This whole "hoo-ha" seems similar to the periodic spats on this site over insensitive condescension toward tourists. Civility is one thing, but why should we have to walk on eggshells to avoid offending stupid people? The world basically caters to them anyway. Besides, part of what makes such mildly mean-spirited humor enjoyable is that (to quote Homer Simpson) "it's funny 'cause its true."

Also, the fact that romance novels comprise 50% of fiction sales (in what market? this seems contentious) is depressing. If the add encourages one person to read Plato, it's worth pissing off the illiterate.

Did it make you angrier than that time daddy took away your beloved wild horse and half your inheritance because you made off with his darkly handsome sworn enemy? Or did you chuckle deeply as you tapped your pipe clean and dog-earred another page in your worn copy of Leviathan?

Hard though it may be to credit, given the rampant dualism being bandied about, that ad made me want to chuck my well-worn copy of Leviathan (though come to think of it, The Second Sex would've been even more appropriate) at somebody's head.

God, I love a good smutty romance novel. IMO DC could use a little less Plato and a little more bodice-ripping (though not if the bodices belong to Congressional pages, obvs.). I'm sure Noelle will forgive me for taking the opposite view and saying that if the ad inspires even one DC metro resident to put down the Plato and get in touch with her inner harlot, it's worth pissing off the lit-snobs.

Confidential to Noelle: If you're going to cast aspersions at the "illiterate" who read romance novels, it might be a good idea to proofread your comments before posting. "Add," indeed!

I agree with all of you about the entertainment value of trashy culture, and I partake as well (though my "guilty pleasures" don't include romance novels). I was more responding to those who react so strongly against anything that might be cast as even slightly offensive. And as Ian rightly pointed out, if you see some mild, un-funny metro humor directed at romance novels as a call to arms, well...

I admittedly went a little overboard with the "stupid people" comment, which should have been posted on the "let's be nice to silly tourists" thread that inspired it.

Please do throw stones my way over that hypocritical typo. I wish we could edit posts on this board, but alas.

Out here on the orange line, it's the computer magazines that have pages stuck together! When Kojo does his "Tech Tuesday" show, you can hear the whappatawhappatawhappata from cubes all up & down the Dulles corridor.

How could reading Plato be offensive?

The booming sound you heard was the point whooshing by Geoff's head so fast, it broke the sound barrier. Here goes attempt number 3 at explaining this to him:

We didn't find the fact that somebody reads Plato to be offensive. We did find the assumption that romance readers = TEH DUMB and readers of Plato = Instant Smarteyman +10 to be misguided.

I find the ad to be arrogant in the same way as the douchebag who sits in coffeehouses with his laptop as if he's too important to be away from his email on the weekend--but the whole time he's playing freecell.

There are people who do work on their laptops at coffeehouses, and there are people who enjoy reading Plato. The problem is that there is no automatic esteem in doing either. And they certainly don't say anything meaningful about anybody.

Guess you'll have to explain it a fourth time, because I still don't get it. Perhaps you can slow down the jet traffic? These romantic issues are laughable. It's like watching Rodney Dangerfield complain that he doesn't get any respect. Amazing, really.

But I do applaud the romantics for reading, this in its own right is a noble thing. I'm getting back to my geeky sci fi book now.

We did find the assumption that romance readers = TEH DUMB and readers of Plato = Instant Smarteyman +10 to be misguided.

That is exactly my problem with the ad campaign. I love literature. It's been the one major interest through out my life. I love to read and will give anything that comes my way a chance. I remember, at the age of nine, reading the autobiography of Haile Selassie and a book on abnormal psychology concurrently. Why? I don’t know, they looked interesting so I picked them up.

I've read Plato's Republic, I'm educated, I was invited to join MENSA for goodness sake, but I also enjoy reading romance novels. I think it’s ridiculous that someone would just arbitrarily decide that I am not intelligent because I happen to like reading "trashy" books. I’m being negatively stereotyped and this ad campaign does nothing but help to perpetrate that false, and insulting, view of myself and others like me.

While I'm the first to admit fault when my own snobbery crosses the line, the stringent reaction against so-called elitism does make me uncomfortable, especially when it brings forth the lowering-of-standards "well, at least they're reading" comments. Why do people feel the need to chastise the makers of this ad and come to the defense of trashy novel readers, anyway? Why can't we say that Plato has more value than Evelyn Rogers, and that D.C. residents should be proud to live in such a well-educated city (as is the message of the ad), without people denouncing it as snobby and elitist? I mean, there's so much bad pop culture out there that at least a little elitism (or defense of quality) isn't such a bad thing.

Wirc, if it weren't for Recent Comedic Capitol Hill Events, I'd imagine that it wouldn't take to much effort to just combine these passions and turn an entire Metro Car into a moveable Plato's Retreat. Now THAT would be plenty hot & heavy!

I mean, there's so much bad pop culture out there that at least a little elitism (or defense of quality) isn't such a bad thing.

I think this is the point I was trying to make above, Noelle. In many cases what's come down to us a "elitism" began its cultural life as an artifact denounced as crass or bad or tasteless. We can praise and blame our present cultural artifacts all we want, but posterity is a fickle being, and we have no idea what future generations are going to do with what we think is great and/or trash. Johnson, in his day, actually had to defend Shakespeare against the criticisms of his own countrymen who thought him worthless because he didn't write in Latin. And does anyone here remember a time when sermons were actually considered a viable literary genre, published and discussed with the same fervor that today would be reserved for the latest U2 release? I assure you they were, but no one today would recognize them as such. And there may come a day very soon when future arbritrary tastes condescend to us for daring to elevate Joyce to the status he currently occupies.

