Reading Prejudices

[shortstoryfan]

I was wondering if anyone has any "reading prejudices", either settings or characters types, or writing styles that they simply have no interest in reading just because of that particular component of the piece. For instance, I have trouble reading "regional writers", although, I don't know why.

[JBI]

Poetry > Prose.

[Mopey Droney]

I don't like prose affected "terse" prose. You know, the so-called "minimalists", by which I don't mean Hemingway but the more Amy Hempel type stuff.

[Tallon]

If anything i am possibly too open minded. I jump around styles a lot and see merit and weaknesses in everything. It makes me feel boring that i'm not perticulary passionate or critical of certain works/genres. It's like i've got no opinions, but i do, i just think everything is good

[Jozanny]

I tend to be less attuned, with some exceptions, to modern humorists, like Proulx, or Weiner. I am educated enough to see why these women found an audience, and yes, they are talented, but the conflicts they set up within their narratives feel like foregone conclusions to me. Maybe that is too harsh, or smacks of vagina envy, since Proulx has long gone Hollywood with Brokeback Mountain, (which, in fairness to her, I have not read as text, or seen as film), and Weiner, who is a generation younger than I, is now doing television--and even poor moi, I had my biggest hit in a big newspaper because I wrote a funny op-ed about my failed engagement, but it seems that most women writers, from Fanny Burney, through to Austen, Eliot, are rather forced into satire and comedy of manners, and its modern incarnations do not seem to win my internal acclaim. The old vanguard, who broke through the ranks, like Doris Lessing, and Toni Morrison, who take their intellectual power seriously, and expect it of their readers, more readily have my respect.

It is, however, a prejudice, because male humorists also need to jump a high bar with me.

One of the exceptions: A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole. It is a comedy of manners, but so funny it hurts.

[Drkshadow03]

I don't like Proulx much either, Jozanny. I wrote of a rather choppy review/reaction to reading one of her short story collections on my blog: here. Though, "Brokeback Mountain" is a great story.

I suppose I should give her novels a try.

-------------------------------------------------------------

As for my own biases, I have always liked horror fiction and the fantastic ever since I was little. And I still love it today.

However, I pretty much will read anything (other than a textbook). And I enjoy all types of fiction.

[Bitterfly]

I was wondering if anyone has any "reading prejudices", either settings or characters types, or writing styles that they simply have no interest in reading just because of that particular component of the piece. For instance, I have trouble reading "regional writers", although, I don't know why.

So do I!! Maybe because I'm afraid that their outlook would be too provincial. It's a bit silly though, because some "regional writers" I've read, mainly French, are very very good.

I'm also somewhat prejudiced against the "nouveau roman", even though I've also enjoyed some of them very much - probably because I'm afraid they'll turn out to be extremely boring (which is sometimes the case). And I'm exceedingly prejudiced against contemporary French authors - I consistently defend contemporary British or American literature against it, even though I haven't read much of it (French contemporary lit.).

[Jozanny]

So do I!! Maybe because I'm afraid that their outlook would be too provincial. It's a bit silly though, because some "regional writers" I've read, mainly French, are very very good.

I'm also somewhat prejudiced against the "nouveau roman", even though I've also enjoyed some of them very much - probably because I'm afraid they'll turn out to be extremely boring (which is sometimes the case). And I'm exceedingly prejudiced against contemporary French authors - I consistently defend contemporary British or American literature against it, even though I haven't read much of it (French contemporary lit.).

Bitter, these sentiments rather make me smile, because I am a bit weary of the American literary ethos, and find myself ravenous for anything else, contemporary European or otherwise.

Not, mind you, that I am making an indictment of American literature--I would just like to sample work that pushes back against it and has another vision; we are the big guy who is the world bully--and I like pushing back against the big spoiled brat of the globe! I have nothing fresh though, just a nose in Foucault--he is a cult figure here in the US, and trying to be friends with Invisible Man, although as a disabled writer I could start some controversy about urban black culture--though this is another issue--but please give me something with a different worldview against our globalism, that is what I'd like to be reading!

[Bitterfly]

Ah, but you don't realize how lucky you are!!! You still have authors who think big!!! I don't much like American authors who write in what I see as the French introverted, belly-button-examining way (I don't know, like Philip Roth maybe - he gets on my nerves).

I'm exaggerating a little I think I'm prejudiced in favour of contemporary American authors!

(am studying an excerpt of Invisible Man, by the way, and of Native Son, and am astonished by the violent beauty of those passages - I should probably reread Kristeva's Pouvoirs de l'horreur and Artaud's Theatre of Cruelty to understand them better)

[promtbr]

Great idea for a thread BTW.

