I agree Scheherzade. :nod:
Printable View
I agree Scheherzade. :nod:
How about o Pioneers! - Willia Cather - a Women who does not follow societal rules. Also a good short book written early 1900's.
Or
Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand - very long book though. Although don't know about the time period.
What about A tree grows in Brooklyn? It probably does not meet your criteria but it is a good book which portrays American culture. It will be better to say that it portrays the life of "Brooklyn" at that time. Its main idea also concerns women a lot.
Give it a try!
I've just finished Little Women and am almost done with Daisy Miller as well. I will definitely consider Portrait of a Lady and The Scarlett Letter. Atlas Shrugged and Gone With the Wind are a bit more than I feel prepared to tackle at the moment. I've attempted both in the past and was mightily put off by Scarlett's character and intimidated by the economic allusions in Ayn Rand's novel. I'm also going to look at the Phillidelphians and I'll glance at the Willa Cather one. I thought that was a poem, I remember looking at it awhile ago when I was reading Death Comes for the Archbishop. I can't say I was impressed by her style, finding it very confusing to read a book that doesn't follow any kind of linear progression. Thank you very, very much, and please keep recommending!
As for Little Women, it was enjoyable. I think it was a little more intensely moral than I usually like a book to be, but the characters were charming in their own little ways. Naturally I sided with Jo, though having read it through, I realize she isn't really the main character. My only real problem is the lack of real conflict, or perhaps I should say confident conflict. The disagreements always have a vaguely petulent edge to them, as if the girls knew they were doing wrong, but wouldn't acknowledge it. I'd like them to have thought they were doing right, or at least had to much pride to immediately acknowledge the wrong. It seems like there are plenty of disagreements, but it always turns out that 'father knows best' or in some other way the man turns out to give advice in a lecturing manner that winds up being proven true, to the girls' detriment. Maybe it's the feminist in me, I don't know, but it annoyed me that they were always right and the girls always wound up humbly begging their pardon for disagreeing in the first place. I know, I know, another time, another way of life, but I can't reconcile myself to Jo's complete submission to the rules of society, even in fiction.
It seems that years and years of neglecting anything which falls out of the realm of European literature is a practice that should not be further continued by somebody who intends studying Literature at university within a year. :D
Today I was skimming my old reading journals a bit, and decided that it would be advisable to, to say so, bring some diversity to my repertoire which tends to be classics-ish, European-ish, and pre-20th-century-ish, so I decided I might start off with some American literature.
I know very, very little about American literature. When I joined this forum, and online in general, I often encountered obscure names which seemed to be familiar to a lot of people but which never meant anything to me - Vonnegut? Hawthorne? Crane? Sinclair? Steinbeck? I have heard of them, yet I - shamefully I admit - never discovered what was behind those names.
I would appreciate recommendations of what would be advisable to read from American literature, to somebody who would like to get a general overview of it, as well as to read those well-known works (which are not well-known nor studied here). I am simply blocked, not knowing where to start at all.
So far, throughout my formal education, I have encountered works of Twain (The Prince and the Pauper and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, which I only vaguely recall), Hemingway (The Old Man and the Sea, and I noticed that on our next year's reading list there is also, as recommended reading, For Whom the Bell Tolls), Salinger (The Catcher in the Rye), Poe (some poems and short stories). I cannot think of anyone else.
Skimming through my reading journals I also noticed that I was reading Kerouac (On the Road), F. Scott Fitzgerald (Great Gatsby), some anthology of American poetry (and there was a note that I liked Emily Dickinsons' poetry... I do not even remember what that was, and what impressed me :blush: ), I noticed that I tried reading Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury but was obviously too young at the time as I could not follow it nor finish it (perhaps I should re-try it now?), and, other than maybe a couple of other books which I cannot think of now which I encountered in the journal, that would be it. The total of American literature I have read since I have been holding reading journals (and that was since eight grade, so it is unlikely that much eludes me).
Given my scarce experience (but a desire to overcome it :D), where would you recommend me to start, what to read, which movements or literary periods to consider, what books in US schools are taught, what books are those everybody-has-read classics, etc. Any kind of input you can provide to me would be very beneficial, and appreciated.
I intend to study Literature at university so I figured something should be done about my quite predictable repertoire, at least regarding American literature.
Thank you in advance. :)
Try Wieland by Charles Brockden Brown. You will probably have to order it through a book store or online, because no one has ever heard of it...or at least not many.
Brown was a pioneer to American gothic literature. He influenced quite a few of the great American writers such as Poe, Hawthorne and Fuller. Its a bit dull in the beginning, but towards the middle and end, its pretty interesting. The story itself is great...I really enjoyed it.
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway is really good. One of my favorites...
I'd also have to say Ray Bradbury...genius. I read Fahrenheit 451 and it is one of the greatest books ever.
If you need help with Wieland let me know...we had to do a big essay type thing so if you need to do something like that, I can help you out. Hope this helps...oh, check out Vonnegut too.
