Is it elitist to condemn Colleen Hoover books?

Five weeks ago, a user commented the following on a Booksta reel: "I'm sorry, but if intellectually thought provoking novel readers can't look down on smut and romance readers then your standards are low". This comment now has over 2000 likes. I see this discussion occur more and more in various corners of the reading community. On one side, you have the readers who like to read classics and delve into complex themes and ideas. On the other, you have the readers who love to read popular fiction for the escapism and entertainment it offers them. Is it valid to critique books of popular fiction as someone who reads classics? To which extent is critique an actual critique of the work, and when does it start to shame others for their reading material?

I confess I have never read a single Colleen Hoover book, though I've listened to people's thoughts and reviews on them. For that reason, I think it would be unfair to focus only on her books, so for the sake of this article, let's shift to the broader genre of popular fiction (i.e. all works of popular fiction with a heavy focus on escapism and entertainment).

The video that inspired this article was made by @kevintnorman on Instagram. I will leave a link to the post here. For those who can't be bothered to watch it, it essentially shows a video of a person, who reads old Russian literature, refusing to be understood as being part of the same BookTok as a person who reads Colleen Hoover books. Kevin then replies to that by saying that if you are a true reader, you should be happy that people are reading in the first place; if you condemn others for their "lighter" reading material, then you're not reading for the right reasons; you're reading because you think it makes you better than everybody else.

Though I lean towards Kevin's view of the situation, I do place myself in the middle of these two views. There is an important distinction here that cannot be ignored. Some books are aimed towards entertainment and escapism, and some books are aimed towards social criticism and intellectual thought. In the Netherlands, where I am from, we would not even call works that are in English called popular fiction, literature. We have a separate word for those books: lectuur (this is why I don't refer to it as popular literature, but as popular fiction). In Dutch, lectuur is often described as being about "what the reader wants to hear", is "easy to read" and that it "does not have a lot of depth", whereas literatuur, i.e. classic literature, is about making the reader think about relevant topics, is generally more ambiguous in meaning, and is more likely to offer social criticism.

In high school, I remember having to read an opinionated article about this distinction, which was quite obviously partial to literature. It made me feel incredibly frustrated, because while I agree with making the distinction between literature and popular fiction in the first place, I don't think that the distinction has value because it illustrates that one is better than the other. The distinction has value because it makes readers aware of what type of books they are reading within a broader context of books, and what this means for them. However, I do not believe in condemning people for reading or preferring one or the other. They might have great differences, but that doesn't mean they are unequal in weight or significance, because even though popular fiction might not have the same value as literature, that does not mean it is devoid of value altogether.

In fact, I think popular fiction is essential in keeping the love of reading alive. The power of words is not only that it makes us think about and reflect on complicated topics; it also allows us to escape reality and enjoy worlds of fiction that will never be our own experience. This is the power that gives people strength, inspires them, or offers them reprieve from a complicated life. And this should not be overlooked.

And here is another fact about popular fiction you simply can't ignore: because it is popular, it is what the majority of society is reading. This makes works of popular fiction heavily influential, and what books become highly popular reflect the desires of large parts of society. Ross MacDonald explains this beautifully:

"Popular fiction, popular art in general, is the very air a civilisation breathes. […] A book which can be read by everyone, a convention which is widely used and understood in all its variations, holds a civilisation together as nothing else can." (Kenneth Millar, ‘Down These Streets’, 1977)

There is a certain accessibility to popular fiction that is essential in understanding its influence. Additionally, by studying it, we get an idea of the shared norms and values of society and what themes people are interested in.

Then there is literature, which I consider equally as important as popular fiction. Literature may not offer escapism and entertainment as much as popular fiction does, but it makes us think and reflect in ways that are difficult to do when we are reading a book that is solely geared towards our enjoyment. Sometimes we have to think about matters that are uncomfortable to think about, about aspects of life and society that are tragic, ugly, frustrating. The study of literature is essential for social and ethical awareness, and the betterment of life overall.

In other words, both popular fiction and literature are valuable, just for very different reasons. Now, their relation to each other may also be more intricate that you might think, which Millar has also shared his ideas about:

"I believe that popular culture is not and need not be at odds with high culture, any more than the rhythms of walking are at odds with the dance. Popular writers learn what they can from the masters; and even the masters may depend on the rather sophisticated audience and the vocabulary of shapes and symbols which popular fiction provides. […] A functioning popular literature appears to be very useful if not essential to the growth of a higher literature." (Kenneth Millar, ‘Down These Streets’, 1977)

In other words, popular fiction and literature can be seen as depending on each other. They loan from and build on each other's existence; they inform each other.

