Not that, but this!

A true snob is discerning.

Even when she wants to delve into areas some might consider lowbrow, she goes for the good stuff:

Not Robert Jordan, but George R. R. Martin.
Not Mickey Spillane, but Raymond Chandler.
Not John Galsworthy, but Charles Dickens (or Anthony Trollope)
Not J.K. Rowling, but Philip Pullman
. . .

I hope other snobs will continue this list. Bonus snob points awarded if the superior choice is both eminently worthwhile and tremendously obscure.

Not going to get any bonus snob points, but:

Not Barbara Cartland, but Jane Austen.

(And I like Harry Potter! And I'm not reading another book by George R.R. Martin until he gets his act into gear and continues writing, at a decent pace. To quote a friend: someone ought to do a Misery on his arse. In the meantime, Stephen Erikson for me...)

#2 No, no, no.

Not Barbara Cartland, but Georgette Heyer...
Not Ian Fleming, but Len Deighton.
Not Alan Moore, but Bryan Talbot.

Thanks, Ian.

I had never heard of Bryan Talbot, and now I'm figuring he's someone I should check out. That's the sort of information I hoped this thread would elicit.

and wookiebender: as Neil Gaiman said, George R. R. Martin is not your bitch.

Not Dan Brown, but Umberto Eco (or even Robert Anton Wilson)

Not Edward Gibbon but Fergus Millar
or Mason Hammond

Not Elmore Leonard but George V. Higgins*

*based on the blurb (a Higgins-book blurb admittedly) where Leonard says, "People think Higgins learned from me, but I learned from Higgins."

Not J. K. Rowling, but Kai Meyer;
Not Uderzo, but Yslaire, or Jean Dufaux

I gotta stick up for John Galsworthy! The first 3 books of his Forsyte Saga are beautiful.

Not Maxim but Nick Hornby

not Ian Fleming but Graham Greene
not Norman Mailer but Tim O'Brien
not Carl Sandburg but Walt Whitman or Allen Ginsberg
not Rod McKuen (sp) but Naomi Shihab Nye
not Dan Brown but Jack Womack.

(I'm also perfectly happy reading jk rowling - but don't exclude Isobelle Carmody or Garth Nix (Sabriel sequence).

I love Isobelle Carmody's Obernewtyn Chronicles. Very few people seem to have heard of her, though.

Not James Paterson but Wilkie Collins.
Not Michael Crichton but Arthur Conan Doyle (his sci-fi, anyway).

Not Robert Heinlein but Marquis de Sade
Not Ayn Rand but Doctor Seuss
Not Jack Kerouac but William S Burroughs
Not Nicholas Sparks but Alexander Theroux
Not Thomas Friedman but Drew Friedman
Not Foreign Affairs but MAD Magazine
Not Henry Kissinger but Henry Darger

Not Stephenie Meyer, but Christopher Moore

Great list, kswolff!

Not Tea Party patriots, but actual thought
Not the Jonas Brothers but the Coen Brothers
Not King James Bibles, but Tijuana Bibles

not tomato but tomahto
not potato but potahto

(tomato, tomahto. potato, potahto...)

#3> I stand corrected. Yours is a much better comparison.

#4> To quote Mr Gaiman: For me, I would rather read a good book, from a contented author. I don't really care what it takes to produce that.

Well, yes. But I failed to see any George RR Martin books appearing in the shops for the longest time. So I failed to buy them, and failed to read them, and (slowly) failed to give a damn about the series. When he's finished the series, I'll restart at the beginning, if I am still so inclined. Until then, I have more than enough reading to go on with.

It's a great series, I look forward to it being finished and me returning to it. But in the meantime, I shall continue to gnash my teeth and wish that he wrote faster.

not an earthquake but a shock
not the good turtle soup but merely the mock
not for all time but simply a lark
not granada i see but ashbury park

#4 Re GRRM, work on whatever you want, but don't dick your audience around. Don't mention (or let amazon make up) bogus release dates, then when they pass by bitch about having to give a new release date and declare you won't, but then give another bogus release date anyway (in the same blog post) when you're not even working on the book. Just be honest that you're doing other stuff and that fans will have it when they have it. He brought it on himself.

Pat Rothfuss, too. We fans are more understanding than you think, we just don't like being lied to.

"Why read Dante when you can read
Jack Kerouacʻs Mexico City Blues?"
--Jack Kerouac

11: Never thought I'd see Henry Darger show up in an LT post...

George R.R. Martin is not my bitch. Unfortunately, he's also not getting my money now because he's a stupid fat asshole.

When you start thinking an author owes you, then it's time to get a life.

Not Euripides but Aeschylus
-- Aristophanes in The Frogs

21 & 22: The author owes his consumers (see that, I didn't say "fans") nothing.

Authors are artists, not ATM machines. Unless you're James Patterson.

Not George RR Martin, but R Scott Bakker (What is it with fantasy authors and initials and more specifically Rs? JRR Tolkien, seriously? Do you need an R initial to be accepted in the Ancient and Respected Order of Epic Fantasy Knock-off Authors?)

