Fwiw, the VF article that the OP mentions is really interesting if you have the time to read it. I've pulled a couple quotes out that I think are relevant. The first section floats the theory that perhaps some critics who pan already hugely popular books do so because they're (maybe unconsciously) envious that the writer was able to pull off such a coup (popularity and respect) or perhaps they're sour that they didn't discover it first. The second gets into the idea that maybe male and female critics and readers value different things in a book. If that's true, then it's a big problem if most of the preeminent literary critics are white men.
"The book of my enemy has been remaindered
And I am pleased.
In vast quantities it has been remaindered
Like a van-load of counterfeit that has been seized
So begins the Australian critic and essayist Clive James’s poem about the writer’s best friends, Schadenfreude and his twin brother, Envy. Leon Wieseltier, the longtime literary editor of The New Republic (where James Wood was a senior editor before moving to The New Yorker), suggests there might just be a smidge of this at work in the criticism leveled against Tartt. “Tartt has managed to do something that almost never happens: she has created a serious novel—whether you like the book or not, it is not frivolous, or tacky or cynical—and made it into a cultural phenomenon. When a serious novel breaks out, some authors of other serious novels have, shall we say, emotional difficulties.” Curtis Sittenfeld, the best-selling and acclaimed author of Prep and American Wife, similarly observes that critics derive “a satisfaction in knocking a book off its pedestal.”
It’s a theory that holds appeal for authors who feel they’ve been unfairly ignored by critics, and it can lead to surprising, some might even say contorted, rationales. Jennifer Weiner, the outspoken mega-selling author of such “women’s books” as In Her Shoes, Good in Bed, and Best Friends Forever, theorizes that Wood’s review may have been a response to the public’s tepid reception of The Woman Upstairs, by his wife, Claire Messud. “[Messud’s] writing was gorgeous. It was like beautiful carpentry. Everything fit. Everything worked. There wasn’t a single metaphor or simile or comparison you could pull out and say, ‘This doesn’t work,’ the way you can with The Goldfinch. But not many people read that book . . . . The world doesn’t think what she’s doing is as worthy as what Tartt is doing.”
. . .
“Its tone, language, and story belong in children’s literature,” wrote critic James Wood, in The New Yorker. He found a book stuffed with relentless, far-fetched plotting; cloying stock characters; and an overwrought message tacked on at the end as a plea for seriousness. “Tartt’s consoling message, blared in the book’s final pages, is that what will survive of us is great art, but this seems an anxious compensation, as if Tartt were unconsciously acknowledging that the 2013 ‘Goldfinch’ might not survive the way the 1654 ‘Goldfinch’ has.” Days after she was awarded the Pulitzer, Wood told Vanity Fair, “I think that the rapture with which this novel has been received is further proof of the infantilization of our literary culture: a world in which adults go around reading Harry Potter.”
‘There seems to be universal agreement that [The Goldfinch] is a ‘good read,’ ” says Wood. “But you can be a good storyteller, which in some ways Tartt clearly is, and still not be a serious storyteller—where, of course, ‘serious’ does not mean the exclusion of the comic, or the joyful, or the exciting. Tartt’s novel is not a serious one—it tells a fantastical, even ridiculous tale, based on absurd and improbable premises.”
For Wood’s crowd the measuring stick in determining what’s serious literature is a sense of reality, of authenticity—and it’s possible even in books that are experimental. In Lorin Stein’s view, best-sellers such as Mary Gaitskill’s Two Girls, Fat and Thin and Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall may stand the test of time “not because a critic says they’re good, but because . . . they’re about real life. . . . I don’t want stage-managing from a novel. I want fiction to deal in the truth.”
It’s a view he may have inherited from his former boss Jonathan Galassi, the president of Farrar, Straus and Giroux, which, along with Alfred A. Knopf, is arguably the most prestigious of publishing houses. (Galassi edits, among others, Jonathan Franzen, Jeffrey Eugenides, Marilynne Robinson, Michael Cunningham, and Lydia Davis.) Determining what’s serious literature isn’t a science, says Galassi, who hasn’t yet read The Goldfinch. The response isn’t fully rationalized, but ultimately a book must be “convincing in some way. It can be emotionally convincing, it can be intellectually convincing, it can be politically convincing. Hopefully it’s all those things. But with someone like Donna Tartt, not everyone is convinced on all levels.”
