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 :D

[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. (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/because-trent-demands-i-keep-my-promises/) 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!:p 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 :p 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!

[shortstoryfan]

Yeah, I feel like I'm missing out...and yet I still can't do it. It's very hard for me. There are some other authors I would like to read, but just can't for some reason.

[JBI]

Please, mind not turning this to a which writer do you like and which do you hate? I thought this was supposed to be theoretical, not specific?

[shortstoryfan]

Yes, I suppose I can see that we have degenerated from the original post, and how this topic remains more interesting when we stay away from personal preferences. My situation with William Faulkner isn't really due to my personal preferences though, since I've never read him, but stems from some unknown source. So I really don't like or dislike him, since I have been unable to experience his work. Other posts have pointed more directly to biases influenced by an experience rather than something unexplained. In my original post, I was more interested in unfounded predjudices.

[Terror Firmer]

Hot topics and the current influx of memoirs concerning hot topics. Bah!

I'll read just about anything as long as the prose is satisfying, doesnt move at a glacial pace, isnt melodramatic, and isnt overstylized pretentiousness with zero substance.

[Emil Miller]

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

In an earlier post you said that you didn't like regional writers. Well you can't get more regional than Faulkner so I guess that's why you don't want to read him.

[Pecksie]

I am prejudiced against a certain type of (generally Latin American) female writer who writes books that are clearly aimed at other women and who, BTW, is seldom read by males. Examples: Isabel Allende, Marcela Serrano, Laura Restrepo, Ángeles Mastretta... I think a good writer should be universal, and these ladies (besides being too commercial IMHO) seem to write for one half of mankind only. It's a kind of glorified, Latin-flavored chick-lit.

[shortstoryfan]

I have made my way now in the short story anthology I am reading to the year 1931, and a story by William Faulkner, "The Evening Sun Go Down". It's fifteen pages long, is divided into five subsections and is the most frightening thing I've ever glimpsed. But I'm going to make it through this short story, and experience for the first time the writings of William Faulkner. Wish me luck.

[NEEMAN]

My biggest problem is when literature is overtly political. For this reason, I find a lot of 'post-colonial' literature difficult to enjoy. I can always appreciate the writing style and skill (presuming it's there of course), but when I feel there's a political message trying to push its way off the page and bludgeon me on the head, naturally, I tend to keep the book at arms length!

Obviously, this depends on the skill with which the message is handled; sometimes it's done very skillfully and in such a way that the story and the politics form a seamless whole. But in my experience, most books with a message tend to end up serving the message, rather than the message serving the book.

[JBI]

My biggest problem is when literature is overtly political. For this reason, I find a lot of 'post-colonial' literature difficult to enjoy. I can always appreciate the writing style and skill (presuming it's there of course), but when I feel there's a political message trying to push its way off the page and bludgeon me on the head, naturally, I tend to keep the book at arms length!

Obviously, this depends on the skill with which the message is handled; sometimes it's done very skillfully and in such a way that the story and the politics form a seamless whole. But in my experience, most books with a message tend to end up serving the message, rather than the message serving the book.

Does that mean you react in unfavorably to a reading of someone like Virgil, or Dante?

[shortstoryfan]

I really enjoy fiction with some sort of political of social agenda and when the message is forceful and bludgeons me on the head. Many times, I am unable to understand subtle things in text. Well, that's not it really. I really can't communicate very effectly what I mean. But I don't mind some sort of message in the text.

There are different way that these messages are presented too, from different perspectives, either more or less personal, that I think really can affect the outcome of the writing. Sometimes authors also deal with more personal messages, and I'm not certain that I am able to understand this kind of writing as easily. Especially when the message is more of a personal one, and the narration is very personal, because the writer will often try and give you the impression of being inside the character's head, and I think we all process things differently and that can sometimes becomes clumsy, like me trying to write this post.

[Tallon]

I find almost all great novels have some political point to them. Often that's why they are remembered, because they said something about their time.

But i do agree people can go too far at times. For example in Stranger in a Stange Land one of the characters just seems to be a vehicle to spout out the writer's personal philosophy, and it doesn't make for a good character.

[Emil Miller]

My biggest problem is when literature is overtly political. For this reason, I find a lot of 'post-colonial' literature difficult to enjoy. I can always appreciate the writing style and skill (presuming it's there of course), but when I feel there's a political message trying to push its way off the page and bludgeon me on the head, naturally, I tend to keep the book at arms length!

Obviously, this depends on the skill with which the message is handled; sometimes it's done very skillfully and in such a way that the story and the politics form a seamless whole. But in my experience, most books with a message tend to end up serving the message, rather than the message serving the book.

It would depend on the writer as to how 'political' the book should be, for example I happen to believe that 'liberalism' is the devil in saints clothing so that when I came to write my novel Pro Bono Publico it was as a conscious rebuttal of everything I dislike about our ultra-liberal environment.This wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to the current situation, because the idea for the book had been carried around in my head for decades and the actual research for it took 3 years.
I would defy anybody to deny the veracity of it's political content but would stress that it is a novel and the characters are based on, or are an amalgam, of various people I have known for years.