Not Al Capp but Walt Kelly*

*You have to be over 50 -- or maybe over 70 --
to get that one.

Both of them became less funny as they became more political.

But not Al Capp but Walt Kelly or George Herriman.

Robert

Yes, to me Walt Kelly was less funny in the 1960s than in the 50s; but I regard him as equally
political in the 50s -- but on the better side.

The early Capp was political only if you think
of such a field as "Political ECONOMY" as Marx called it. Unlike many cartoonists he did not have his c harac ters enter military Serv ice during WW II. He said that people donʻt read comics to be reminded of the War -- quite the opposite. So, at a glance he could seem far removed from politics. He did become politicized and Conservative, pretty much the same direction as Kelly in the 60s.

Not "Andy Capp" but Garry Trudeau.
Not XXXX but Berke Breathered.
Sorry, couldn't think of a precursor to Breathered!

Not Calvin or Hobbes but Calvin and Hobbes

Not Henry Kissingerʻs "Memoirs"
BUT Ralph Buncheʻs, Philip Habibʻs (if any),
"Chip "Bohlenʻs, or even (despite his pretentious book title) Dean Achesonʻs

Not the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but Edward Said.

Not the Book of Mormon, but Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus Trilogy.

Not The Secret but Optimization Methods in Electromagnetic Radiation

Not Frank McCourt or James Boswell but Graham Roumieu

Not Christopher Moore but Mikhail Bulgakov

Not Song of Songs but Penthouse Letters

I would consider that last as backward: Not Penthouse Letters but Song of Songs.

The reason I give for my opinion is the Song of Songs is a hymn to the glories of love. Penthouse Letters has nothing to do with love and just serve to remind us, basically, what pigs men are when it comes to sex.

But I really like the one about the gorgeous blonde highway patrolwoman who handcuffs the guy and...

Never mind.

You're spot on, Gene, just a feeble attempt to be droll about that crazy-ass book.

Not "Dr. Phil" but Phil Silvers!

34: Not KJV Song of Songs but Song of Songs translated by Ariel and Chana Bloch

http://chanabloch.com/song-of-songs.html

Not Kingsley Amis but Tom Sharpe
Not Martin Amis but Ian McEwan
Not Margaret Drabble but A.S. Byatt
Not Milton but Blake

Not Martin Amis but anybody.

I like me some Ian McEwan, but I'm not convinced he's a step up from Martin Amis. Amsterdam and Saturday are both manipulative and clumsy, more dreadful than not.

Not Ian McEwan but Iain Sinclair

On 39:

I havenʻt ready any A.S. Byatt but she (?) must be good if sheʻs better than Margaret Drabble!

Blake MUST be good, if heʻs better than
Milton -- wait, I HAVE read some of both of
them -- mixed feelings on that one.

I must admit that I base my preference for A.S. Byatt to Margaret Drabble on only a few examples. But since they are sisters at least it keeps it in the family.

43: You can't have Blake without Milton Blake even wrote an epic poem called "Milton."

On 45:

RIght, I forgot about Blake's Milton and in fact didn't know it was of epic length. I've read much more of Milton than of Blake, including some of M's prose which almost nobody reads except as a course assignment. For some reason, the length that you imply of Blake's Milton makes me more, not less, eager to read it; whereas Milton himself by contrast was called the author of "a book that no one has ever wished were longer." (Samuel Johnson on Paradise Lost.

I loved Ian McEwan until I read Atonement, haven't read him since. Still like Martin Amis, so sue me.

NOT William Burroughs BUT Nelson Algren

NOT the Maquis de Sade BUT --just about anybody

Gimme Burroughs over Algren. And both instead of Hubert Selby...

48: Not Ayn Rand but Marquis de Sade -- Sade has less rapes in his fiction and his notions of freedom aren't as batty as Rand's.

Not Christopher Hitchens but Marquis de Sade -- Sade has better arguments and is less arrogant than Hitchens.

Not Nicholas Sparks but Marquis de Sade -- Sade is less of a pornographer than Sparks ... by a long shot.

Not Jack Kerouac but William S. Burroughs -- Burroughs isn't for everyone, but the same thing can be said for the Velvet Underground

Or anything else. The phrase "____ isn't for everyone" is meaningless because it applies to everything.

In my own, personal experience it is possible to detest Burroughs (or, simply dislike his work) and like the Velvet Underground at the same time.

51: To be free-associative, not to be pedantic.

Not Jerome But Wodehouse.

Not Wodehouse but ???

(C'mon, snobbyappletons, I'm looking for a reading recommendation here. Thanks in advance!)

Not Wodehouse BUT: A vacation from
Reading humour ?

Not Orson Welles BUT Orson Bean

NOT Orson Scott Card BUT Orson Bean, Orson Welles or Sir Walter Scott

Not Wodehouse but Evelyn Waugh and/or Anthony Powell

Thanks, Karl!