Another problem, though, is that too many people read stuff that is clearly NOT "literature" but insist that it is and women do that more than men. You never see some guy reading Jurassic Park and suggesting that it is actually literary fiction (meaning, it belongs in the canon). But I'm reading the Outlander books right now and every time I meet someone (a woman) who has read them, I have to listen to how they are soooo well written, suuuuuch goood books, they are LITERATURE.
Why does it matter if someone wants to insist that Outlander is literature? I suffered through so many boring pieces of literature when I was an English major. Many of the works of literature I did read, I didn't particularly enjoy and I don't know that they really expanded my horizons.
I agree with this. The whole idea of ranking books as being either "literary" or not is kind of odd to me. I mean, I get that critics might have to do that because reviewing books is their job and one way to get your point across is to say "X's writing reminded me of Z" or even "X is better than Z." And I understand why stores like Amazon feel the need to categorize books, although how they do so can be sloppy and problematic. But when I read, I'm looking for a book that is well written and compelling in some way either because of the plot (e.g. Gone Girl or Jurassic Park), the characterization (Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall springs to mind), or the gorgeous use of language (Bel Canto is a good example). But I don't go around saying "I'm reading this piece of literature called Outlander." I say "hey, you should read Outlander, it's a good book." lol. And I also don't think it's as binary as that: that a book is either literary or not. There are a lot of books in the "canon" that weren't well respected in their day and vice versa. Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind won the Pulitzer Prize but now it's dismissed as historical "chick lit."
Post by rupertpenny on Nov 30, 2015 8:50:21 GMT -5
I read a lot, and I read all kinds of books: silly mysteries, historical fiction, actual history, literary fiction, memoirs, YA, fantasy, essay collections, classics, parenting books, self help, investigative journalism, whatever. I'll read it all and consider myself to be well read.
But I still feel very insecure about labeling something as Literature with a capital L or saying I read literature. I think this is partially because I never took lit in college (I waived it with my AP language and lit scores) and lack the framework to talk about literature in any kind of informed way. But I think the bigger issue is related to this article. I subconsciously don't trust myself to make the call, and I think it is a gendered thing. I'm sure the fact that I often prefer books about or by women probably plays into it.
My two cents. There's a difference between great literature and great storytelling. Some books are both -- I'd ditto @asdfjk that Dickens and Irving are great examples of writers whose books are often both. But not all great works of literature are great stories. My favorite book of this century, A Visit from the Goon Squad is an amazing piece of literature, but it's not a great "story," it's greatness comes from its use of language and perspective, and the way it presents the impact of the passage of time on our lives. On the other hand, I loved Gone Girl, but I probably wouldn't call it a great work of literature. It was a really great story though.
It's insane to me that critics don't seems to get that. So what happens is that mens books that aren't necessarily literature can still get acclaim for being great reads. Think Stephen King. That guy might be one of the greatest storytellers America has ever known. Nobody derides him for "just" writing stories. While Franzen annoys me, he gets a lot of praise for his storytelling too.
But women writers seem to either write "literature" or chick lit. For women, being a great storyteller isn't real praise, it's an insult, a suggestion that you write nice stories for moms to talk about at their kids play dates.
This is a really good way of putting it.
And while I agree with asdfjkl that some of what people try to call literature is not, in fact, literature, I am slightly skeptical that women truly make that argument more than men. Further, assuming that women actually do this more often, I think that we have to view it in the context of what the OP is about - writing by women and for women being dismissed as inferior. Women may feel compelled to defend Jennifer Weiner, whose books definitely fall into the category of storytelling but not literature, because they get dismissed as fluffy "chick lit," in a way that men do not feel the need to defend their reading of Michael Connelly. Both write entertaining stories. Neither write literature. One gets derided as mindless in a way that the other does not.
Put me in the "yes, reading is inherently good" camp. Reading is like exercise for your brain. It forces you to experience events through another person's lens, to empathize with others, to look at things differently. Even worthless crap books, if they capture someone's imagination, are pushing that person to put aside their own mental world temporarily in order to inhabit someone else's, and I believe that has value. It teaches us to weigh the experiences of others, to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. It opens our brains up, even if it's just a little bit.
