You’re dating an ape?
For shame sir, for shame
Then why the hell would you put Orwell (something that many students read in high school) in your high-brow list, while relegating Vladamir fucking Nabakov to low-brow status?
Honestly, this just seems so arbitrary that it’s almost unreal.
I’m just now seeing this thread, and I (of couse) leap to the defense of Cafe Society. I agree with your comments, Procyon. I remind you that Cafe Society is not just about the arts, but about “arts and entertainment.” I don’t find it surprising that people posting on a Message Board are more interested in discussing entertainment than arts. I think if we surveyed all Message Boards (not just Straight Dope), we’d find far more discussion of Harry Potter than of James Joyce.
I think this would be an interesting topic to raise in Cafe Society (to avoid the personal insults prevalent in the Pit): what is the difference between art (“high brow”) and entertainment (“low brow”)? Procyon, please, if you’d like to start such a discussion?
Personally, I find such distinctions useless. Isn’t the Mona Lisa “popular” and therefore “mere entertainment” rather than art? As noted earlier, the works of such as Shakespeare, Chaucer, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, et al were certainly considered “low brow” in their day. I politely decline to dismiss some work of art on the grounds that it’s “merely entertainment.”
I discount the OP’s distinction of high and low brows. Small British Shop Owner has already defined that “high brow” requires severals centuries to see if it meets the test of enduring (except in literature, apparently, where a few decades is sufficient.) Under that definition, there’s no surprise that we have more discussions of current works of art/entertainment than of those from the 16th Century.
I think also that the focus on more recent entertainment arises precisely because we are an intelligent and reasonably well-educated group. I can express my insights about a contemporary movie. But if I venture an insight about Hamlet, I know that there are almost five centuries of commentary and scholarly thoughts, by those who have spent a lifetime immersed in study of Shakespeare: what more can I add? What can I say beyond very simplistic statements? Hence, there is a natural tendency to the modern and new, which is exciting, rather than the ancient and well-worn.
Finally, I feel obliged to note that find that the categories high/low brow are (IIRC) from the Victorian era, related to class one’s status in society. Since the SDMBs are heavily American, such class distinctions are (frankly) anathema and viewed as elistist snobbery. Dismissal of all cinema as “low brow” pretty much typefies this: no popular entertainment can possibly be art, it’s “low brow” by definition. Since Message Boards are popular entertainment, participation in a Message Board is axiomatically “low brow.” If you want to focus on “high brow” discussions, you’re in the wrong place altogether.
I’m just glad he wasn’t around when we were discussing Kirk Cameron’s mysterious nipples.
Jayne Mansfield’s daughter is HOT! 
If enjoying the Simpsons is lowbrow, I’ll just stand over here with the Geico cavemen.
I’d like to point out what an offensive, racist comment that is.
We don’t play base-ball.
Also, I’ve like to point out that I come from the other end of the country than SBSO. Just wanted to get that out there.
SBSO. Who told you off for being away a few days, your post 7.
I was quite glad actually, was hoping it might turn out to be a permanent abscence
Past art (be it paintings, literature, film, or whatever) only seems better because the good stuff endures and the bad stuff is forgotten. With contemporary art the good and bad are still mixed together.
One irony of the people who complain about the quality of current art is that they usually fail to recognize the good art that’s present before them. In the past, critics have complained about the popularity of Dickens and Twain and Trollope while the “good” authors are ignored.
Yes, CS is supposed to about arts and entertainment. It’s not the conversations about entertainment that bother me, it’s the lack of conversations about art.
I’m not suggesting that CS should or should not any specific thing. But if you survey “all Message Boards” you won’t find daily discussions of physics either.
Good post, C K. The other thing to keep in mind is that this message board, like others, has the habit of attracting a whole bunch of similar threads on similar topics, often across fora, and then those topics go out of style for a few weeks or months before they return. It’s natural, really - someone starts a thread about The Simpsons, and that sparks another idea about Futurama, so someone opens a thread about that, but that makes someone else think of a question about Family Guy, and suddenly it looks like CS is all about adult satire cartoons. And it is…for the moment. Wait a couple of weeks and someone will have a question about Hamlet, which will spin-off into a thread about Much Ado About Nothing, which will inspire a thread on Kenneth Branagh movies, which will lead to discussion of Emma Thompson as Sibyl Trelawny in Harry Potter, which will bring us around to racism in house elves, which will lead to the creation of a Racist Characters in Popular Entertainment thread. It’s sort of fascinating to watch, actually.
Right now in other fora, sexism is the topic du jour. It’s wormed its way into countless threads, because that’s what on our minds at the moment.
I think we’ve all resolved our differences, so I’ll bow out from this thread(I’d love to say gracefully, but it would be a lie) at this point…
Since CS is the place where I spend 90 % of my time at the Dope, I’m a bit puzzled.
The great thing about SDMB and CS is that the regulars here have ditched their hang-ups about such things as “High-Brow” or “Low-Brow”. I can enjoy a Double Whopper extra mayo one day and fancy cross over cuisine the next. A pizza might go well with Eco or Flaubert and I might enjoy a Sauterne and read Ed McBain. The idea, as I perceive it, about CS, is to talk about things we enjoy - and it doesn’t matter if it’s Domino’s pizza, Lovecraft, Verhoeven, Joyce, Big Brother or Orwell.
If you can’t accept that, then the Dope is not for you.
How do you spell noveau riche?
John D. Rockefeller, that’s how!
Add another “u”.
By the way, what is your background in literature, classics, cinema and the like?
My background is utter ignorance, as is my foreground and the bits in between, why?
Seriously, apart from your (intentional?) typo, I don’t understand this. I mean, I undertand each and every word, but I simply cannot grasp what connections this has to my post.
It would seem to me that the best way to raise the level of literary discourse on the boards would be to post interesting and informative literary threads. If you have a background in that sort of thing, perhaps it is something you would care to carry over onto the boards.
I never said I wanted it to be raised.
Sorry, I just realised you were Swedish (or a truck driver), so doesn’t apply - I was working on the assumption that you were American, and probably having on your body a monocole, tweed jacket, and pocket watch.