Alan Jacobs wrote a short set of theses on the way people have tended to think and write about the various literary “-brows”: highbrow, middlebrow, lowbrow. I liked the theses, but think he is wrong about this one:
- For a long time now there has been no genuine lowbrow reading. Those who insist on all their expectations being fulfilled can get that hit much more efficiently through movies, TV, Instagram, TikTok, etc.
This is simply untrue: the most popular books in the world, as evidenced by the contents of any airport bookstore or (especially) the top pages on any ebook store will tell you otherwise. Alan’s description of what-gets-called “lowbrow” and “highbrow”:
The reader who demands that all of his or her expectations be met is often called a lowbrow reader; the writer whose work habitually meets such readers’ expectations is often called a lowbrow writer.
The reader who craves surprise, excess, extremity, who is impatient with work that confirms typical expectations, is often called a highbrow reader; the writer whose work consistently violates norms and transgresses standards is often called a highbrow writer.
There are certainly some dramas, some thrillers, and some romances which do in fact surprise, do in fact reject typical expectations. But most of the published books in those genres are all about meeting the reader’s expectations. (That goes quintuple for the YA market, which has a great many adult readers among its audience.) It is also true that there are plenty of alternatives to those which are even easier for people — but it remains the case that lots of people do in fact choose books to meet those particular expectations: more of them than of the rest of the reading world combined, in fact.