Why Book Criticism and Literary Culture Needs a Poptimist Revolution
- Thread starter William Haskins
- Start date
- Status
w
I feel like -- when I am into a book, when I am loving it? I don't give a crap about that
I care only that it has made me feel ...something. Anything. Preferably not a critical analysis (I only do that if I am bored reading the book)
I read a book to enjoy it, not to change my life (I can't think of any that have tbh)
If it does/did? Bonus. I don't worship it because of that.
I may worship because it made me feel something though. Making it resonate right here *thumps chest* that's what a book is for. Tp help me see through other eyes, to empathise with another life.
For me. Maybe not for you.
.
I feel like -- when I am into a book, when I am loving it? I don't give a crap about that
I care only that it has made me feel ...something. Anything. Preferably not a critical analysis (I only do that if I am bored reading the book)
I read a book to enjoy it, not to change my life (I can't think of any that have tbh)
If it does/did? Bonus. I don't worship it because of that.
I may worship because it made me feel something though. Making it resonate right here *thumps chest* that's what a book is for. Tp help me see through other eyes, to empathise with another life.
For me. Maybe not for you.
+1
Maybe it's a Literary Thing, that a book only has value if it changes your life*. Me, I read for pleasure and escapism.
(* - At least, I hope it's just a Literary Thing, otherwise I don't have a snowball's chance in Hades of ever getting my frivolous little fantasies published.)
Yuck meaning?
You think our opinions are yuck? The original article is yuck? The books (please specify if so) are yuck? You are yuck? Or perhaps the world is yuck?
Clarity is king, remember? If I don't know what you are saying, I can hardly do a literary critique of how it changed my life. Or I can, and it'll be shit
So William, give us all a clue here
I'm leaning towards "yuck is yuck" personally.
You think our opinions are yuck? The original article is yuck? The books (please specify if so) are yuck? You are yuck? Or perhaps the world is yuck?
Clarity is king, remember? If I don't know what you are saying, I can hardly do a literary critique of how it changed my life. Or I can, and it'll be shit
So William, give us all a clue here
I'm leaning towards "yuck is yuck" personally.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
Changing our lives is not what we read for. There may be a slow accrual of change due to reading, but you can also get change by banging your head against a wall.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
So how does it change your life? Into what? For myself, I find any effect is usually temporary.
If a book makes me feel *something* intensely enough or interestingly enough, that does change my life. It is not an either/or proposition, nor does "changing my life" mean, necessarily, that I have been led down a different cognitive path by sophisticated verbalisms. Though that might do it, if they can also make me feel something.
I do find that that level of impact -- that deeper feeling that can also be a change agent -- is what is most interesting about books, and I rarely really enjoy one that can't provide me with at least a tingle of that experience.
I do find that that level of impact -- that deeper feeling that can also be a change agent -- is what is most interesting about books, and I rarely really enjoy one that can't provide me with at least a tingle of that experience.
Read the article - twice. Can't make out the author's point.
anyone able to sum it up, in maybe a sentence?
anyone able to sum it up, in maybe a sentence?
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
I believe it was summed up as 'yuck'.
ETA: literary critics and reviewers are too snobby and should add lightweight books by women to their serious books by men (because women don't write serious books and men don't write lightweight ones?); also, 50 Shades.
Last edited:
lol, yes. pretty succinct.
Now, I'm not running on full gas at the mo, but the author of the article seems to be offering a few mutterings, then something about - wait the thread title helps - the author is saying that the 'popular' voice is the best one?
I dunno, that's a guess.
If that's it, then yup, 'yuck' is the best response. .
from the article above.
first this
"If book review sections wanted to be relevant, they’d take a look as to why 50 Shades happened.
The people buying 50 Shades of Grey are people buying books, even if the writing is, to quote William Giraldi: “the cartoonishly erotic suppurations of a hamstrung, not terribly bright adult trying to navigate a midlife crisis, and you get the feeling that the sentences arrived on the page as if by osmosis, unaided by even a sub-literate serf.”