I have prided myself on trying to keep an open mind as much as possible when I pick up a book by an author I have never read, and not bring the baggage of my expectations or mores into a narative when I am reading it. But being truthful with myself, it have to acknowledge I too have prejudices that affect my attitudes to a story as much as I hate to admit it..

Since obviously prejudices are personal, I took the following personally:

To illustrate: I took the following personally and had my hackles up reacting to :

modern humorists, like Proulx...

Eliot rather forced into satire and comedy of manners

????
I personally would never pick up a book by Eliot or Proulx and have in the back of my mind that those writers are "humorists"... There are elements of satire and irony in their work to greater or lesser extent, but humorists? Not equating their stature in any way,, but one might as well call Shakespeare a humorist...

I don't know about the "Gone Hollywood" prejudice", that could be leveled against A LOT of writers I admire I suppose.. Has McCarthy "Gone Hollywood"?

I don't like Proulx much either, Jozanny. I wrote of a rather choppy review/reaction to reading one of her short story

What makes these boards interesting is the different tastes, reading attitudes, expectations of readers.
These tastes are informed by one's prejudices...

As a big short story fan, some of Proulx's Wyoming stories (Half Skinned Steer, The Mud Below ) have a personal ranking with me up with the best of Carver, Chekhov, Schulz, Hemingway et al..

The critics from Seattle Times, the NY Times and Washington Observer do not tend to agree with your review. Though they (and I) like her Close Range better..

But then again that's the nature of Blog reviews I suppose (oops, another reading prejudice..)

Having spent a fair amount of time out in Wyoming, and not being from a rural area, I am probably regionally disposed (prejudiced)to see the keen eye and ear people and places were captured in her stories. Having read a lot of non traditional world lit, I am OK with non traditional points of view and narative elements.

My admission of reading prejudices is a prejudice against NY writers or works that tend to focus their narative or protaganist's milieu in that city... I should not have that prejudice, but there it is...
I have it in my head that most well read literature lovers from that city are like the glib snobs in found in the drawing rooms of Stendahl and Balzac novels...

I can't read Paul Auster for example. I tried to read Moon Palace but when the hero went "west" into the wilds of Utah and unexplicably was aided by 5 or 6 impossible props and/or actions that wrenched my "disbelief" out of the book, I had to give up on it..

Second, I can not read LBGT lit, this as to another of my reading prejudice, I never read Proulx's Brokeback Mountain (nor have I watched the movie...)

[Jozanny]

Henry James is one of my favorite writers of all time, but if posters, or member users of this forum, have reason not to like him, and are even hostile to his work (and I know some really astute critics who are just that) I cannot imagine why I would take it personally. We are posting about the text as a product; while I might try to defend James, I do not harbor animosity towards those who do not care for him, and I am puzzled why anyone would want to fight, with me, for giving an honest answer to the thread starter.

[Emil Miller]

I would hesitate to use the word prejudice but, when it comes to literature, I will not read Science Fiction or 'Fantasy',which is essentially the same thing, or Horror stories which are aimed at people's fears rather than their minds.
Anything with vampires, aliens and other childish appurtenances to the mass mentality are of no interest to me and I have no desire to read about them. I am interested in real life characters in real life situations and that is generally what great literature is about.
There may be exceptions such as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or some short stories by Maupassant, and one of the progenitors of Science Fiction H.G.Wells, whose sci-fi novels I read as a boy. However, I found his social comment novels far superior and much more meaningful. If you want to know what it feels like to be torn between love and ambition, then read his Love and Mr Lewisham; probably his best novel. You can keep The War of the Worlds and The Time Machine.

[shortstoryfan]

I can't bring myself to read William Faulkner. No idea why.

[Joreads]

I would hesitate to use the word prejudice but, when it comes to literature, I will not read Science Fiction or 'Fantasy',which is essentially the same thing, or Horror stories which are aimed at people's fears rather than their minds.
Anything with vampires, aliens and other childish appurtenances to the mass mentality are of no interest to me and I have no desire to read about them. I am interested in real life characters in real life situations and that is generally what great literature is about.
There may be exceptions such as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or some short stories by Maupassant, and one of the progenitors of Science Fiction H.G.Wells, whose sci-fi novels I read as a boy. However, I found his social comment novels far superior and much more meaningful. If you want to know what it feels like to be torn between love and ambition, then read his Love and Mr Lewisham; probably his best novel. You can keep The War of the Worlds and The Time Machine.

Brian I am the opposite I love fantasy and sci fi. I still read novel with a social comment and about real life situations but I like to alternate between them. Fantasy, vampires (big fan) take me out of the real word for a while and then I step back in.

\

[Mopey Droney]

I can't bring myself to read William Faulkner. No idea why.

You are missing out! Great sentences!