You might want to look at the Norton Anthology of American Literature. It probably has something by most of the American authors that one might encounter in studying literature.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/naal7%5Fsplash/
One of the greatest works in the English Literature (read: English as the language, not England: that's "British")"
Moby Dick by Herman Melville(1851)
It's more then the story of a man chasing a whale, as told by another, Ismael. Besides this outline, Melville describes precisely the ins and outs of the Nantucket Whaling. And some of its themes are breathtaking, if you take a look at the selfdestruction of not only Ahab, chasing a white(!) whale, but even of Ismael himself.
Nice idea: compare this story with another great tale:
The narrative of A. Gordon Pym by Edgar Allan Poe(1838): Also a great journey by sea, to a continent almost unexplored at that time: Antarctica. And written down in almost the same period!
Good luck!
You probably want Emerson, the great sage of American Literature. His essays are essential... and his poetry is not far behind. You should then get to Walt Whitman who certainly seems to be the first real giant of American poetry... perhaps the first American poet to impact poets in Europe (and elsewhere). Along with Whitman I would recommend Emily Dickinson. The image portrayed in many high-school classes of the sad, prim, Puritan locked away in her room and writing delicate poems which she tied with pink lace does nothing for the reality. Her poems are hard diamonds... like some of Milton's sonnets... and certainly precursors of the Modernism to come. Poe is probably a better author of short stories than of poetry. The great American novels of the 19th century would certainly include The Scarlet Letter/Hawthorne (although I prefer his short stories), Moby Dick/Melville (passages of visionary splendour contrasting with the slowly unfolding narrative), and Huckleberry Finn/Twain (perhaps the greatest tale of friendship since Cervante's Don and Sancho). Among the 20th century American poets the essential ones include T.S. Eliot, Hart Crane, Wallace Stevens, Anthony Hecht, Robert Frost, W.S. Merwin, John Ashberry, Geoffrey Hill (British, living in the US), Charles Wright, and Anne Carson (Canadian). Among the essential novels I would include As I Lay Dying/Faulkner, Grapes of Wrath/Steinbeck, Look Homeward Angel/Thomas Wolfe, Miss Lonelyhearts/Nathaniel West, The Adventures of Augie March/Saul Bellow, Lolita/Nabakov, Myra Breckenridge/Gore Vidal, Zuckerman Bound/Philip Roth, Giles, Goat Boy/John Barth, Advertisements for Myself/Norman Mailer, V/Thomas Pynchon, Underworld/Don DeLillo and Blood Meridian/Cormac McCarthy (and the first and last of these suggestions, to my mind, are the greatest and truly representative of American literature/American Culture (although Lolita is certainly a brilliant view from an outsider). Among short stories, seek out those by Hemmingway, Sherwood Anderson, Flannery O'Connor, Faulkner, and Donald Barthleme among others. Enjoy!:thumbs_up
I think Twain, Poe and Steinbeck are very good authors.
Woolf and Fowles are both British. Haven't read The Magus but I did enjoy The Collector. I also loved Woolf's Orlando and her essays.
I think the Norton Anthology is a great idea. If nothing else it will give you a broad overview of the periods associated with Am Lit. As you compile your reading list don't forget the non-Euro voices here in North America. I would include some Native American authors (Mourning Dove, N. Scott Momaday, Paula Gunn Allen, Leslie Marmon Silko, Black Elk, Linda Hogan, Sherman Alexi, Lewis Owens, Gerald Vizenor) and at least a couple of Chicano/Chicana authors (Sandra Cisneros, Piri Thomas, Ana Castillo, Denise Chavez. Then there is the African-American (Olaudah Equiano, Phillis Wheatley, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, Zora Neale Hurston) and Asian-American voice (Amy Tan, Maxine Hong Kingston, Bharati Mukherjee). Each has a unique take on what it means to be here. Also don't forget the female voices--Anne Bradstreet, Mary Rowlandson, Margaret Fuller, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Sarah Orne Jewett, Willa Cather, Edith Wharton, Meridel Le Sueur)
Of the Dead-White-Guys not mentioned above I would include Crane's Maggie and Theodore Dreiser's Sister Carrie.