I am also coming at this from the perspective of an early educator. As teachers my colleagues and I often had to choose between turning up our noses at some of the less-than-stellar children's books out there (Captain Underpants, or Junie B Jones - ZOMG she uses incorrect grammar!) and potentially alienating young readers who enjoyed these books, or encouraging children to read whatever captured their attention and imagination, even if we sometimes had to grit our teeth in order to do so. I watched as, time and time again, a reluctant reader got absorbed in a book that *I* thought was a waste of time, and through that book, became enamored of reading in general. If a child loves to read *something* then I can get them to read other things. If a child does not enjoy reading, then dragging them through a thousand works of classic literature won't do much for them. Similarly, if an adult is reading books for enjoyment, I think they are more likely to do things like read a newspaper, or a blog post, or an essay, whereas non-readers aren't likely to do any of those things.
It's like exercise. Is walking for five minutes a day (reading 50 Shades of Gray) going to make you as fit as training for a marathon (War and Peace?) No, of course not, but it's still better for you than nothing and most popular books fall somewhere in the middle.
Obviously I think in school we should be pushing young people to go outside their comfort zone and read and discuss quality literature and books that may not meet that threshold but require them to examine their ways of thinking. But as an adult, I don't think I should feel guilty about choosing to spend my limited reading time indulging in books that are fun and entertaining, with characters I relate to, and exciting new settings, because they are not "good enough."
And yes, this is an off-shoot of the OP which points out the sexism in how books are valued, which is bullshit and an issue worth discussing, even if I really didn't, LOL.
(What do you think- Would Mr. Barnes still knock off a half point for excessive comma usage? I think yes! Comma love 4evah!)
Can I like this a million times?
I'm a high school English teacher and I purposely alternate classics with more modern work to keep my students engaged. I have to balance preparing them to be well-educated citizens of the world with wanting them to actually read. How many of you actually read those classics? Did you earnestly read them cover to cover? Or did you talk to people about the book, watch the movie or look it up on spark notes? At some point people just need to read for all the reasons listed above.
Yes?? I'm bothered by this question. I think because it comes from an english teacher and the assumption is that no one would actually want to read "the classics." I do think that the pattern you present of alternating classics (keeping in mind that Literature can also be contemporary, and classics are just literature that is already in the canon) with fun-reads is a really healthy approach to reading. It kind of shows them what you might call good reading hygiene? But as for the apparently rhetorical "no one really reads this stuff anyway" comment, I'm feeling some sort of way about that coming out of the mouth of a high school English teacher.
I guess some other random thoughts: I think attempting to define a higher level of writing as Literature is important in the same way that we pick apart "source" on this board. Post an article from a peer reviewed science journal that discusses the way raking your leaves is bad for the environment = good. Post an article from mommyblogger dot com about how raking your leaves is bad for the environment... well, on this board, eventually someone would go find a peer reviewed science journal and say "This is actually true." But that kind of gets to the point.
We defer in some ways to those we identify as having expertise in a particular area. We look to those sources as somehow authoritative even where there's disagreement within the field. So like in Philosophy, you might look at Aristotle and Kant as being two people with two different views on ethics. But you wouldn't introduce no-name-Nick into the discussion. And particularly not if he writes like shit and appears to not have any real understanding of the conversation he's entering.
Literature is the same way. There is a discussion being had about the aesthetic of writing, the ability to access the larger story of humankind, the meaning of symbolism, the power of the narrative, the reflection of ourselves in the stories of others (I think this is probably way Literature increases empathic abilities in a way that genre or popular fiction do not)... Literature gets at that. And I think it's an important phenomenon. We want to identify the books that do that, or that we think will do that because we believe they are the books that say something about us as a people.
But I am a believer in the transcendent power of art, which I accept is not the case for all people or even maybe most people. Though my thought on that point is, I guess, if you don't believe in this, or you don't care about it, why does it matter to YOU if Outlander is Literature. If you don't believe that Literature serves any real purpose, then it is not the case that everything is Literature; it is the case that everything is just books.
But I am completely on board with the argument that there is a sexism (and racism) in the canon. As there is in science, law, medicine, philosophy, art, history... So for all of the reasons that we should be calling that shit out in those areas, we should be calling it out in Literature. I mean, I agree with pretty much every word in the OP. I just don't agree that the answer is to lower the quality standard of what constitutes literature. It's to stop being sexist and racist in publishing and promoting.