Not Orson Scott Card but Mork calling Orson

Reading Anthony Powell as an ʻImproved" Wodehouse is like reading Immanuel Kant as an improved Spinoza.

60: I wouldn't say Powell is an "Improved" Wodehouse Apples and oranges. While both write novels about the English aristocracy and both are technically "comedies," Wodehouse writers light little fluff pieces and Powell's Dance to the Music of Time is an epic series of 12 novels. (Granted, I haven't read either author.)

"Powell (and). . . Wodehouse . . . both are technically comedies.

Yes, I think that was what turned me off Powell. I went in expecting (from his reputation) some
comedy, and didnʻt find it. Powell is pretty serious-minded, agree with him or not, and he probably wasnʻt trying to emulate Wodehouse as a writer of comedy.

62: Here's Anthony Burgess on Powell:

"The fastidiousness of selection is matched by the polished formality of the style -- a style apt for high comedy and the leisurely unfolding of comic situations. But high comedy represents a limitation of fictional resource, and the vastness of the plan shows up the smallness of scope and a certain narrowness of temperament." From 99 Novels

We may be confusing "comedy" as a catch-all term embracing everything from farce to social satire. If anything, Powell occupies the same milieu as Wodehouse, but has a different perspective and a different effect. The epic nature of the work also is at cross-purposes with the style.

I would grant Powell "polished formality of style", even without claiming to be very sensitive to stylistic excellencies. I donʻt think the style would
have to be "at cross-purposes with" the "epic nature of the work."
He may, to my mind, have too heavy-handed a metaphor for his series. I donʻt think Time provides any "Music to Dance to." But I donʻt blame him for "small scope". Many of the greatest novels of sociological tendency have even smaller scope.
And it certainly is easier to believe that this really is what the "milieu" is like. Impossible to believe that with Wodehouse, but then it wansʻt W.ʻs intention to be a realist or naturalist.

I've read the first book of the Dance to the Music of Time, and it's very difficult to confuse it with PG Wodehouse.

On 65:

No, kswolff and I arenʻt confusing Wodehouse and Powell, just comparing them on the grounds of
a tenuous similarity of topic.

The title of the series "Dance to the Music of Time" is from the Poussin painting of the same name and which was the inspiration of the series. In the painting the four seasons facing outward dance to lyre music played by Time, a grey headed old man. The series plots the intricate interactions of a large cast of characters over a fifty year time interval as if in a dance over which they have little control.
Describing it as a comedy is more in the vein of Balzac' Human Comedy although Widmerpool is, I think, one of the finest comic creations in English Literature. Although I liked most of the novels on an individual basis you only get a sense of the "grand design" by reading through them all then everything 'clicks'. I got the same sense when I finally completed Proust although they are very different works.

I think you're confusing high-brow or intellectual with snob. They aren't the same thing. A snob only *thinks* he is discerning, but in actuality is ignorant.

68 is in response to which post?

How about - not Wodehouse but G. M. Fraser

Not PG Wodehouse but Moe Howard

To anna_in_pdx:

I should perhaps let David respond to #69, but
I will say that #68 is perhaps based on a somewhat folkloric (among Litterateurs) reputation that Anthony Powell acquired of being a "snob".

My own reading ABOUT Powel, however,l has usually presented him favorably.

It remains, to me, an important and debatable question just what the reader is supposed to think about the character Ken Widmerpool. See: #67 which calls W. "one of the finest comic creations". I agree with that description, except that to me Widmerpool was about as "comic" as Uriah Heep --perhaps was even based partly on Heep, W. being presented as a hypocritical pseudo-Populist. One reviewer (favorable to Powell) said that "there must be something wrong with a society in which Widmerpool keeps turning up." -- So much for the satirical element in Powell. He seems to be supportive of his own (admitedly limited) society, in which Widmerpool keeps turning up as a self-invited member who isnʻt really "one of us."

*Not* Wodehouse? I'm out of this conversation.

Wodehouse is wonderful, Ben.

He's just not...uhm...snobby.

Nor are zanies like Moore and Adams. I was looking for something a bit edgier or sophisticated.

Well, when I want British wit I go with David Lodge but it's a bit too self-deprecatory to be snobbish. I agree with Waugh.

Tom Sharpe is a little cruder but he can be ROFL funny, if I've got my net-speak correct.

ROFL but not LMAO?

Not "el MAO" BUT: el Che, el Chavez,
el -- i mean il-- Gramsci,
el Teng, and el Ho

#77 No, it did fall off but then bounced and re-attached itself. A peculiar sensation I would not wish to repeat.

What if for one day all of the metaphors and rhetorical language we use caused the literal things to happen?

Those who use more colorful language would be in some really weird situations!

not Burroughs BUT VU.
Not any beat BUT Ginsberg.
Not Alex Chilton BUT the Boxtops. (totally switching genres)

Not Ginsberg, but Snyder.

#80 I thought they already did....Oops, off my meds again.