[Jozanny]

I am prejudiced against a certain type of (generally Latin American) female writer who writes books that are clearly aimed at other women and who, BTW, is seldom read by males. Examples: Isabel Allende, Marcela Serrano, Laura Restrepo, Ángeles Mastretta... I think a good writer should be universal, and these ladies (besides being too commercial IMHO) seem to write for one half of mankind only. It's a kind of glorified, Latin-flavored chick-lit.

Pecksie--

I get your drift, but I have a soft spot for Allende; she may not be a better writer than Marquez (I'm not qualified to say) but I find her more humane beneath the veneer of what one expects from magical realism.

[kelby_lake]

Fantasy books. I have no interest in them, they bore me. I prefer things about people, not dragons.

[Pecksie]

Pecksie--

I get your drift, but I have a soft spot for Allende; she may not be a better writer than Marquez (I'm not qualified to say) but I find her more humane beneath the veneer of what one expects from magical realism.

Yes, that may be so --- but she's still riding the 'magical realism' hobbyhorse, and that's when she's not promoting herself in other ways. For example, her book 'Paula', which was supposed to be a celebration of her dead daughter, is actually more like an autobiography, including the autopsy of seemingly every sexual and/or sexually charged encounter the author had since she was a child. That really pissed me off. The book mostly reads like 'me, me, me'.

And, since you brought that up, I could also add I'm prejudiced against magical realism ;) I think it has done a great disservice to Latin American literature, and prevented readers from appreciating, or even reading, authors such as Borges, Cortázar, Onetti, which write in other (and, in my opinion, much better) styles...

[NEEMAN]

It would depend on the writer as to how 'political' the book should be, for example I happen to believe that 'liberalism' is the devil in saints clothing so that when I came to write my novel Pro Bono Publico it was as a conscious rebuttal of everything I dislike about our ultra-liberal environment.This wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to the current situation, because the idea for the book had been carried around in my head for decades and the actual research for it took 3 years.
I would defy anybody to deny the veracity of it's political content but would stress that it is a novel and the characters are based on, or are an amalgam, of various people I have known for years.

You see, my views on politics in books are complex. On the one hand, I am hugely interested in politics, history, and any mixture of both. There are some 'political' novels I really enjoy. What I don't like is when a story is compromised by the politics the author is trying to squeeze in, or when an author starts to stress and emphasise in order to present their own beliefs, no matter how detrimental to the story it is.

But as you say, if the book starts out being a political novel first and foremost, then that's often a different kettle of fish, as the politics ofetn do not feel forced or crammed in. It also depends on how nuanced the political viewpoint presented is; once a book starts trying to feed me political views, I feel entitled to question the book based on those views, as opposed to the book itself. This is why I chose post-colonial literature as my example. It is all too often 'black & white'; history & politics are grey spectrums.

[Emil Miller]

You see, my views on politics in books are complex. On the one hand, I am hugely interested in politics, history, and any mixture of both. There are some 'political' novels I really enjoy. What I don't like is when a story is compromised by the politics the author is trying to squeeze in, or when an author starts to stress and emphasise in order to present their own beliefs, no matter how detrimental to the story it is.

But as you say, if the book starts out being a political novel first and foremost, then that's often a different kettle of fish, as the politics ofetn do not feel forced or crammed in. It also depends on how nuanced the political viewpoint presented is; once a book starts trying to feed me political views, I feel entitled to question the book based on those views, as opposed to the book itself. This is why I chose post-colonial literature as my example. It is all too often 'black & white'; history & politics are grey spectrums.

I would have to disagree that history and politics are grey spectrums, they only appear so because the collective memory of a nation is very short and it is this that allows politicians to misrule to the detriment of the populace as a whole. When writing my novel I had ample access to the history of the period and the various Acts of parliament that have created the situation we are in now. In the UK there are only two bodies that can create laws, parliament and the judiciary, and their actions are well-documented. This is why the two principal characters in my novel are a politician and a lawyer, because it is through the machinations of those two segments of the community that the country finds itself in its current situation.
You say that you prefer post-colonial literature with regard to political writing, so you may well find my book interesting as it covers the period from 1945-1979 i.e from the Labour party's landslide victory in the post-war election to Mrs Thatcher's accession to power.
Even if you disagree with the view that during that period politicians and the judiciary did irreparable damage to the UK, you may find the fictitious elements of the story diverting.

[Tallon]

I may have to read your book one day Brian, seeing as a large section of my degree was focused on that period of English history. I have a feeling your views differ drastically with my lecturer's. :)

[Emil Miller]

I may have to read your book one day Brian, seeing as a large section of my degree was focused on that period of English history. I have a feeling your views differ drastically with my lecturer's. :)

I am sure you are right. I attach an earlier post from Neeman and my reply.



Originally Posted by NEEMAN
I avoid reading books from given perspectiveson my first read, but we're often forced to do so at university when doing essays etc. Whilst many critics don't necessarily analyse the whole text from a single perspective, I often see book reviews dipping into these 'presets' in their reviews in places (happens with film a lot too). I agree with you 100% though: some of the links critics try to make between politics, history and literature are 'jaw to floor' stuff.

