Literary elitism

       It's 'Bloomsday' tomorrow, and in the Irish Times Donald Clarke takes this occasion to complain Who ever decided that James Joyce was 'fun' ? as he finds the embrace of Joyce and all things Joycean has gone a bit far for his ... refined standards:

Democracy and inclusivity are, in theory, wonderful concepts. Spread them around too liberally, however, and you risk encouraging the riff-raff to get above themselves.

       Oh, dear -- even the "riff-raff" dare having fun with Joyce ... we can't have that.
       Yes, for Clarke:

The problem with inclusivity is that it rather inhibits the joys of exclusivity

       Ah, yes, it can't be fun if everyone else gets just as much out of it. We can't have that.
       Indeed, apparently:

A small part of the pleasure felt when reaching the last page of Ulysses, Moby Dick, Tristram Shandy or The Man Without Qualities stems from the awareness that one is now part of a relatively small club.

       I had no idea ! I guess I never learnt the secret club-handshake .....
       And, yes, so:

The sad fact is that the public acceptance of Joyce -- and the Bloomsday furore in particular -- has stripped the author of some once-treasured mystique.

       Oh, no -- poor Joyce ! Mystiqueless ! I guess we shouldn't even bother with him any longer and should instead seek out some other not-widely-read (and preferably 'difficult') author to lord over all the common folk.
       As Clarke explains:

I don't want my high art to be accessible. We've got filthy Dan Brown for that.

       His 'high art' ? But then I don't even get the argument -- I find Dan Brown entirely unreadable, and thus far less 'accessible' than Joyce (well, maybe excepting Finnegans Wake ...).
       I understand the use of 'exclusivity' as a selling point in certain areas -- a nightclub, or a meal or whiskey or wine -- giving people the illusion (generally in exchange for an exorbitant cash premium) of being somehow special, but surely it's clear to everyone that that's just a marketing con, right ? Literature, indeed all art, has to be above that, surely.

       Much as I love the work of Peter Handke, he also once wrote, in The Weight of the World (okay, okay, the title, and Handke's well-deserved and -honed reputation, should have been a tip-off as to what to expect ...):

Der Nachteil bei großer Literatur ist, daß jedes Arschloch sich damit identifizieren kann.

[The trouble with great literature is that any asshole can identify with it.]

       Why on earth is that the trouble, or problem (or, literally: drawback) with great literature ?
       Isn't that what's so great about great literature, that even the assholes get it ?
       Forget about exclusivity and mystiques: the joy is all in the text; if you're looking for it or demanding it elsewhere ... yeah, I don't really get that.