Again, posterity is fickle, and the only real critic is time. Literature is what lasts as literature. As Orwell said, "there is no argument by which you can defend a poem. A poem defends itself by surviving, or it is indefensible." Like all of literature, actually.

But the point, to me, is that we should have license to make those reasoned judgments, and confer greater value on certain artistic products over others, rather than slide into this relativistic stance that says, "well, as long as it floats someone's boat, who am I to judge?" out of fear of causing offense.

The problem, in this instance, is that the judgements is not being applied to the product. They are using someone's preference for the product in question as a quantifier of said person's intelligence.

It's like saying that people who prefer classical music are smarter than people who enjoy jazz.

acerbic, you say you eschew literary snobbery, yet you can't help yourself from name dropping two authors that you know damn well only equally bookish people would recognize. That's the oldest trick in the snobbery book (first printing of course, which all real afficianados own)...

Frankly I don't care if people want to get some goosebumps from torn bodices, at least there is some craft involved. But where I draw the line is magazines like US Weekly, etc. My respect will always drop for someone if I see them read that crap.

When I need non-nutritious reading, I gravitate towards Jackie Collins, or a re-reading of one of the low-brow classics such as "Valley of the Dolls". Sex, alcohol, and pills, there's a plot for ya.

In all of this point and counter-point, I believe we have lost sight of the most disturbing message being delivered. How is illiterate or illiteracy defined?
1) Unable to read and write.
2) Having little or no formal education.
3) Marked by inferiority to an expected standard of familiarity with language and literature.
4) Violating prescribed standards of speech or writing.
In response to #1 --- there is no response. If one was unable to read and/or write, one would not be reading romance novels or anything else.

In response to #2 --- Assuming formal education does not mean one has had to go on to a higher education, but has merely been exposed to rudimentary public education (or private, or even home-schooling), one would have been exposed to the basic skills necessary to learn to read. What one does with those basics is based on individual desire and drive. With NO formal education, one might assume a person is not capable of reading a written language. This, of course, is not true and we would be very short-sighted to not recognize the existence of intelligence even where education is lacking, as well as the ability to learn without schooling. So, let us dispense with #2, as it is too contrary.
#3 rather boggles my mind, as it seems somewhat convoluted. I may or may not get back to that one.
#4 --- violating proscribed standards of speech or writing. Many of us speak in such a manner as to not sound wholly intelligent (take our current president, for instance) as a matter of idiom, or perhaps just plain laziness. Who knows? As for writing, some very intelligent people I know cannot string sentences together worth a damn and pay someone else to do that for them. If this definition might refer to the writers of romance or any other popular fiction not considered "literary", I beg to differ, based on this very definition. The majority of romance authors whose works I have read certainly know how to write and their published works are a fine example of the same. Additionally, if I have read sentences that do not adhere to the strict policies of the English language, they were most often written in that fashion as part of the style and flavor of the novel and added to my enjoyment.
I dont' find it offensive that someone might hold the works of Plato over those of, say, Nora Roberts. There are reasons for that, and then there are unreasonable excuses for that. What I do find offensive (as did others, I noted) is the suggestion that those who might read anything other than Plato are illiterate. I WRITE romance novels and know (as does every other author, no matter what they write) the effort that goes into the penning of a novel. There are good books and there are mediocre books and there are bad books, but not everyone will agree on which is which. Each one of us has a right to read what we will, enjoy what we will, express our opinions on what we will (at least in this country), so the ad should be taken with a grain of salt. Whoever "penned" that ad was expressing an opinion (perhaps at the behest of others, but still an opinion, nevertheless). "Bodice-ripper" is a loose and inaccurate term for the romance genre, but even if it were not, those of us who read them do so for our enjoyment. I also enjoy reading Shakespeare, Victor Hugo, the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Benjam Franklin, and even the philosophical works of Plato, and all with only a high school education.
People, get real. Don't take the ad too personally (although it might seem that I have) and proudly proclaim the fact that you have the choice to read whatever might catch your interest. Once upon a time, there was a man who burned books...in this country we don't have to fear such a thing. Or one would hope...

Dang, it must be a slow week in DC. I'm out in the Midwest, just trying to keep track of what Congress has done to us lately, so it's good to know that the crucial issue of our time is not the destruction of the Bill of Rights, global warming, or insane wars, but irritated romance readers riding the rails beneath Our Nation's Capital.

Now, I can see where almost any distraction from reality would be welcome to folks in DC--what with Plato's Republicans putting a whole new, sleazy meaning to the term "a real page-turner" and Speaker Hastert redefining "taking responsibility" as "hiding under the podium," but honestly, guys--if you're condescending to snide remarks, you should realize that Nora Roberts' hair isn't long enough to toss, nobody's ripped a bodice since "disco duck," and Fabio's now pitching life insurance, not posing for covers. If you're going to try for that fine air of ironic superiority, it really helps to be within at least a decade's reach of the facts.

Oh, and one can obtain a copy of "Plato's Republic" from abebooks for $1, so fair-minded readers can make their own comparison. The used-book market is surely a boon to thrifty shoppers.