American literature - recommendations needed!

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.

I'm going to take some flak for this, but I will list two that probably won't be recommended otherwise:

First of all, George R.R. Martin: He takes a lot of flak for being a 'fantasy' writer, but I fail to see the problem with using a medieval setting myself (which he does in his magnum opus, the A Song of Ice and Fire series) and he is by far one the finest authors I have read and bar none the best character builder. He's the only author I know of that has characters that are actually completely 3-D so to speak, realistic, and that I truly cared about or immensely hated and his world building is fine too, and for the most part quite realistic (elements of magic only pop up occasionally and there are certainly no magic based Deus Ex Machinas going on). A highly under-rated author.

The second would be H.P. Lovecraft who is bar none the best horror writer I have ever read. That man truly understood the nature of fear and played off of it to generate tales that will sink deep into your 'soul' and consciousness and leave you shivering when you recall them months later, rather than simply giving you cheap thrills. His amazing grasp on the English language is quite impressive, too.

I'm currently reading "The Pioneers" by James Fenimore Cooper for my American literature class. It's 440 page long. I think all Cooper's books are like bricks. (-_^)

If you want to enter fantasy/sci-fi realms it should be easy to find something over 300 pages...:p

Hm...it's a pity that Of Mice and Men is so short...>.<
Though, maybe some other book by Steinbeck?

Maybe Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin? :D I have no idea how many pages it is since I read an online version...It's a great book though!

You could always go for Moby-Dick.

Faulkner is one of America's best. Light in August is a great novel, but I would suggest Sanctuary. Popeye, one of the characters, is begging to be explored with an essay.

Love the avatar, "Nick Adams." I'm on pretty steady Hemingway diet right now, actually.
Hemingway has more or less replaced Faulkner as my dark eagle. I'm surprised you didn't mention The Sun Also Rises, Nick. Now there's a treasure trove of symbolism (though far from being untapped).

Please, please please read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. You can get a large(larger) type edition that will bring it over the 300 page requirement. A critic, believe it was Leslie Fiedler said "All American literature begins with Huckleberry Finn."
If it has to be a really long book, then Melville's Moby Dick.
Many readers skip some of the chapters, such as those which deal with the technical aspects of the whaling industry of that time, but I wouldn't want to skip a word. Melville is so profound yet funny! It's ironic that he's most known for the "whale of a book," when a great many of his works are quite short.
By the bye, Ulysses is not an American novel. 'Tis Irish, don't cha know, me lad.

Seems like the good people here have it mostly covered, so here are so more modern choices that are still "classic" enough to satisfy your teacher:

Catch-22.

Alas, Babylon

Brave New World

Atlas Shrugged/The Fountainhead (I like the Fountainhead more, but it's debatable. They are practically the same story, but Fountainhead is focused on the individual and Atlas Shrugged on the community. No matter what you feel about Ayn Rand's political views, she is a very good writer.)

On The Road

and.. I don't think Slaughterhouse-V is long enough, but if it is.. READ IT.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas


Anyway, those are some of my favorites in classic american literature written in a very modern, concise, easy to understand way. You may get points from your teacher for not picking the obvious (Twain, Hemingway, Steinbeck - the three staples of American Lit.)

"Winesburg, Ohio" is a book I can't recommend enough.

Sherwood Anderson is poetic in his economy of words but still manages to convey the torments of the poor souls stuck in this town.

The psychology of his characters is so masterful I can imagine how they would react in any situation based on the way has so thoroughly documented every quirk and moment of personal history.

I also really like how he tells the story....Giving every character his own chapter (more like a short story)linked by George Willard the young newspaperman is a work of genius and has been very influential.