Dear MC,
First off, welcome, Keri! We are happy to have a fabulous new contributor to the writing blog.
While it's not the most pleasant thing in the world to be assigned books, I've discovered some material I never would have thought to read through school. As creepy as Lord of the Flies was, it was a fascinating look at social structure and pig heads. Kids may moan and groan about having to read a book (or they may cheat and read the sparks notes instead), but there's a chance that if they give it some time, they may become engrossed in the book and actually--gasp--enjoy it! The smart route is to simply inform these kids that books are out there and that they can get a better grasp on the world they live in through literature. When 1 in 4 Americans haven't read a single book in a year, it's vital that we just spread the word that books are waiting to be read. I know that coming from academic families, we were always surrounded by books. But there are quite a few families that are not fortunate enough to have piles upon piles of bookshelves and consider television as the go-to form of entertainment. I mean, I love a fair share of television shows (New Girl, anyone?), but reading shouldn't be a backup plan. There's a vast majority of students who weren't raised to read, so they wouldn't think to pick up a book just for the fun of it.
The same goes with writing. Now, when I'm in a blah mood and am bored out of my wits, I tend to go to YouTube (I may have a slight addiction). It's only when I'm inspired that I dive into reading and writing. A friend once told his mother that I "write books when I'm bored," but I mean, he listened to Slipknot, so he loses some authority there. In a society where we view active hobbies--such as running, swimming or dancing--as productive. The hobbies that get us out in the world and moving around tend to be viewed as worthwhile, whereas the more introspective hobbies are perceived as the hermit's calling, or a polite way of saying writers have nothing to do on a Friday night. I've gotten some strange looks when people ask "oh, what do you like to do for fun?" and I answer "read and write." I might as well say I like to dance around with cakes on top of my head, and I'd probably get the same reaction.
In an instant gratification society, it's difficult to work on something that doesn't provide instant results. The writing process is rather private; I don't hop out of my room after an afternoon and pull out a shiny new book I made myself. There aren't any writing marathons (well, except NanoWriMo), nor are there "writing recitals." A novel is quite an accomplishment, but it takes months, even years, to produce the end result. Sometimes we're just too impatient to recognize the worthwhile nature of hobbies that don't mass-produce or start running around with jazz hands.
So how do we shift our views on hobbies? I have no problem with encouraging active hobbies, but not in place of the quieter, more long-term activities. While children are running around from one lesson to the next, when are they going to have time to dive into reading and writing?
Peace and Ponies,
Kira
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Kids These Days and New Blogger!
Dear Kira,
I understand your concern about reading. It is concerning that there seems to be a down trend in classics reading. It seems that all anyone wants to read is Twilight and Fifty Shades of Stupid. Kids these days.
But I do think the issue is a little more complicated than that. I mean, there is a some middle ground between The Iliad and The Vampire Diaries. Not everyone is cut out to read Shakespeare. So, it's sort of hard to decide what counts as a high quality book. Also, I think it's not quite realistic to expect kids to read Byron (and as we know from English 201, it's not realistic to expect me to read Byron either).
I think the most important thing is that kids think reading is fun. Perhaps this is naive, but I think that once kids discover that reading is fun, they'll eventually move on to reading the classics. What's needed to promote the reading of classics is to make them fun and interesting. Most kids first encounter classics at school; there's no better way to get a teenager to dislike a book then to force them to read it, then write a five paragraph essay about it. That leads me to my next question. Do you think that forcing kids to read in school encourages or discourages them?
And now for something completely different.
I would like to welcome a new contributor to In Your Write Mind! Her name is Keri and she's so very fly, oh my, it's a little bit scary. Keri is a voracious reader, an excellent writer, and will be adding a new voice to our literary discussions. She's also a fan of Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, so she's obviously well qualified. Keri's writing specialty is alien fiction; if you want to check out some of her other writing, you can read her blog The 2013 Machine.
Welcome, Keri!
Maria
I understand your concern about reading. It is concerning that there seems to be a down trend in classics reading. It seems that all anyone wants to read is Twilight and Fifty Shades of Stupid. Kids these days.
But I do think the issue is a little more complicated than that. I mean, there is a some middle ground between The Iliad and The Vampire Diaries. Not everyone is cut out to read Shakespeare. So, it's sort of hard to decide what counts as a high quality book. Also, I think it's not quite realistic to expect kids to read Byron (and as we know from English 201, it's not realistic to expect me to read Byron either).
And now for something completely different.