My two cents. There's a difference between great literature and great storytelling. Some books are both -- I'd ditto @asdfjk that Dickens and Irving are great examples of writers whose books are often both. But not all great works of literature are great stories. My favorite book of this century, A Visit from the Goon Squad is an amazing piece of literature, but it's not a great "story," it's greatness comes from its use of language and perspective, and the way it presents the impact of the passage of time on our lives. On the other hand, I loved Gone Girl, but I probably wouldn't call it a great work of literature. It was a really great story though.
It's insane to me that critics don't seems to get that. So what happens is that mens books that aren't necessarily literature can still get acclaim for being great reads. Think Stephen King. That guy might be one of the greatest storytellers America has ever known. Nobody derides him for "just" writing stories. While Franzen annoys me, he gets a lot of praise for his storytelling too.
But women writers seem to either write "literature" or chick lit. For women, being a great storyteller isn't real praise, it's an insult, a suggestion that you write nice stories for moms to talk about at their kids play dates.
This is a really good way of putting it.
And while I agree with asdfjkl that some of what people try to call literature is not, in fact, literature, I am slightly skeptical that women truly make that argument more than men. Further, assuming that women actually do this more often, I think that we have to view it in the context of what the OP is about - writing by women and for women being dismissed as inferior. Women may feel compelled to defend Jennifer Weiner, whose books definitely fall into the category of storytelling but not literature, because they get dismissed as fluffy "chick lit," in a way that men do not feel the need to defend their reading of Michael Connelly. Both write entertaining stories. Neither write literature. One gets derided as mindless in a way that the other does not.
This is also true. No one is embarrassed to say they read James Patterson or Dan Brown, but if you're reading Danielle Steele, you're likely to preface it by saying, "I know it's Danielle Steele, but it's actually really good..." All this means to me is that the sexism exists at every tier of publishing. Which, of course, is not surprising.
I'm a high school English teacher and I purposely alternate classics with more modern work to keep my students engaged. I have to balance preparing them to be well-educated citizens of the world with wanting them to actually read. How many of you actually read those classics? Did you earnestly read them cover to cover? Or did you talk to people about the book, watch the movie or look it up on spark notes? At some point people just need to read for all the reasons listed above.
Yes?? I'm bothered by this question. I think because it comes from an english teacher and the assumption is that no one would actually want to read "the classics." I do think that the pattern you present of alternating classics (keeping in mind that Literature can also be contemporary, and classics are just literature that is already in the canon) with fun-reads is a really healthy approach to reading. It kind of shows them what you might call good reading hygiene? But as for the apparently rhetorical "no one really reads this stuff anyway" comment, I'm feeling some sort of way about that coming out of the mouth of a high school English teacher.
I guess some other random thoughts: I think attempting to define a higher level of writing as Literature is important in the same way that we pick apart "source" on this board. Post an article from a peer reviewed science journal that discusses the way raking your leaves is bad for the environment = good. Post an article from mommyblogger dot com about how raking your leaves is bad for the environment... well, on this board, eventually someone would go find a peer reviewed science journal and say "This is actually true." But that kind of gets to the point.
We defer in some ways to those we identify as having expertise in a particular area. We look to those sources as somehow authoritative even where there's disagreement within the field. So like in Philosophy, you might look at Aristotle and Kant as being two people with two different views on ethics. But you wouldn't introduce no-name-Nick into the discussion. And particularly not if he writes like shit and appears to not have any real understanding of the conversation he's entering.
Literature is the same way. There is a discussion being had about the aesthetic of writing, the ability to access the larger story of humankind, the meaning of symbolism, the power of the narrative, the reflection of ourselves in the stories of others (I think this is probably way Literature increases empathic abilities in a way that genre or popular fiction do not)... Literature gets at that. And I think it's an important phenomenon. We want to identify the books that do that, or that we think will do that because we believe they are the books that say something about us as a people.
But I am a believer in the transcendent power of art, which I accept is not the case for all people or even maybe most people. Though my thought on that point is, I guess, if you don't believe in this, or you don't care about it, why does it matter to YOU if Outlander is Literature. If you don't believe that Literature serves any real purpose, then it is not the case that everything is Literature; it is the case that everything is just books.