...don't forget the non-Euro voices here in North America. I would include some Native American authors (Mourning Dove, N. Scott Momaday, Paula Gunn Allen, Leslie Marmon Silko, Black Elk, Linda Hogan, Sherman Alexi, Lewis Owens, Gerald Vizenor) and at least a couple of Chicano/Chicana authors (Sandra Cisneros, Piri Thomas, Ana Castillo, Denise Chavez. Then there is the African-American (Olaudah Equiano, Phillis Wheatley, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, Zora Neale Hurston) and Asian-American voice (Amy Tan, Maxine Hong Kingston, Bharati Mukherjee). Each has a unique take on what it means to be here. Also don't forget the female voices--Anne Bradstreet, Mary Rowlandson, Margaret Fuller, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Sarah Orne Jewett, Willa Cather, Edith Wharton, Meridel Le Sueur)
Ah Political correctness in literature is still alive and well:rolleyes: I know this may be opening a real can of worms... but with few exceptions does anyone really believe that any of these authors are on on the level the "Dead (or not so dead yet) White Guys"... and "Gals" (Dickinson, O'Conner, Carson)? As an artist and an art lover I have never had the least interest in concepts of egalitarianism in art. Quality is my only concern. I'm not going to invest my time reading a book or listening to a piece of music or studying a painting only because it was made by some "under-represented minority or cultural group. I have no need to assuage some guilt complex through art. There were far more painters and sculptors (and author and composers, for that matter) of real genius active in Italy during the Renaissance than is explained my their numbers alone. Indeed, how many 14th century Hungarians, Polish, Spanish, or even German artists can you name? Certainly there are cultural and economic reasons for this fact... but they aren't going to lead me to seek out obscure Russian and Portuguese painters in search of some sort of imaginary fairness. Again... I have never been interested in "using" art for political purposes. I read for enjoyment and turn to the works that I feel will offer the greatest enjoyment and I certainly do not rule out exploring art of other cultures. The majority of my library is non-Anglo (including Middle-Eastern, Asian, East European and Latin American). On the other hand, the idea of seeking out sub-categories of American writers seems absolutely absurd. Why not homosexual-Americans, cross-dressing Inuit-Irish Americans? autistic, vertically-challenged, French-Acadian Americans? There... I said it.
You may want to try some literature from the American Transcendentalism movement. Try Ralph Waldo Emerson, Margaret Fuller, and Henry David Thoreau. They were the three big names from that era. http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/ Here is a link to a web page about the authors. There is a whole list of minor authors for the movement also. It also provides good information about what transcendentalism was.
Hmm...okay! How about some feminist American Literature?! Just teasing stlukesguild...Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper is really quite good. And I really enjoyed Capote's In Cold Blood...
Well...re the guilt thing...do you know the phrase "Thou dost protest too much"?Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Anyway, I wasn't suggesting these names because of "political correctness". I was suggesting them because to understand the span of American literature one must understand all the supports that built the bridge. The literary concepts of rugged individualism, skepticism and meritocracy in American literature are far more meaningful when understood in the context of cross-cultural experience. I mean did you think that all white people did with Indians (as one example) is kill them? Did you think that white people were so dense that they learned nothing? Literature (in all its voices) traces what was learned, by whom and from whom. I mean Benjamin Franklin (you could argue quality here I think) wrote a letter to some colleagues about the trouble they were having coming up with a Constitution and in a fit of pique said something like If a bunch of "ignorant savages" (he was speaking of the Iroquois Confederation) can get it together surely we "civilized men" can write a Constitution! I suspect that understanding the importance and effect of Franklin's work (not to mention the Constitution) might be improved by understanding its sources. But of course you are free to remain pure and unsullied by actual history should you so choose.
I'd go for John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway, Arthur Miller and Ray Bradbury (you might wanna try his short stories as well)
*pops knuckles and takes a deep breath*
I agree with nearly all of the suggestions here, but stlukesguild and Mary Lupin are definitely addressing an important issue. The term "American Literature" is unfortunately (for one desiring to study fiction) not strictly confined to American literary art, but reaches over to things like slave narratives and the diaries of ministers and their wives and so forth. However, Anastasija, as you are asking for something to serve as some preparation for university literature studies, and if it is indeed American lit that you need to concern yourself with, that stuff will undoubtedly be there. I would like to comment on a few though: Mary Rowlandson is dull as hell, and viciously prejudiced, as many were (to exemplify, "...it was not difficult to be seen by those that knew the causeless enmity of these Barbarians against the English, and the malicious and revengeful spirit of these Heathen; so it soon proved dismal.") - I mean really, "causeless enmity"? After being needlessly attacked and so forth? Hers is a captivity narrative, but it somewhat undermines itself by telling the reader about being permitted to talk to her son while in captivity, and the general decency showed by the woman who had charge of her, etc. There are better ones, of course, but most of them I remember consisting basically of the following: "the savages attacked our village, which was God's judgment; they did, however, permit me to dress and my wife to collect the children, which was God's mercy; then they forced us to travel large uphill distances to wherever - Judgment; but they did carry the children when they were exhausted - Mercy; and so on.... Cabeza de Vaca is probably the way to go with the early explorers; he has a pretty fascinating experience with the natives, wherein he befriends some, and is almost killed by others. You may or may not have to mess with Columbus’s Journals. John Smith’s stuff is sort of an idealization of America, nothing special. John Winthrop was kind of important, insofar as it’s indicative of the sort of values the early Americans desired to uphold (check out “A Modell of Christian Charity” and maybe his journal), and Roger Williams is definitely worth taking a look at. You may have to deal with Cotton Mather (you have my sympathy if so) and almost certainly will encounter Jonathan Edwards (you would probably do well to at least look over his “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” sermon – standard fare). Mary Lupin mentioned Anne Bradstreet; she is indeed a pretty important figure – basically the first published poet in colonial America (and a woman, in addition). I seem to remember a lot of her early poems having to them the air of proving the poet to be the equal of a man (obscure allusions to “The Classics”, etc.), which obviously she does, but I remember liking her later stuff more. Anyway, an interesting lady, definitely worth the time. As far as this early stuff goes, probably the most interesting writer you’ll encounter is indeed Benjamin Franklin, who was of course quite a character. We had to do a large section of his Autobiography, along with some other short writings, and that was really a lot of fun. I don’t really remember Margaret Fuller much, but I do remember that I kind of liked it, not that that’s probably any help. Don’t be discouraged if it is indeed early American Lit that you’ll be studying, but American literature, as a rule, is really lame until you hit Emerson; then it suddenly develops into something pretty fantastic. I can’t say much about the African American writers ML mentions: the Interesting Narrative of Equiano's life I found to be anything but, and most of those others I don’t think we covered, except Frederick Douglass, whose Narrative of the Life of… I highly recommend, along with Harriett Ann Jacobs’s Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. David Walker’s Appeal …to the Coloured Citizens of the World is one of the most important documents from the abolitionist movement (seems to be the first one with the nerve to accuse white America of its hypocrisy without sugaring the tone), and Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s “Declaration of Sentiments” is a really important piece that gets covered a lot. The more recent Native American authors ML mentions (Momaday, Silko, etc.), I find, tend to get covered more in composition classes than in literature, so you won’t be really unprepared if you just wait and see if they are assigned to you in class. I only had to read Amy Tan in sophomore composition, so you certainly won’t encounter her unless you take comp or a contemporary American lit class (she gave me a headache, but some people like her). Likewise with Zora Neale Hurston (and likewise), but she’s considered a bit more significant (perhaps simply because she’s dead, but who knows).
Anyway, once you’re at and past Emerson and Thoreau, as I was saying, stuff gets interesting! Washington Irving is lots of fun; he has some short stories you might want to look over (and a really amusing History of New York), as does Hawthorne ("Young Goodman Brown" is almost universally studied, so definitely take a look at that, and "The Birthmark" and "Rapaccini’s Daughter", both essentially about man trying to improve on nature, hold choice positions in the canon). Then Poe! He’s great fun, of course, and is certainly studied a lot. Also Melville’s “Bartleby” and, as ML mentioned, Harriet Beecher Stowe.
(By the way, this is all stuff I did in one course – Early American Literature – so I’m not just listing for the sake of listing.) Of course, just a little further down the road comes Henry James, whose Portrait of a Lady I highly recommend, and whose The American I kind of recommend. Obviously, you should not try to go read all of this stuff before class starts, but if you are going to be studying American Lit from the beginning, that is what you’ll be confronted with. And Dickenson and Whitman, totally. (Surely you remember the former; how could one forget the dashes!)
Incidentally, I totally agree with stlukesguild that the “Dead White Guys” have kind of flooded the quality artistic fiction market, at least in the old days, not that this doesn’t obviously have more to do with oppression and social pressure than merit, but there you have it. There is a reason a lot of these authors would only ever be read in an American Literature course, whereas the last half-dozen or so I mentioned have international importance. If the subjects of your studies begin only after 1800, you may count yourself fortunate!
If you really want to look at enjoyable stuff before class starts, Irving, Hawthorne, Poe, and Melville are the ones to seek, and I think there are online texts here from all of them (though maybe not Melville’s short stories…).
Hope that helps. Good luck, Anastasija!
Stephen Crane is a great American author. He wrote stuff like The Red Badge of Courage and Maggie, Girl of the Streets. He died fairly young, but was a reporter most of his life. His fiction is really good. You can check them out right here on the litnet.
Woweee! Someone who knows Am Lit. Yahoo. Wanna talk? I love this stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesian
Hey and the Rowlandson thing...yes her tone (and her editor's tone) is exactly the point. What a trip it is studying captivity narratives to track the ways in which Native Americans and women were viewed and how the narratives came to be published in their current form. It says soooooo much about American cultural development. Did you know there were over 30 editions of Rowlandson's book? Captivity narratives were immensely popular and had a really important cultural function with respect to the invaders figuring out who they were in the face of what they were doing to take the land and hold onto their picture of themselves as civilized and godly folk. So interesting.
Have you read Mary Jemison's narrative?
...to understand the span of American literature one must understand all the supports that built the bridge.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Or perhaps I should say that if my goal was to gain an encyclopedic grasp of American literature I should certainly read it all: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Then I would still ask why you stopped with suggestions that the reader only add to the usual canon with the works of African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native-Americans, and women. What of the literary contributions of French-Acadian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Islamic and Middle-Eastern-Americans, Buddhist-Americans, Amish and Mennonite-Americans, etc... etc... ad infinitum?
Now, of course, it appears that the question being raised here is that of the very purpose of literature. Why do we read literature? If your goal is to broaden your historical outlook, certainly you may imagine that you can achieve that through literature. But then again I have read Thucydides, and Gibbon's Fall of the Roman Empire, and Vasari's Lives of the Artists, and Boswell's Life of Johnson, and War and Peace and Les Miserables and Shakespeare's "histories", etc... all of which purport to tell a great deal about some aspect of history... yet while their narratives are surely marvelously told, one would do well to check elsewhere for the facts. Personally, I am not interested in reading literature as a means of gaining historical knowledge (I'll read history books for that) nor is my agenda sociological... I am not out to gain insights into issues of racism, sexism, social and class structures, economics, gender preferences, etc...
