[dpgtfc]

The world is full of book and film snobs to be sure, not that they are necessarily a bad thing, but one thing they seem to do is dismiss books and film that don't have some social commentary or something deep to say.

I personally draw two distinctions for books (and film, however I will refer to just books from now on, but I mean both), that being those for Art and those for Entertainment, though some may fall into both. Books mostly used to be for knowledge or telling a story to preserve some history. Today fiction genres abound. From Romance to Literary fiction, there are all sorts. Some great writers have written a story to warn, some as commentary on something political, but many authors these days just write for the sake of entertainment. There are no allusions, no deep metaphors for our political system, just a good story.

Some would discount regular fiction, I recently read a blog in which the author tried to convince the reader that Science Fiction was only that which had some sort of social commentary. I personally felt this was B.S as I have enjoyed some good SF that was just purely entertainment. They had believable characters, Character development, entertaining plots, and good writing. Yet nowhere was there a veiled comment about how the Iraq war sucks.

I suppose if you wanted to look hard enough you could find something, a warning of some sort, a crack at something current and maybe even political, but I personally feel it boils down to authors intent. I don't think Dan Brown was making social commentary (though I could be wrong), and I can't imagine Stephen Chambers' Vel Chronicles having much to say about the current state of our government. Both may be good reads ( all opinion based of course), but by those snob's definitions, they aren't really fiction.

So I am curious as to what others think about the merit of fiction as entertainment. It is as equally valid as art? If the authors intent is to evoke an emotional response, and he or she accomplishes that, how is it different than a painting that is painted merely to evoke an emotional response? I don't think every famous painter in history was making social commentary, why should books and film be subjected to greater standards?

Does anybody else think Entertainment IS itself Art?

[Bond]

Criticism has been formalised to a degree in educational systems. There are certain dogmas perpetuated within them. There is not much objective proof however that can be given to say that any particular dogma is more accurate than another in this area that deals mainly in the subjective. The popular dogma of today is different from the popular dogma of yesteryear.

The separation between art and entertainment I find to be largely artificial. I think them intertwined. Separating the two ideas is largely a convenience for theoretical discussion.