But I am completely on board with the argument that there is a sexism (and racism) in the canon. As there is in science, law, medicine, philosophy, art, history... So for all of the reasons that we should be calling that shit out in those areas, we should be calling it out in Literature. I mean, I agree with pretty much every word in the OP. I just don't agree that the answer is to lower the quality standard of what constitutes literature. It's to stop being sexist and racist in publishing and promoting.
Any English teacher who thinks that every student reads every book that is assigned is delusional. Particularly in a large urban school district like the one I work in. I would love it if that was the case but it is just unrealistic. In addition to trying to expose the students to different types of texts I also have to worry about reading levels. I have students in my tenth grade class who read at a junior high level. Those students aren't going home and reading the book on their own (especially something out of the canon) so we read it together in class. Even with reading it in class we have students who are frequently absent due to health or family issues. Preparing students to be well-read is an uphill battle. Don't get me wrong, it's one I gladly face because I see the value but it isn't a simple task.
Yes?? I'm bothered by this question. I think because it comes from an english teacher and the assumption is that no one would actually want to read "the classics." I do think that the pattern you present of alternating classics (keeping in mind that Literature can also be contemporary, and classics are just literature that is already in the canon) with fun-reads is a really healthy approach to reading. It kind of shows them what you might call good reading hygiene? But as for the apparently rhetorical "no one really reads this stuff anyway" comment, I'm feeling some sort of way about that coming out of the mouth of a high school English teacher.
I guess some other random thoughts: I think attempting to define a higher level of writing as Literature is important in the same way that we pick apart "source" on this board. Post an article from a peer reviewed science journal that discusses the way raking your leaves is bad for the environment = good. Post an article from mommyblogger dot com about how raking your leaves is bad for the environment... well, on this board, eventually someone would go find a peer reviewed science journal and say "This is actually true." But that kind of gets to the point.
We defer in some ways to those we identify as having expertise in a particular area. We look to those sources as somehow authoritative even where there's disagreement within the field. So like in Philosophy, you might look at Aristotle and Kant as being two people with two different views on ethics. But you wouldn't introduce no-name-Nick into the discussion. And particularly not if he writes like shit and appears to not have any real understanding of the conversation he's entering.
Literature is the same way. There is a discussion being had about the aesthetic of writing, the ability to access the larger story of humankind, the meaning of symbolism, the power of the narrative, the reflection of ourselves in the stories of others (I think this is probably way Literature increases empathic abilities in a way that genre or popular fiction do not)... Literature gets at that. And I think it's an important phenomenon. We want to identify the books that do that, or that we think will do that because we believe they are the books that say something about us as a people.
But I am a believer in the transcendent power of art, which I accept is not the case for all people or even maybe most people. Though my thought on that point is, I guess, if you don't believe in this, or you don't care about it, why does it matter to YOU if Outlander is Literature. If you don't believe that Literature serves any real purpose, then it is not the case that everything is Literature; it is the case that everything is just books.
But I am completely on board with the argument that there is a sexism (and racism) in the canon. As there is in science, law, medicine, philosophy, art, history... So for all of the reasons that we should be calling that shit out in those areas, we should be calling it out in Literature. I mean, I agree with pretty much every word in the OP. I just don't agree that the answer is to lower the quality standard of what constitutes literature. It's to stop being sexist and racist in publishing and promoting.
Any English teacher who thinks that every student reads every book that is assigned is delusional. Particularly in a large urban school district like the one I work in. I would love it if that was the case but it is just unrealistic. In addition to trying to expose the students to different types of texts I also have to worry about reading levels. I have students in my tenth grade class who read at a junior high level. Those students aren't going home and reading the book on their own (especially something out of the canon) so we read it together in class. Even with reading it in class we have students who are frequently absent due to health or family issues. Preparing students to be well-read is an uphill battle. Don't get me wrong, it's one I gladly face because I see the value but it isn't a simple task.
Your question was not whether we believe that every student reads every book that is assigned. Your question was "How many of you actually read these classics? Did you earnestly read them cover to cover? Or did you talk to people about the book, watch the movie or look it up on spark notes?" I thought you were addressing the group, not talking about your students.