I am not suggesting that I or anyone else can or should read in a vacuum. Certainly I have have read more than my share of history. Neither am I without experience with regard to socio-political concerns. As someone who has taught for years in an urban public school setting I probably know more about certain social/political/economic issues than you can imagine. But we are discussing literature... the book or writing as ART. As a practicing artist (albeit in the visual arts) I have always bristled at any suggestion of using art for utilitarian purposes of any manner. I am not speaking here of limiting the artist. Certainly an artist may deal with any social, political, economic, religious, spiritual (etc...) issue that they so desire. What I am speaking of is the "use" (and who likes to be "used"?) of art by certain members of academia as a means of pushing non-literary concerns. If one wishes to teach sociology, Marxist theory, economics, etc... then one should surely do so. Often, however, it seems as if literature and literary criticism are being taught by those who are far more passionate about politics and social issues than they are about writing as an art.
Why then do I read? To me reading is one way of engaging in a dialog with extraordinary minds from many times and many places. As Anna Quindlen suggested:
Books are the means to immortality:
... Through them we experience other times, other places, other lives. We manage to become much more than our own selves. The only dead are those who grow sere and shriveled within, unable to step outside their own lives and into those of others. Ignorance is death. A closed mind is a catafalque.
More than once I have posted the following rather extended quote as an answer to the question of the purpose of literaure. Because I doubt that I could put it better myself, I'll post it again. The Quote is by Walter Pater from his "Conclusion" to The Renaissance. The highlights are my own:
The service of philosophy, of speculative culture, towards the human spirit, is to rouse, to startle it to a life of constant and eager observation. Every moment some form grows perfect in hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the rest; some mood of passion or insight or intellectual excitement is irresistibly real and attractive to us,–for that moment only. Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end. A counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated, dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to seen in them by the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point to point, and be present always at the focus where the greatest number of vital forces unite in their purest energy?
To burn always with this hard, gemlike flame, to maintain this ecstasy, is success in life. In a sense it might even be said that our failure is to form habits... While all melts under our feet, we may well grasp at any exquisite passion, or any contribution to knowledge that seems by a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a moment, or any stirring of the senses, strange dyes, strange colours, and curious odours, or work of the artist’s hands, or the face of one’s friend. Not to discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in those about us, and in the very brilliancy of their gifts some tragic dividing of forces on their ways, is, on this short day of frost and sun, to sleep before evening. With this sense of the splendour of our experience and of its awful brevity, gathering all we are into one desperate effort to see and touch, we shall hardly have time to make theories about the things we see and touch. What we have to do is to be for ever curiously testing new opinions and courting new impressions, never acquiescing in a facile orthodoxy of Comte, or of Hegel, or of our own...
One of the most beautiful passages of Rousseau is that in the sixth book of the Confessions, where he describes the awakening in him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had clung always about him, and now in early manhood he believed himself smitten by mortal disease. He asked himself how he might make as much as possible of the interval that remained; and he was not biased by anything in his previous life when he decided that it must be by intellectual excitement, which he found just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire. Well! we are all condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve–les hommes sont tous condamnes a mort avec des sursis indefinis: we have an interval, and then our place knows us no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness, some in high passions, the wisest, at least among "the children of this world,” in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time. Great passions may give us this quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which come naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion–that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments’ sake.:)
I totally agree with stlukesguild that the “Dead White Guys” have kind of flooded the quality artistic fiction market, at least in the old days, not that this doesn’t obviously have more to do with oppression and social pressure than merit, but there you have it.
I don't question the fact that social inequalities have had a major impact upon who achieves or does not achieve something of great importance in ART. Surely there would have been far more women who achieved something of import in art and music and literature had they been afforded an equal education and equal opportunity. However, such was not the reality. The world is not democratic or egalitarian and art is not democratic or egalitarian... it is absolutely elitist. The strongest art survives (and not even all of that). Its interesting that while white writers dominated America's literary achievements, America's greatest contribution to music, jazz, was clearly dominated by African-American artists. Again, the strongest survive. For every Benny Goodman, Lennie Tristano, Dave Brubeck, or Lee Konitz we have Miles Davis, John Coletrane, Louis Armstrong, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Thelonious Monk, Charlie Parker, Charles Mingus, and twenty others.
Well you should try George Orwell's books... Its really great especially the animal farm..
Although It's like a fable, you should read between the lines to decode the real message of the writer!
Isn't Orwell English?
By the way... Jamesian, I can't believe that you didn't point out that I forgot Henry James!
Yep...as in British...eh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesian
Well, I suppose I would be pretty useless around here if someone else was doing it... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Well of course. This is why reading about the Other might matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Art is never pure, and what you consider "quality" might have more to do with your socialization and your capacity to interpret than it has to do with the work at hand.
Art always takes a political stance but, hopefully, it is one taken with some grace.
