From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Subject: the wonks are in: what do they read for fun? 
Summary:  (Clinton's crew)  (besides economic reports, that is)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:32:03 GMT

Have you noticed?  The popular press is indulging their feature
writers by proclaiming _ad_nauseum_ the "cultural shift" attendant on
Bill Clinton's victory, yet while there are ample references to
changing iconography within pop music, movies, and television, I've
seen very little on the subject of books.

Perhaps after a decade-plus of Reagan and Bush, "we" don't read books
anymore?  Among other modifiers such as moneyed, starchy, dignified,
blue-blazered, country club, and comatose, I've seen the Bush
administration more than once described as both "Ivy League" and
"anti-intellectual"--a peculiar pairing, in my view, but perhaps not
off the mark for Ivy League alums over fifty (to choose an arbitrary
age).  I also recall Ronald Reagan's rhetorical question about alleged
Golden-Fleece-style scientific research: "Why should we subsidize
intellectual curiosity?"  (Duh, Ronnie, because of Japan, maybe?)  A
fridge-worthy quotation, if ever I've heard one...

But what about the upcoming Clinton era?  Aren't "we" supposed to be
getting back in the habit of reading, with all these "propeller-heads"
who always "do their homework" coming into office?  The signs are not
promising, so far.  I admit, most of my awareness of this cultural
shift hoopla comes from my local-yokel rag, _The_Washington_Post_,
whose culture pundits have every right to be brain-dead, considering
what they've had to report on for the last twelve years.  But here's
what I've noticed in the _Post_: a fifty-item list of "ins" and "outs"
published on the day after the election includes only one recognizable
reference to books--detective books (in) vs. Dan Jenkins books (out);
an otherwise-insightfuly essay by Hal Hinson on the "new cultural
revolution" in popular taste mentions no books (unless you count
Madonna's _Sex_); and a Jamie Malanowski (editor of _Spy_, author of
the novel _Mr._Stupid_Goes_to_Washington_) essay on the same subject
mentions only "Walter Mosley novels and fried green tomatoes" (in).

I emphasize the word _recognizable_, because these ins-and-outs
articles do confront me with my own ignorance.   I don't know who Dan
Jenkins (out) is, for example, nor Walter Mosley (in)--author of the
book that became "Fried Green Tomatoes," perchance?  I also don't
recognize the names Mandy Grunwald (in) vs. Sig Rogich (out), Strobe
Talbott (in) vs. Vic Gold (out), or Laurence Tribe (in) vs. Edith
Jones (out).  But if none of these last are authors, I suppose I don't
especially give a hoot.

I'm not trying to make any particular point here--just noting the phenom,
and wondering what, if any, pop-lit before-and-after references other
rabbers have run across.  Why pop lit?  Because it seems to me that's
where these articles are missin' the boat.  If we *don't* have any pop
lit worth commenting on, at the time of so ballyhooed a passing of the
baton to the next generation, then this country's literacy situation
is even worse off than I've been thinking.

In the meantime, I'm glad to hear I'm in with the Clinton crowd <thin
smile> as a reader of detective novels.  Which authors are supposed to
be _au_courant_--does anyone know?  James Lee Burke, perhaps?
Lawrence Block?  Bill Pronzini?  Andrew Vachss?

                                        --bemused and befuddled,
                                             but enormously relieved,

                                                       Fiona
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre,alt.config