At any rate, I would not be the least bit surprised to find the very few urban high school students read the books they are assigned from cover to cover, For any number of reasons from food insecurity to illiteracy to boredom. I would just hope they don't have a teacher at the front of the room whose private opinion is, "You know, no one reads this boring stuff anyway. Spark notes or the movie are the way to go." That would, of course, horrify me. I would think that everything else aside, if you are going to teach literature, even to urban high school students, you should at the very least, you know, love literature.
Any English teacher who thinks that every student reads every book that is assigned is delusional. Particularly in a large urban school district like the one I work in. I would love it if that was the case but it is just unrealistic. In addition to trying to expose the students to different types of texts I also have to worry about reading levels. I have students in my tenth grade class who read at a junior high level. Those students aren't going home and reading the book on their own (especially something out of the canon) so we read it together in class. Even with reading it in class we have students who are frequently absent due to health or family issues. Preparing students to be well-read is an uphill battle. Don't get me wrong, it's one I gladly face because I see the value but it isn't a simple task.
Your question was not whether we believe that every student reads every book that is assigned. Your question was "How many of you actually read these classics? Did you earnestly read them cover to cover? Or did you talk to people about the book, watch the movie or look it up on spark notes?" I thought you were addressing the group, not talking about your students.
At any rate, I would not be the least bit surprised to find the very few urban high school students read the books they are assigned from cover to cover, For any number of reasons from food insecurity to illiteracy to boredom. I would just hope they don't have a teacher at the front of the room whose private opinion is, "You know, no one reads this boring stuff anyway. Spark notes or the movie are the way to go." That would, of course, horrify me. I would think that everything else aside, if you are going to teach literature, even to urban high school students, you should at the very least, you know, love literature.
I do love literature and I would never offer those as legitimate substitutes to reading the text. Despite my love of literature there were times in my life when a classic piece wasn't interesting or when I made the choice not to read it in its entirety. I read chick lit in my spare time because I prefer to escape into another world not analyze a classic text. I don't think either of these things makes me a horrible literature major or a poor example of an avid reader to my students. At the end of the day I'd prefer that they discover a love for reading and learning rather than a superior attitude about being well-read.
It's funny to me that people today cite Dickens as such a great example of a literary author because at the time he was a hugely popular writer who was often dismissed by critics as overly schmaltzy and sentimental: a superficial hack. The lack of critical praised he earned really burned him up. The same goes for a lot of writers we revere today. Fitzgerald died thinking his work was overlooked and undervalued. The Great Gatsby barely sold any copies in his lifetime and look at it today.
It's funny to me that people today cite Dickens as such a great example of a literary author because at the time he was a hugely popular writer who was often dismissed by critics as overly schmaltzy and sentimental: a superficial hack. The lack of critical praised he earned really burned him up. The same goes for a lot of writers we revere today. Fitzgerald died thinking his work was overlooked and undervalued. The Great Gatsby barely sold any copies in his lifetime and look at it today.
I still feel that way about Dickens.
I think though, that that's because these were books that were essentially offering critiques of the establishment, so the establishment didn't like them. Gatsby chases the American Dream right to his (**spoiler alert**) death. Dickens is read now because he crafted really great characters with depth and dimension, but he also told the story of Victorian England and the harshness of its classism and elitism, it's poverty and dysfunction. That's what we like about it now. I'll be honest and say I haven't read any Dickens in a long damn time (other than an excerpt from Martin Chuzzlewit in which he describes a midwife). But I remember reading Great Expectations in... either high school or college, Oliver Twist in college, Bleak House, Hard Times, also in college. Probably excerpts from others. He's not my favorite author, but I do love his character portraits and I think what he did was important.
There are a lot of books like that that I read in high school or college and the themes have stayed with me as instructive in why literature is important. I'm thinking of things like: The Metamorphosis, The Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Great Gatsby, Oedipus/Antigone, a multitude of short stories and poems... All the cliche books that people throw out as "classics." Some of that stuff (cough Melville cough) I really don't care for. Some of it is simply too hard for me - Ive tried to read The Brothers Karamazov three times and I'm right now on page 63. Which is where I've been since 2011. But I assume the problem there is me, not the books, or even the establishment. I should make myself read that goddamn book. There are things in it that are universal and that will inform other things I read from chick-lit to newspapers.