And before you start the "I am more qualified than you" game you might want to know more about your "opponent." I suspect I could just about hold my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Art always takes a political stance but, hopefully, it is one taken with some grace.
"All art is political". It's like I'm back in college with all those frustrated ex-hippies now literature professors. And all is relative. There is no good or bad in art. Only social energies. Shakespeare hasn't attained his preeminent position because of the aesthetic merit of the work but rather because it forwards the agenda of the ruling power elite. Do I have it right? By the way... how did this author whose works are often quite amoral (good certainly does not always win out over evil), who has a rather dark view of what humanity is capable of at time, who may even have had homo-erotic tendencies end up in this position as poster-boy of the power elite. Surely Ben Jonson or Milton would have made a better choice.
And before you start the "I am more qualified than you" game you might want to know more about your "opponent." I suspect I could just about hold my own.
If I recall the context of this claim of what I have read it was not to prove some sort of qualifications. It was merely intended to point out that a great deal of literature that purports to convey some degree of historical fact must be taken with a large grain of salt, and to read literature with an eye to gaining a great deal of historical knowledge may be misguided to say the least. As far as qualifications I make no claim. Literature is (merely?) my obsession. My personal field of expertise is actually the visual arts.
Personal recommendations for 20th Century American lit:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Hundred Years of Solitude by Marquez (if you like Gunter Grass you'll love him)
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter Thompson
Motherless Brooklyn by Jonathan Lethem
any collection of short stories by Damon Runyon
Cannery Row by Steinbeck
Slaughterhouse 5 by Vonnegut
Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein
Does American Lit. also contain Latin American?? I'm confused...because I have some great Latin American writers....but I don't know if you just want North America...or USA.
Wow... I do not know where to start my thanks to everyone for their suggestions, explanations, and for making an interesting discussion out of my question. :) Thank you everybody, you have no idea how much it means to me.:blush:
I have printed your suggestions (though feel free to add more of them!), so now I have got an interesting list of things from which to choose and enjoy for the entire year before the university.
Reading through your suggestions I have encountered some names which I had experience with but forgot to bring up in my original post (Nabokov, e.g., I somehow always intuitively count him in 'Russian literature'), but most of your suggestions were opening a whole new unknown world to me. I am excited about it a lot. :D As soon as I return from holiday, I am off to the nearest library and starting.
Oh, and one more thing, perhaps I failed to express myself clearly:
I am going to study Literature - not American Literature specifically. As I live in Europe, undoubtedly the focus shall be on European and national literature (I say "national" because I am still having second thoughts about which university I am about to attend, and they are in different countries... I have a little more time to think), from what I have seen from the descriptions of programmes and - compulsory at least - classes I am about to take. There should be relatively small amount of American literature involved, if not solely for getting broader perspective, however, it is more that I wish to know about it, even if I do not get formally introduced that much American literature in university (which we are yet to see, perhaps there shall be some elective courses which deal with it specifically, so far I have not noticed).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesian
Thank you everybody once more.
Yes, the wonders of the term "American" :D I should have been more precise and clearly state that I was interested in US literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mortis Anarchy
However, as you brought it up, my experience with South American literature is as scarce as with US literature, so feel free to make suggestions, I will find time to squeeze them into my repertoire (not that I do anything else in my life other than dealing with literature and art... I do not even study for school, so I have enough time to read :lol: ). What I should, basically, is to use this last year of school to broaden my perspective of literature entirely, and try to get better hold of world literature in general; however, as it boarders impossible to be well-versed in all of it, I wanted to focus on what would generally be "Western-civilisation" literature, thus I decided to make up for some major gaps in American literature to start with.
Well here is my list of Latin American Writers:
Mario Benedetti
Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ernesto Sabato
Thiego de Mello
Eduardo Hughes Galeand
Pablo Armando Fernandez
Jorge Enrique Adoum
Luis Rafael Sanchez
Mayra Montero
Ana Lydia Vega
Alberto Ruy Sanchez
Martin Luis Guzman
Pita Amor
Gabriela Brimmer
Rosario Castellanos
Ricardo Flores Magon
Guadalupe Marin
Yolanda Vargas Dulche
*There are plenty more...but I've either read stuff by them, or they have been recommended to me by close friends/family.
If Latin America is included... then there are certainly a good many to add. My personal list would surely include:
J.L. Borges
Pablo Neruda
Sor Juana Inez de la Cruz
Julio Cortazar
Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Carlos Fuentes
Octavio Paz
Mario Vargas Llosa
Homero Aridjis
Alejo Carpentier
Augusto Monterroso
Joachim Maria Machado de Assis
It's simply ridiculous to say that white male authors have produced literature of such high artistry that the work of non-whites and women only has value as a novelty.
It would be analagous to saying that Mozart and Bach have set the standard so high that Coltrane's work can never compete. The two are not comparable. Yes they are both making music, but they have value on their own terms, not in relation to each other. They are completely individuated forms of excellence.
