Ok, Ok.. Perhaps I was a bit harsh in muy post.
The thing with this threads is that they very much run the risk of becoming spiting matches where everyone is just trying to belittle the others (now that I think of it, I may even be guilty of that myself) when they could, instead, become an interesting forum for exchanging points of view.
I believe simplicity has its beauty and, like most things in life, lies very much within the responsibility of the reader of a given piece of work (perhaps even more than the author).
Good works of art have many layers. You and I (and, pretty much, anyone who finished 3rd grade) know that well. But what may seem obvious to you might prove trickier for someone else.
In thinking of M&M, I have read it several times in English, once in Spanish and am currently trying to read it in Russian at last. Every single time I have read it, I am taken to a new level of depth and, even if I consider myself pretty good at literary palimpsests, unraveling new layers of significance takes time, dedication and a willingness to do it. Even then, I will sometimes find that my reading of M&M does not necessarily match that of others, including some hot-shot scholars. And, to be honest, I find some pride in this fact.
The thing is, you and I do not have the right to judge how superficial or in-depth someone's approach to a work of art is. Every hour you and I spent dwelling on M&M (or any book, for the matter) is time we did not spend going out with friends, working out, or watching a football match... We make our choices and take what they bring to us and our lives. We shouldn't be so harsh when judging the choices other made.. We should be happy that many people choose to read M&M (however superficially that may have been) instead of wasting their time with other less useful activities.
One last thought: Lord of the Rings.
While it does have a very maniqueist moral structure and little to offer in terms of human complexity when it comes to it's characters, it presents many layers of reading to someone who (like myself) was raised on the Eddas, the Nibelungenlied, Spencer's Fairie Queen and similar works.
Beowulf, the Mabinogion and the Ulster Cycle (to name a few examples) have equally simplistic scenarios but their beauty and depth lie in other things. LOTR is closer to them than to modern literature. It is my belief that, were it written differently (perhaps, in a more manifold fashion) it would feel post-modern and allegoric at best, and anachronyc, inadequate and out of place at worst.
So, in closing, while it is true that many may have a superficial reading of M&M or LOTR (and, remember, I am not trying to put them in the same level) there are many others who can find unexpected gems buried deep underneath their surface. Perhaps, even, some gems that were not meant by the author himself...
...so, be thankful that you are one of the lucky ones who found them but try and be less judgmental to the experience of others.
Peace
reply
share