No true lover of literature would drag in his political biases, says D'Artagnan.
What a wonderful point. He is, of course, absolutely correct.
Then, D'Artagnan must, if he really believes this, examine exactly why so many people think that "Slaughterhouse Five" is such a great novel. It isn't but it is more of a political statement than anything else.
To return to Morrison's "Beloved"--that is also a political statement--about the evils of slavery. It is a dreary repetition of the same points already made in a more artistic and objective fashion by Ellison and Wright.
But, I am certain that D'Artagnan does not know what stance Harold Bloom takes with regard to political biases. Dr. Bloom says----"Those who can do canonical work invariably see their writings as larger forms than any social program, however exemplary, The issue is containment and great literature will insist on its SELF SUFFICIENCY in the face of all of the worthiest causes: feminism, African-American culturism and all of the other politically correct enterprises of our moment>"
and
"If we read the Western Canon in ORDER TO FORM OUR SOCIAL, POLITICAL, OR PERSONAL VALUES, I firmly believe we will become monsters of selfishness and exploitation, TO READ IN THE SERVICE OF ANY IDEOLOGY IS NOT, IN MY JUDGEMENT, NOT TO READ AT ALL"
Are you surprised, D'Aragnan, that Dr. Bloom agrees with you?
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Mon 12 Jun, 2006 11:32 pm
I am very much afraid, Mr. Dyslexia, that, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Kotzwinkle is useless. I do not read those who write for children.
Secondly, I am certain that your nomination of Hesse and Lagerkvist, are based on strong evidence, but I must point out that I have accepted the viewpoint that, unless you know the language that a writer uses, you really cannot read that writer accurately.
I can read Spanish and Italian and have found a world of difference between Gabriel Garcia Marquez( also a Nobel Prize Winner) in Spanish and the translation into English.
If I could read Swedish, I would read Lagerkvist since I have heard many great things about "The Dwarf" and, of course, Hesse has been a favorite in Universities for years(usually read in translation from the German)
But I can't read Swedish or German and I don't trust even the best translators to give the full flavor of foreign books, so I stick mainly to writers in English, Spanish and Italian.
I must relate a story to you, sir. There was an American writer, On Philip Jackson, writer of the novel( among others )--"The Lost Weekend. He was a great admirer of the works of the great German writer- Thomas Mann--so much so that he took a trip to Germany to meet Mr. Mann. When he was allowed entrance to his home, he conversed with Mrs. Mann and told her he had read everything Mr. Mann had written. Mrs. Mann then asked Mr.Jackson where he had learned German in order to read works in German. Mr. Jackson replied that he did not know how to read German.
Mrs. Mann then said--I am very sorry but if you can't read German, you haven't really read my husband's works.
0 Replies
Joe Nation
1
Reply
Tue 13 Jun, 2006 03:59 am
Quote:
So...is anyone interested in reading and discussing Beloved as a group?
I'm reading it in July. (beach weather) I'll let you know.
Joe(actuallly listening to it)Nation
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Tue 13 Jun, 2006 06:05 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Quote:
So...is anyone interested in reading and discussing Beloved as a group?
I'm reading it in July. (beach weather) I'll let you know.
Joe(actuallly listening to it)Nation
One possible it is.
It'll be SOOOOO much easier if the troll button is part of A2k by then........groan...
0 Replies
Miller
1
Reply
Tue 13 Jun, 2006 05:38 pm
What's that?
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Tue 13 Jun, 2006 07:17 pm
The Troll Button, Mr. Miller, is a device so that people like DLowan who are incapable of replying to an argument or are not sufficiently informed to defend their thesis, may go right past the poster. It does, of course, show the disdain of those who use it for the poster they do not like. It also may show that they are pusillanimous with regard to using what they feel are their unrebuttable arguments against others.
What the button will not do, Mr. Miller, is to erase people's posts. Then anyone who is not lacking in their ability to view other points of view may indeed read another side.
I have always believed in the marketplace of ideas and that the marketplace will inevitably kill off ideas that are not germane to the subject at hand.
Cheers- Mr. Miller!!!!!!
0 Replies
Miller
1
Reply
Wed 14 Jun, 2006 10:16 am
0 Replies
plainoldme
1
Reply
Fri 16 Jun, 2006 02:36 pm
dlowan wrote:
So...is anyone interested in reading and discussing Beloved as a group?
(Can't believe I stuck my stupid head in THAT noose again!)
I adored Dickens as a teenager....and still value Bleak House, Dombey and Son, David Copperfield, Hard Times and a couple of others a great deal.......but I certainly could not read most of his novels with much enjoyment now....
Move your head over, deb, I'll share the noose with you.
0 Replies
plainoldme
1
Reply
Fri 16 Jun, 2006 02:38 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Greetings, plainoldme!
I recently read "Bleak House" but I'm a sucker for Dickens.
I didn't mean to deny the political implications in a novel, but I am critical of the tendency to apply a political yardstick to a work of art. It's especially reductive to let one voice, say Harold Bloom's, determine what's worthy and what isn't...
