some of the lowbrow books you’ve enjoyed and maybe discuss the various positive aspects about them you’ve appreciated. Maybe you can find new gems in some of the titles listed in this thread.

Bukowski

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is lowbrow?

People may have different opinions, but I think of it as books that aren’t considered “literature” and more likely to be viewed as genre books - romance, sci-fi, horror, fantasy, westerns, mysteries, thrillers, etc. Of course there are lots of gray areas and overlap. Also, if something stays popular long enough, it eventually gets redesignated as a classic, which by definition is “highbrow” regardless of literary merit (Beowulf? Canterbury Tales?).

But what does it mean? Does it mean, not intelligent? What does that have to do with low brow? Is that eyebrows? Does it mean it’s like, what, are we talking Neanderthal? Does it mean unintelligent? I’m really trying to understand. Why would reading be considered unintelligent?

PP here. I’ll try to clarify, but maybe others can jump in and offer their perspectives as well.

Here is a google search of definitions of lowbrow. The general theme seems to be that something does not provide significant intellectual or cultural benefits, nor does it demand significant intellectual work or background to enjoy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lowbrow+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#ip=1

Perhaps you could look at it as lowbrow books are meant more for gratification than edification. While you may learn some vocabulary or trivia or run across a quote that is meaningful, you’re probably not reading them to learn something in particular, to gain deep insight into yourself or your fellow man, to delve into spiritual or philosophical matters, to revel in the mastery of a consummate wordsmith, etc., you just want to enjoy yourself for a while. If you compare books to food, lowbrow books would be cotton candy.

Ah. So like, tv. The term seems kind of offensive. Also, I think most books, regardless of genre, give insight into other humans, so that doesn’t really resonate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is lowbrow?

People may have different opinions, but I think of it as books that aren’t considered “literature” and more likely to be viewed as genre books - romance, sci-fi, horror, fantasy, westerns, mysteries, thrillers, etc. Of course there are lots of gray areas and overlap. Also, if something stays popular long enough, it eventually gets redesignated as a classic, which by definition is “highbrow” regardless of literary merit (Beowulf? Canterbury Tales?).

But what does it mean? Does it mean, not intelligent? What does that have to do with low brow? Is that eyebrows? Does it mean it’s like, what, are we talking Neanderthal? Does it mean unintelligent? I’m really trying to understand. Why would reading be considered unintelligent?

PP here. I’ll try to clarify, but maybe others can jump in and offer their perspectives as well.

Here is a google search of definitions of lowbrow. The general theme seems to be that something does not provide significant intellectual or cultural benefits, nor does it demand significant intellectual work or background to enjoy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lowbrow+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#ip=1

Perhaps you could look at it as lowbrow books are meant more for gratification than edification. While you may learn some vocabulary or trivia or run across a quote that is meaningful, you’re probably not reading them to learn something in particular, to gain deep insight into yourself or your fellow man, to delve into spiritual or philosophical matters, to revel in the mastery of a consummate wordsmith, etc., you just want to enjoy yourself for a while. If you compare books to food, lowbrow books would be cotton candy.