(Giraldi is a critic who has the stuff, but too often slides into misogynist cruelty — even if I admire his bitchy moxie.)
And then this
"Ignoring the biggest literary phenomenon of the decade is not good criticism."
she lost me there. then again, I am pretty tired.
ETA loved this comment
""It’s not an either/or, literary snobs versus being a populist philosopher, but I want a culture that’s rooted in a literary canon to figure out how to be more generous when considering the scope of literature, the value that words have in people’s lives." After reading this somewhat snarky piece, which throws out words like "snobs" and assumes that "boring" for book reviews is an opinion of hers that everyone shares, I truly don't believe that avoiding an either/or situation is what she wants at all. This is another example of typical internet writing. Take a provocative position and bolster it with sarcasm. I also don't believe this author has fully explored the vastness of literary criticism that's out there right now, or more likely, is ignoring it. But seriously? She wants more literary reviews of "50 Shades of Grey"? There are ample populist reviews all over the place, especially right here on the internet. There are numerous spots where genre fiction is reviewed both online and in print. It's much harder to find intelligent, and yes erudite, critical writing which Ms. Donnelly has decided to deride (complete with misandry). And, as has always been the case, no one is forced to read the New York Times Book Review as their only source of criticism in the first place."
first this
"If book review sections wanted to be relevant, they’d take a look as to why 50 Shades happened.
The people buying 50 Shades of Grey are people buying books, even if the writing is, to quote William Giraldi: “the cartoonishly erotic suppurations of a hamstrung, not terribly bright adult trying to navigate a midlife crisis, and you get the feeling that the sentences arrived on the page as if by osmosis, unaided by even a sub-literate serf.”
(Giraldi is a critic who has the stuff, but too often slides into misogynist cruelty — even if I admire his bitchy moxie.)
And then this
"Ignoring the biggest literary phenomenon of the decade is not good criticism."
she lost me there. then again, I am pretty tired.
ETA loved this comment
""It’s not an either/or, literary snobs versus being a populist philosopher, but I want a culture that’s rooted in a literary canon to figure out how to be more generous when considering the scope of literature, the value that words have in people’s lives." After reading this somewhat snarky piece, which throws out words like "snobs" and assumes that "boring" for book reviews is an opinion of hers that everyone shares, I truly don't believe that avoiding an either/or situation is what she wants at all. This is another example of typical internet writing. Take a provocative position and bolster it with sarcasm. I also don't believe this author has fully explored the vastness of literary criticism that's out there right now, or more likely, is ignoring it. But seriously? She wants more literary reviews of "50 Shades of Grey"? There are ample populist reviews all over the place, especially right here on the internet. There are numerous spots where genre fiction is reviewed both online and in print. It's much harder to find intelligent, and yes erudite, critical writing which Ms. Donnelly has decided to deride (complete with misandry). And, as has always been the case, no one is forced to read the New York Times Book Review as their only source of criticism in the first place."
Last edited:
New outlook on life. Change the way I relate to people or understand them. See the world in a different way. Give me resolve to live.
For me, the purpose of fiction is to change the world for the better, even if just a little bit, one heart at a time. That's why I write.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
I think what's being overlooked is that the success of 50 Shades, and HP before it, is a sociological phenomenon. In fact, not even that; within sociology it's probably well understood. So analysing it as a literary phenomenon is applying the wrong tools.
I would find it very confusing to change so much with every piece of art I consumed
. Then again, continuity of character is merely a construct.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
I would find it very confusing to change so much with every piece of art I consumed
I think you're overestimating how big a change must be for it to be meaningful or important.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
No, I was adding all those changes together.
Perhaps, but it's true.
Lol, well, that is the essence of the question begged, isn't it? Anyway, literary critics are not sociologists, and vv.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
your opinions are yuck, in my opinion... not that you read for entertainment/escapism... that is your choice and as valid as any other. what is yuck is the implicit mindset that literature does not have the potential to be transformative; which is severely narrow-minded regardless of one's motives and experiences...
- Status