And Bloom certainly lets politics dictate much of his choosing!
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Sat 17 Jun, 2006 01:30 am
Bloom's politics? And the politics of the School of Resentment? They do not politicize- Oh no! They only PROSCRIBE very good authors like Hemingway( who is not taught anymore in many Universities), Faulkner, and Norman Mailer, who are replaced by atrocities like Morrison and Alice Walker.
And anyone who has read Bloom carefully knows his philosophical stance:
quote:
"If we read the Western Canon in ORDER TO FORM OUR SOCIAL, POLITICAL, OR PERSONAL VALUES, I firmly believe we will become monsters of selfishness and exploitation, TO READ IN THE SERVICE OF ANY IDEOLOGY IS NOT, IN MY JUDGEMENT, NOT TO READ AT ALL"
end of quote.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Sat 17 Jun, 2006 04:02 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Quote:
So...is anyone interested in reading and discussing Beloved as a group?
I'm reading it in July. (beach weather) I'll let you know.
Joe(actuallly listening to it)Nation
Hmmm....the whole listening to books thing is probably a thread in itself!
I generally like it not, except I DID listen to Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, because the accent thing was so interesting in terms of how one heard the characters.
0 Replies
plainoldme
1
Reply
Sat 17 Jun, 2006 10:44 am
Dlowan -- I can not read self-help books but am able to listen to them, not that I make a practice of it.
A few years back, my wonderful book group did a novel that was amazing. The name of it escapes me, but it was written by a Black woman born in 1950 and centered on a man whose life and mind were almost destroyed by his service in WWII. There was something pending in my life at the time, and it seemed like I would have to miss that meeting. I found out the other event was cancelled about three days prior to the meeting and could not put my hands on a copy of the book, nor could I realistically hope to finish it before then.
However, the library had it on tape, and I listened to it during the many car trips I had to take in those days.
Read by a wonderful pair of vocal actors, the book was amazing to listen to.
Everyone in the group was impressed by the fact that a woman, born after the war, could capture combat and post-traumatic stress as vividly as she did.
We compared the book and its author to Remains of the Day, written by a very young Japanese man whose family emigrated to Britain and who seemed to have a remarkable understanding of people of his grandparents' generation, living in his adopted country.
0 Replies
plainoldme
1
Reply
Tue 20 Jun, 2006 12:18 pm
deb -- HAve you had other takers on the Beloved group? I do want to finish Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, largely because the book belongs to my daughter and her husband, before starting something new. I'm on page 592 of 846 pages.
0 Replies
plainoldme
1
Reply
Tue 20 Jun, 2006 12:26 pm
Remember when there was a cliche called, "the great American novel"?
Every writer wanted to produce one and every reader wanted to savor one.
I really think that if there is one great American novel, it is a trilogy: John Dos Pasos' USA.
However, for many years, I continued to meet wonderful men -- who were, unfortunately, out of reach -- who all had one thing in common: just as all AMerican girls born before 1955 read Little Women (I hate the fact that I can not underline on the internet), these men had read James T. Farrell's Studs Lonigan as boys.
I finally read Studs Lonigan and I disagree with some of the critics who say the book is too repetitious because that is one of Farrell's points: that the American male fails to move off center, from childhood to adulthood. The repetition drives that point home.
I also reread some old favorite writers while preparing an independent study for a lovely young woman from Hondoras. After going through several top drawer authors, I finished with an Updike story. What a writer!
I generally don't like to read more than one book by any writer: most have only one book in them and rewrite it again and again. Updike is not in that category.
0 Replies
Dartagnan
1
Reply
Tue 20 Jun, 2006 12:46 pm
Ah, yes, The Great American Novel. It occurs to me that I haven't heard mention of the idea in years. The concept seems a bit silly now--is there a Great British Novel or Great French Novel? The notion seems boosterish, but we Americans have always loved ranking people and things.
Re reading more than one book by an author: I often do that, plainoldme, my faves being Roth, DeLillo, Wm. Trevor, and, most recently, Nicola Barker. Among other things, I like to see how characters and themes evolve over several books...
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Tue 20 Jun, 2006 03:42 pm
plainoldme wrote:
Remember when there was a cliche called, "the great American novel"?
Every writer wanted to produce one and every reader wanted to savor one.
I really think that if there is one great American novel, it is a trilogy: John Dos Pasos' USA.
However, for many years, I continued to meet wonderful men -- who were, unfortunately, out of reach -- who all had one thing in common: just as all AMerican girls born before 1955 read Little Women (I hate the fact that I can not underline on the internet), these men had read James T. Farrell's Studs Lonigan as boys.
I finally read Studs Lonigan and I disagree with some of the critics who say the book is too repetitious because that is one of Farrell's points: that the American male fails to move off center, from childhood to adulthood. The repetition drives that point home.
I also reread some old favorite writers while preparing an independent study for a lovely young woman from Hondoras. After going through several top drawer authors, I finished with an Updike story. What a writer!
