I’m assuming your comment was designed to make your readers infer your position. I’ll take a shot.

Is your position that 1) the other popular shows you mentioned should look out for their viewers more by doing more to expose them to the fine art of Western Civilization’s greatest creative artists, just as Perry’s show should expose its audiences our finest Black American artists more? Or is your position that, 2) since the other shows don’t bother to expose their audiences to Western Civilization’s literary geniuses very much or at all, neither should Tyler Perry’s show bother to expose its audiences to Black America’s greatest literary geniuses very much or at all? Or, is your position that 3) we should not hold Perry’s show to higher or different standards than the general American viewing public holds its popular shows?

If your position is something other than 1, 2, or 3, then I would like to learn more about your position and your reasoning for it. If your position is 1, then I agree with you. If your position is 2 or 3, then I disagree with you, and I am prepared to lay out my arguments if you want to have a dialog in this thread. If you do want to exchange our ideas on these matters, please lay out the argument for your position in another comment, and I will reply to your comment with my rejoinder(s).

When was the last time I heard characters on king of queens praise Faulkner . . . or everybody loves Raymond quote Dostoyevsky. Let me think . . . Hmmm . . .

But you know the thing? That market? The one that doesn’t really get the service? In artistic terms, it’s us.

For that reason alone I don’t think it wrong, nor do I think it’s “hating” to strongly critique the quality of Perry’s product. There’s a zero sum game here. For every show that airs, in whatever medium, there are dozens of shows that do not.

It’s tricky though. I remember reading about Harry Allen coming to John Coltrane through Public Enemy. He didn’t know that the “sheets of sound” concept that critics applied to the sound that PE had perfected in hip-hop was applied first to Coltrane.

When he heard this, he got hipped to Coltrane…and that’s all she wrote.

Our cultural production is powerful enough that you can get to “top notch” stuff through the back door as it were. Which is why we’ve got to be careful in our criticisms so as not to let our own biases overcome our judgment.

What does it mean for Black America when Tyler Perry’s art is so successful? Does that signal an intellectually healthy and culturally literate Black America? Is Perry’s art the finest Black America has to offer? If it is, then he deserves to reign supreme. If it isn’t, then what does his success really signal?

I have mixed feelings about Perry’s success. I like the fact that another Black man is building another entertainment empire without constantly using images of Black gangster-supervillains or near-naked Black vixens who take more pride in their ass-wobbling talents than their GPAs. I like the fact that many Black folks are making good money off of Perry’s art. But, I don’t like the fact that so many millions of Black Americans prefer to give their money and leisure hours to Tyler Perry’s art before giving those dollars and hours to much better works of Black art. Black Americans are wealthier, and proportionally, better educated (or rather more degreed) than we have ever been. Yet, Perry’s enjoyable, but not fine, art reigns supreme? One wonders what the leaders and the consumers of the New Negro Renaissance would think of the cultural progress Black America has made after they has evaluated how so many millions of us have cultivated (or under-cultivated) our and our children’s artistic tastes. Should we be proud of the fact that many millions of Black Americans have memorized and could imitate Madea’s witticisms and soliloquies, but only a small fraction of those same Blacks have spent a dollar in support of any productions of August Wilson’s Pittsburg Cycle plays?

I’ll purchase and read Man Gone Down next month.

Arnold Rampersad’s biography of Ralph Ellison shows us an artist who struggled imperfectly yet valiantly to stake his claim to European intellectual tradition while not rejecting his own Black folk heritage. Wilson, Morrison and Baldwin are in this stream. They consciously and ambitously strive to be part of the western canon. But they courageously use an authentic black voice.

By the way E.C. I must recommend you read Man Gone Down by Michael Thomas. The author is a young brother whose debut novel alludes to Eliot, Melville, and Baldwin among a host of others. This guy is the real thing. Someone who speaks in a distinct voice relevant to today but has a foundation firmly established in the literary canon. His writing evokes Philip Roth and Zaidi Smith. You won’t be disappointed.

A related question. I think both Tyler Perry and Terry McMillan have greater appreciation for their art AS art than is warranted. I recall McMillan wishing that Toni Morrison would acknowledge her work, and when Perry didn’t get invited to participate in the black theater shindig by August Wilson’s folks he was upset (as were some of his actors).

Is this hating on their part?