Harun and the sea of blogs

I can't believe another semester has stared, I'm still trying to catch up on my Nabokov and keep up with the continuing blogs, but now that we have all this fresh material I fear my attention is deviating. So many of the class mates have already begun to blog or have finished the book (I'm close but...) and already we're awash with new ideas and insights. In relation to Sam's blog specifically, and I'm sure on a lot of people's minds is this distinction between highbrow and low.

Sam ask if the label is based on who you are. And i think that may be true,
but I also believe that it might be more in depth that it is not only Who you are, but How you are. How you choose to look at a text. And this obviously can vary form person to person, but i can also very within the person individually, we can choose to which pair of glasses we wear when reading any text, as we looked at in lit crit, we saw an array of text through an array of filters (feminists, Marxist...) and beyond that, and more relatable to this class we struggled, but succeded in observing texts through a slideshow of lenses ranging from literal (literally) to Anagoic (which interestingly enough comes from the Greek word to climb or ascend)
Now whether or not all works of literature are worthy (see Dan Drown) , or would even appear under the agangoic spectrum (or even the one below that if I could remember its name) We can see that even some of the most pedantic works can be considered High Brow when observed keenly. Take for example the film Dumb and Dumber, dumb-no doubt, but radiantly brilliant when explored and exposed. And as Sam has showed us, our first example of "lowbrow" as already been exposed by the author and his critics to be far more than a children story.
Now I know that there are exceptions to this rule, and there expectational examples as well Finnegan's Wake clearly one of them. "learned reader (whose eyebrows, I suspect, have by now traveled all the way to the back of his bald head)" -V.N.
But my understanding of it, which could very well be just wrong entirely, is that its not a matter of the book belonging to an esoteric circle, rather the circle of readers, or a subculture-circle of readers, a distilled audience should be esoteric in their understanding.


note: the picture above is, I think a type of broccoli but its more importantly a natural fractal. For whatever reason -tune in turn on...maybe?- fractals are the visual image I always conjure when trying to understand this concept of the anagogic ladder, because the concept is so far from anything linear, instead its ever evolving and in many ways indefinable...its hard to explain. natty psychedelic literature I guess.