To extend the analogy, if you don't care for jazz, fine. That's your opinion, your taste, whatever. But decreeing it a substandard art form in relation to classsical music is terribly closed-minded and not a defensible stance, at least not in any sort of enlightened company.
Jazz developed on its own artistic terms. It was a product of specific social, cultural and ethnic conditions. Those conditions created a worldview that was completely different from that of the eurocentric one that gave rise to classical music. Therefore the art of jazz developed unique and internally consistent standards of beauty or excellence or whatever adjective you want to apply to denote "greatness" (feel free to insert five paragraphs of Pater abstraction here).
First you must accept and at least partially understand those standards and that culture before you can pass judgement on Jazz artists as they improvise with and expand their horizons. If you try to make Sun Ra live up to Vivaldi you're missing the point.
In other words, you can't rate a book of sayings by Black Elk, a novel by Sherman Alexie, or collection of poems by Langston Hughes on the same scale that you use to rate Emerson, Hawthorne or Frost. Their art, like their lives, history and culture, is too different to live up to a white man's standards of excellence. Not unless that white man has opened his mind enough to expand his conception of greatness and realize that it appears in many forms.
So yes, if you really want a full understanding of the greatness of American literature in all its forms then you need to leave the beaten path of white man dominance and check out some of the authors recommended above. And by saying that I'm not denigrating white male literature at all. I love Billy Shakespeare.
The ruling power elites can go stuff themselves however.
It's simply ridiculous to say that white male authors have produced literature of such high artistry that the work of non-whites and women only has value as a novelty.
You should probably read something more closely before responding. I don't recall anyone here suggesting that no one but white males have produced literature of great value. Discussing only the literature of the US, I recall mentioning Emily Dickinson and Flannery O'Conner who were both women last time I checked. When we broadened the the discussion to include all of the Americas I further suggested Sor Juana Inez de la Cruz (also a woman) as well as Joachim Maria Machado de Assis, who in spite of the name just happened to be a black author... the grandson of freed slaves. I might also point out that a great proprtion of the best writers from Latin merica are (surprise, surprise!): Hispanic. Neither have we discussed the literature of Asia, the Middle-East, etc... all of which certainly has its masterful examples.
It would be analagous to saying that Mozart and Bach have set the standard so high that Coltrane's work can never compete.
Coletrane can compete, certainly... whether he can in any way be seen as artistically equal... let alone superior to Mozart or Bach is more than doubtful. But then I would say that of almost any white, male, European composer as well.
The two are not comparable. Yes they are both making music, but they have value on their own terms, not in relation to each other. They are completely individuated forms of excellence.
Come on... artistic relativism? All art is equal because all art is the expression of the artist and culture from which the artist sprang and so the itinerate limner from the Massachusetts colony is equal to Michelangelo because his work is the best expression of himself and his culture and thus cannot be compared with Michelangelo? I'm sorry, but all art is comparable. We make these comparisons every day when we make the choice to spend time with this book or that piece of music or this film and not another. The works of art which are the strongest survive... and they survive as more than novelties and more than curriculum requirements established by academics with agendas that have nothing to do with artistic merit. And yes... Coletrane has survived because he is certainly a strong artist... he has produced some incredibly strong works of art... probably better than Poulenc or Philip Glass... but Bach?!:rolleyes:
To extend the analogy, if you don't care for jazz, fine. That's your opinion, your taste, whatever. But decreeing it a substandard art form in relation to classsical music is terribly closed-minded and not a defensible stance, at least not in any sort of enlightened company.
Ah! Yes! I forgot enlightened company clearly recognize that the graffiti on the subways, the tattoo parlor "artists", Thomas Kinkade and Rembrandt are all of equal artistic merit... because to suggest otherwise would be terribly close-minded and indefensible... especially among any enlightened company. Oh... by the way... wouldn't that term "enlightened company" seem to suggest something (dare I say it?) "elitist" (gasp!)?
Jazz developed on its own artistic terms. It was a product of specific social, cultural and ethnic conditions. Those conditions created a worldview that was completely different from that of the eurocentric one that gave rise to classical music.
All artistic "styles" develop in a social context, but don't kid yourself that they are hermetically sealed off from outside influences. This is certainly not true of Jazz, which certainly did have roots in European classical music as well as in the minstrel shows, West African, French Acadian, Gospel/Spirituals, and the works of composers such as Steven Foster . New Orleans, prior to the civil way, had a thriving free black culture which included classically trained black musicians. In the post-war era the upper class black culture was largely destroyed leaving many of these musicians who might have performed in other venues to fend for themselves in minstrel shows, bars and strip clubs. These venues (especially the strip clubs) demanded that the musicians play for extended periods of time and that they perform recognizable popular song. Musicians began to utilize their training and improvise upon these simple tunes thus developing the improvisational manner inherent to the art form. The very term "Jazz" has been traced to various "sexual" terms (including Jasmine perfume used by the strippers and prostitutes) related to the strip club and bar scenes. One might almost suggest that many of the greatest artists from throughout history can be found having worked in one of the major economic centers of the time not merely because they have the money to support artistic development and the leisure time to enjoy it (and for the artists to develop), but also for the very reason that these centers (Rome, Paris, Florence, Venice, London, New York, Istanbul/Constantinople, etc...) offer such an influx of ideas and art from other cultures that lead to a great cross pollination.