I generally don't like to read more than one book by any writer: most have only one book in them and rewrite it again and again. Updike is not in that category.
I haven't the interest in or time on A2k to dedicate to trying to start a Beloved discussion. If there had been a surge of interest, well and good, but there hasn't been. If someone else wants to, good on 'em.
I may have enough oomph to try to initiate a discussion of Updike's new book, "Terrorist" later on (we can't get it here yet so I haven't read it) but, frankly, after the time and energy I put in ages ago to try to start a book discussion group here to no avail, I won't be doing anything if there is not immediate interest AND a preparation to agree quickly to a time. Life is too short.
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Tue 20 Jun, 2006 04:36 pm
I am very much afraid,PlainOl Me, that you don't know very much about Studs Lonigan. I have read it. Several times---It is not about the American Male failing to move off center. It is about the American Male finding himself in an environment in which ther religious background of his Irish-American Parents conflicts with his 1920's "lost Generation" style.
If you are not aware that there is a gigantic difference between the life styles of Studs Lonigan and those of today, you must read some of the writings of Saul Bellow(mid fifties and sixties) and the offerings of the new crop--Joyce Carol Oates, Tim O'Brien and DiLillo.
When I am looking for a novelist who exemplifies the last part of the twentieth century, I read the irrepressable Norman Mailer, who, because of the assaults of the feminists and despite the fact that he is the best of all of the novelists in the last part of the last century, is not taught very much at all anymore.
You may not be aware that Farrell is not mentioned in any part of the Canon. John DosPassos is in the Canon. His writing is indeed far superior to that of Farrell's but DosPossos is encumbered with the much too heavy load of redone Socialism. He is a dinosaur from the twenties and thirties.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Tue 20 Jun, 2006 04:52 pm
BernardR wrote:
I am very much afraid, Dlowan, that you don't know very much about Studs Lonigan. I have read it. Several times---It is not about the American Male failing to move off center. It is about the American Male finding himself in an environment in which ther religious background of his Irish-American Parents conflicts with his 1920's "lost Generation" style.
If you are not aware that there is a gigantic difference between the life styles of Studs Lonigan and those of today, you must read some of the writings of Saul Bellow(mid fifties and sixties) and the offerings of the new crop--Joyce Carol Oates, Tim O'Brien and DiLillo.
When I am looking for a novelist who exemplifies the last part of the twentieth century, I read the irrepressable Norman Mailer, who, because of the assaults of the feminists and despite the fact that he is the best of all of the novelists in the last part of the last century, is not taught very much at all anymore.
You may not be aware that Farrell is not mentioned in any part of the Canon. John DosPassos is in the Canon. His writing is indeed far superior to that of Farrell's but DosPossos is encumbered with the much too heavy load of redone Socialism. He is a dinosaur from the twenties and thirties.
Lol! You have aimed your wee little pea shooter at the wrong target again, ItalgardR....I have said nothing whatsoever about Studs Lonigan.
And please do not presume to dictate my reading.....I have read a great deal of Bellow, as it happens...as well as others within and without your "canon"......
I wonder, do you mistake your wee peashooter for a canon, by the way?
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Tue 20 Jun, 2006 04:55 pm
dlowan wrote:
BernardR wrote:
I am very much afraid, Dlowan, that you don't know very much about Studs Lonigan. I have read it. Several times---It is not about the American Male failing to move off center. It is about the American Male finding himself in an environment in which ther religious background of his Irish-American Parents conflicts with his 1920's "lost Generation" style.
If you are not aware that there is a gigantic difference between the life styles of Studs Lonigan and those of today, you must read some of the writings of Saul Bellow(mid fifties and sixties) and the offerings of the new crop--Joyce Carol Oates, Tim O'Brien and DiLillo.
When I am looking for a novelist who exemplifies the last part of the twentieth century, I read the irrepressable Norman Mailer, who, because of the assaults of the feminists and despite the fact that he is the best of all of the novelists in the last part of the last century, is not taught very much at all anymore.
You may not be aware that Farrell is not mentioned in any part of the Canon. John DosPassos is in the Canon. His writing is indeed far superior to that of Farrell's but DosPossos is encumbered with the much too heavy load of redone Socialism. He is a dinosaur from the twenties and thirties.
Lol! You have aimed your wee little pea shooter at the wrong target again, ItalgardR....I have said nothing whatsoever about Studs Lonigan.
And please do not presume to dictate my reading.....I have read a great deal of Bellow, as it happens...as well as others within and without your "canon"......
I wonder, do you mistake your wee peashooter for a canon, by the way?
Oh well done, you self corrected!
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Tue 20 Jun, 2006 04:56 pm
The comment made by Plain Ol Me is laughable. She is, of course, entitled to her opinion that very few authors don't have more than one book in them, but I think that is nonsense and might be due to the fact that Plain Ol Me may not understand what the writer is saying--
Modern Authors who had more than one book in them--
Bellow, Roth, DiLillo, Updike, Mailer and Hemingway..