At the risk of causing much hand wringing and foot stamping. Of course you are "often forced to do so at university." It's part of the liberal/left brainwashing that has been going on in universites for years. When lecturers seek to teach literature from a particular socio/political stand point they undermine the very concept of intellectual objectivity. Unless, of course, they are presenting it from the standpoint of avowedly political writers such as George Orwell.

[Tallon]

Yes that is what made me think it. Although, i was a history student and not a literature student and therefore was never taught from one stand point (historians don't agree on anything).

[Jozanny]

Pecksie--

I am a little short of breath and so won't delve into my usual posting digressions, but agree with you that the Latin American cooption of magical realism techniques is problematic, and gears toward gimmick, but I can't really consider it one of my biases, because I am not really sure what MR is; calling it a genre seems a bit much, and I like some works of some authors who use it. I have read that Grass was the father of MR, and in a way guess that makes sense, but The Tin Drum is not dependent on its bag of tricks the way the works of Marquez, and yes, Allende, seems to be. The issue might need it's own thread:p, and since I apparently did digress, let me make it worse by complaining I am now hoping my system has settled down enough so that I can transfer to my shower chair ... (I'm terrible!)... which I'm now going to attempt.:D

[Pecksie]

Pecksie--

I am a little short of breath and so won't delve into my usual posting digressions, but agree with you that the Latin American cooption of magical realism techniques is problematic, and gears toward gimmick, but I can't really consider it one of my biases, because I am not really sure what MR is; calling it a genre seems a bit much, and I like some works of some authors who use it. I have read that Grass was the father of MR, and in a way guess that makes sense, but The Tin Drum is not dependent on its bag of tricks the way the works of Marquez, and yes, Allende, seems to be. The issue might need it's own thread:p, and since I apparently did digress, let me make it worse by complaining I am now hoping my system has settled down enough so that I can transfer to my shower chair ... (I'm terrible!)... which I'm now going to attempt.:D

We're digressing all right :D Let me urge you to read my countrymen Juan Carlos Onetti, Horacio Quiroga and Mauricio Rosencof for a taste of non-commercial, quality South American literature --- or, for that matter, Juan Rulfo or Julio Cortázar (Mexican and Argentinean respectively), which you have probably already read anyway. Hope you're feeling better. Cheers!

[Emil Miller]

Yes that is what made me think it. Although, i was a history student and not a literature student and therefore was never taught from one stand point (historians don't agree on anything).

I have read some history myself, mostly German and French, and it was a dictum of the great German historian Leopold von Ranke that history should be taught simply to show, from known facts, how it actually was and not for any other purpose.
This was the principle that I adhered to when writing my novel, so the book doesn't take sides, it just tells it as it was. The truth can be quite disconcerting to those whose conceptions have become blurred with the passage of time and it has been said that the book has something to upset everybody.

[kelby_lake]

My biggest problem is when literature is overtly political. For this reason, I find a lot of 'post-colonial' literature difficult to enjoy. I can always appreciate the writing style and skill (presuming it's there of course), but when I feel there's a political message trying to push its way off the page and bludgeon me on the head, naturally, I tend to keep the book at arms length!

Agreed, although it's not always easy to say whether the writer intended the label of post-colonialism or whether it is attached to their work by the ex-coloniser.

[Atomic]

My biggest prejudices are the commonest. I'm very elitist, so if a work isn't a classic, or has failed to make a critical impression, I approach it with caution. This makes reading the Fantasy genre incredibly difficult, as it's near impossible to discern quality from trash without having to spend hours upon hours of precious reading time. I also never touch stuff that can be scrutinised from just a glance, such as Twilight etc.

[kev67]

When I was a schoolboy, I was prejudiced against anything that could be termed romantic fiction. I once took a book out of the library called (I think) Summer over Dunkirk, thinking it was about the battle of Britain, only to discover it was a love story. I actually quite enjoyed it but I made sure never to take out another book with 'Summer' in the title.

I was also rather suspicious of classic literature. I suspected most adults regarded whatever we enjoyed reading as rubbish, and that teachers took this prejudice to extremes by only regarding books that were hundreds of years old as being any good.

This was a problem when it came to my English Literature O level because the set book was Jane Eyre: nineteenth century romantic fiction. Also, I didn't like Shakespeare and couldn't see the point of poetry. I scraped a C.

[Seasider]

The OP used the word prejudice and admitting to a prejudice seems a bit shameful. Nevertheless I admit to having absolutely no interest in books set in Australia or New Zealand.I have no idea why. Irrational I know, but that's the nature of prejudice.

[ennison]

I am prejudiced definitely. There are lots of writers I can't be bothered with. No doubt Wodehouse is funny but he bu@@£:ed off to America during the war so I don't read him. Gunter Grass who fought for the Reich however I do read. Do I contradict myself? Very well I contradict myself - C M Grieve said - almost.