In light of this information, I would like to refer back to the initial quote, which was a comment on @kevintnorman's reel: "I'm sorry but if intellectually thought provoking novel readers can't look down on smut and romance readers then your standards are low".

What do we do with this idea in the light of what was just discussed? In my opinion, looking down on others for reading popular fiction is basically just to giving yourself a pat on the shoulder for reading intellectually challenging works. Which is great; if that is what you enjoy reading, more power to you. But I also think you can enjoy your literary books without shaming others for not doing the same.

In any case, it is futile; people who read popular fiction will continue to do so. Instead of trying to lessen the enjoyment others get out of popular fiction, you could, alternatively, share your knowledge. Because "intellectual, thought-provoking novel readers" have something to offer the popular fiction readers. Applying the same critical stance required for reading literary fiction can also shed light on some issues in popular fiction.

Issues in popular fiction, you say? Yes. Let me explain what I mean with that. First off, different levels of quality exist within popular fiction. The term is a large generalization, after all. Let's consider the following:

Pride and Prejudice is popular fiction. So is Twilight.

Rebecca is popular fiction. So is Credence.

Clearly, some works of popular fiction manage to be both popular and tackle complex themes at the same time. Other works of popular fiction are so deeply geared towards escapism that they forget about the lived experience of readers and the messages it leaves them with. When the messaging of a book is problematic, it is essential that we can point out those flaws, so long as we do it constructively and respectfully (the other article I have written on the importance of bad reviews is linked here).

I would dare argue that this conversation perhaps more relevant than ever before, since BookTok is rapidly changing the reading landscape. @travelling_through_pages_ on Instagram recently weighed in on her view on this matter. In this video, she explains that she thinks the books that are getting published recently is going down. In her caption, she writes:

"[...] I think this has been a problem ever since the rise of BookTok. This is in part due to the time constraint on TikTok, especially if you want your video to perform well. How can you make an accurate description of a novel in only 5-7 seconds? The book gets reduced to a set of tropes used, the [spice] levels, and maybe there‘s a quote thrown in if you‘re lucky.

I think this has prompted the publishing of books that are essentially just a trope checklist. Because who cares about the plot? Character development? World-building? It has enemies-to-lovers, the just one bed trope, and it’s super spicy, so obviously you need to read it; everything else be damned!

We‘re getting sequels published just 7 months after the first book was released to make as much profit as possible, when it used to take years. The fact that this timeline compromises on quality isn‘t a huge shock."

Sadly, I see the truth of what she is saying. If the marketability of a book becomes its main focus, then the result is books written around its tropes rather than its story or themes. Right now, I'm experiencing something of the sort with the book Powerless. It feels like I'm reading a book that is so bent on squeezing in banter and the enemies-to-lovers trope that the reason behind the main character and the love interest being so-called enemies is not even properly worked out. The main character first saves the love interest's life, and then proceeds to hate him. The question of why this happens is never properly answered. It is no wonder, then, that the reIationship lacks chemistry and credibility to me.

I am not the only one. More and more people are growing frustrated with the standards of popular books; yet they hardly ever dare open their mouths to speak on the matter, because they are afraid of the backlash of the millions of people that are part of the huge fandoms of these bestsellers. That is such a shame, because their perspectives are very valuable. Just like we should not shame people for what they like to read, we should not shame people for what they don't like to read.

Now, just to get back to the central question: Is it elitist to condemn Colleen Hoover books?

The answer to this question is yes, if you are condemning Colleen Hoover readers just because they are not reading literary works, then that is elitist. However, if you are criticizing Colleen Hoover books for its faults and problematic ideas, then you're trying to push popular fiction to a better standard.

In the end, generalizations like "people who read classic literature are better than people who read popular fiction" are baseless, and, in the end, pointless. We should never shame people for their reading material, whether it be popular fiction or classic literature. Rather, we should have and encourage conversations about the books themselves.

Sources:

https://schrijvenonline.org/nieuws/wat-is-het-verschil-tussen-literatuur-en-lectuur

https://www.cambiumned.nl/literatuur/literatuur-en-lectuur/

Ross MacDonald [aka Kenneth Millar], ‘Down These Streets’, 1977, p.895.

@kevintnorman on Instagram

@travelling_through_pages on Instagram