First you must accept and at least partially understand those standards and that culture before you can pass judgement on Jazz artists as they improvise with and expand their horizons. If you try to make Sun Ra live up to Vivaldi you're missing the point.
Certainly one gains far more pleasure from any work of artistic expression with a greater understanding of the cultural background of the work. One might question, however, just how "good" a work of art is in the over-all scope of artistic expression if it is so hermetic as to speak solely to a given culture. How good will certain of our highly educated artists, musicians, and writers sound 200 years from now when the references to popular culture or the highly idiosyncratic style seems lost? The cultures that produced Homer, or the Shah-Nameh or Tabriz, or Giotto, or William Shakespeare... or even Miles Davis to a great extent, are not akin to my own. While I may gain some further insight through study of these cultures, they also survive because they speak powerfully of concerns common to all humans. I don't believe in one standard for European males, another for women, another for Asians, etc... This would seem to be far more elitist than the suggestion that all art compete on the same terms. Emily Dickinson, Flannery O'Connor, Jane Austin are not good by the standards of women writers... they are good, period. The artists who painted the Shah-Nameh of Tabriz weren't good for Middle-Eastern artists... they were simply good... Great. I see no problem with comparing Sun Ra to Vivaldi. I must admit that I am not well versed enough on the former to offer a judgment. I would have no problem with comparing Vivaldi to Duke Ellington or Miles Davis... and I might even suggest that the latter are easily equal, if not superior. Certainly Duke and Miles are far more innovative.
In other words, you can't rate a book of sayings by Black Elk, a novel by Sherman Alexie, or collection of poems by Langston Hughes on the same scale that you use to rate Emerson, Hawthorne or Frost. Their art, like their lives, history and culture, is too different to live up to a white man's standards of excellence. Not unless that white man has opened his mind enough to expand his conception of greatness and realize that it appears in many forms
Again, I don't buy this. White man's standards? Black man's standards? Native American standards? Where does it all stop? French/Irish American standards? Hell's Angels' standards? Cross-dressing, albino, Inuit dwarf standards? Because Langston Hughes was black he shouldn't be judged in comparison to any non-black poet? I somehow suspect he would have been quite insulted by that notion. Hughes may not have been an equal to T.S. Eliot or Yeats but he most certainly is a s strong as any number of other poets (H.D., David Jones, Randall Jarrell, Jules Supervielle, Andre Breton, etc...). Black Elk on the other hand...? I wouldn't think to place it along side Emerson... but neither would I place it along any number of non-Western works of literature whether it be Hafiz, Tu Fu, the Mahabharata, Yehuda Amichai, Gilgamesh, etc... Why do you imagine that Dante, and Homer, and Tu Fu, and Shakespeare etc... are read and enjoyed in cultures far removed from those that created them... in Japan, and the Middle East and the US and Brazil ? Why do you think that Whitman and Dickinson and Emerson are read in France and Russia and Argentina... but not Black Elk? Certainly you can imagine that the works of art that can be appreciated across time and culture only do so because they were selected (for whatever reason I cannot imagine) by the power elite. I would suggest that some works are mere period pieces (and I certainly wouldn't exclude a hell of a lot of what is and has been produced by white Europe and America) and some art is more universal... and has a far greater aesthetic worth.
Personally, I have no problem with exploring the literature of diverse cultures. If my purpose for reading were to gain some sort of encyclopedic grasp of American literature then certainly I should try to read it all: the great writers, the pulp novels, every little literary novelty I could lay my hand on. I, however, don't approach literature with such an agenda. I am seeking out a certain pleasure afforded by engaging in the dialog through the written word with the strongest artistic minds regardless of where they may be. I have no illusion that I may ever read everything and so I seek out that which will offer the greatest pleasure... the greatest return. Again I have no doubt that art is not egalitarian. There are certain cultures... certain times and places that have produced greater novelists, poets, painters, sculptors, etc... than others. Even within a single culture there are periods that were far more artistically productive than others. Undoubtedly this is due in part to certain social conditions... certain inequalities even. Knowing this, however, does not change my opinion about the aesthetic achievements of those who benefited from this... nor will spending time with works I feel to be of marginal value somehow assuage any imagined guilt if I am one who also benefits from the social structure... nor make me feel better about myself if I am not.
Sorry, more Latin American writers:
-Juan Rulfo-Pedro Paramo and El Llano en Llamas(The Burning Plain).Born in the same state as my family:) Jalisco. Also helped influence Marquez as well as other Latin American writers with his novel Pedro Paramo.
-Samuel Ramos-El Perfil del Mexicana
Juan Jose Arreola-Confabulario This guy is from a little town close to where my family lives. I have an uncle that met him...he says this is a must read.
-Antonio Alatorre
Henry Miller
Glenway Wescott
Invisible Man, by Ralph Ellison is quite good. I'm in the midst of reading it right now, and I think it's excellent.