I would like to welcome a new contributor to In Your Write Mind! Her name is Keri and she's so very fly, oh my, it's a little bit scary. Keri is a voracious reader, an excellent writer, and will be adding a new voice to our literary discussions. She's also a fan of Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, so she's obviously well qualified. Keri's writing specialty is alien fiction; if you want to check out some of her other writing, you can read her blog The 2013 Machine.
Welcome, Keri!
Maria
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Let's Talk About Sex(ism)
Dear MC,
Book sexism absolutely runs rampant, and its something I take offense to, both as a female writer and reader. I mean, what do people think, that the Bronte sisters just sat around, twiddling their thumbs and knitting scarves? Honestly, if women wrote and read like how society told us to be, we'd be indulging in nothing but makeup tutorials and books about sitting there and looking pretty while we wait for our husbands to come home. Where is the plot twist in that situation, I ask you? Woman has actual independent mind? Women has dream and ambition? Why--gasp--we can't possibly have that nonsense in the world of publication!
Much of what I choose to read is perceived as "chick lit." Oftentimes women write these novels. Oftentimes men avoid them like the plague. And while I understand how something like Confessions of a Shopaholic wouldn't appeal to men, for all we know, there's some shoe-hoarding male out there, waiting for someone to finally understand him. I'm not drawn towards this genre because it's "for chicks," or because the latest book club is talking about them. I'm drawn to these books because their themes are pertinent to living, breathing humans. Perhaps they're coated in situations that only women must endure, but looking beyond the surface, the reader can notice some universal topics. In Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper, a young woman gets diagnosed with hysteria because she was forced to stay home and do nothing all day--an issue a vast majority of women faced in the 1800s. In fact, writing was discouraged for woman at this time. While most women were diagnosed with hysteria, we have all (and will) felt restless. We have all felt trapped. We should all acknowledge that yellow wallpaper is a horrendous idea.
Even Ann Brashares, who writes about sisterhood for goodness sakes, spins a girly plot into a universal theme through her examination of fading friendships. While the interpersonal is something women typically spend more time thinking about, it's not like men are always best bros for life. They too must deal with the loss of losing someone they'd grown up with, someone whose wavelength they have finally wavered from.
Feminist theory, as several writers have noted, is the hardest to pinpoint because the only thing that all feminist theorists can agree upon is that it is different from all other theories and that one synonym cannot do it justice. Feminism, in writing, neither encourages nor discourages wearing tons of makeup, or joining the workforce, or knitting cat-hats. It is simply a lens in which we take a piece of literature and examine the role of women in that work. Any piece of literature could be chick-lit, as every work has literature about chicks. And not the clucking kind.
Yes, I still sometimes feel that twinge of embarrassment when I tell my guy friends that I genuinely enjoy Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and that my favorite books are often about mothers and daughters, but hey, it's better than not reading at all, right? Which brings me to my next question: our friend Keri raised a very important issue when trying to find something new to read. She noted that she would only like to read fanfiction, and consoled herself that it was better than reading nothing at all. While I agree with that statement, I find it sad that a lot of young readers are picking books of lesser quality--especially those who want to become writers. It seems we're lowering our standards because of the decline in reading in general. If kids aren't playing video games or punching each other, we congratulate them. But what kind of message does that send when we say it doesn't matter what you read--pick a cereal box, Twilight, anything at all? Our standards will continue to be lowered for this generation, and come college, these people won't know a classic when it bites them in the butt.
This notion seems to be particular to reading. We wouldn't tell an anorexic to "eat anything at all," and then celebrate if she eats nothing but doughnuts and ice cream. We'd teach her about proper nutrition and balanced diets. What makes reading different?
How can we encourage students not just to read, but to read well?
Peace and Ponies,
Kira
Book sexism absolutely runs rampant, and its something I take offense to, both as a female writer and reader. I mean, what do people think, that the Bronte sisters just sat around, twiddling their thumbs and knitting scarves? Honestly, if women wrote and read like how society told us to be, we'd be indulging in nothing but makeup tutorials and books about sitting there and looking pretty while we wait for our husbands to come home. Where is the plot twist in that situation, I ask you? Woman has actual independent mind? Women has dream and ambition? Why--gasp--we can't possibly have that nonsense in the world of publication!
Much of what I choose to read is perceived as "chick lit." Oftentimes women write these novels. Oftentimes men avoid them like the plague. And while I understand how something like Confessions of a Shopaholic wouldn't appeal to men, for all we know, there's some shoe-hoarding male out there, waiting for someone to finally understand him. I'm not drawn towards this genre because it's "for chicks," or because the latest book club is talking about them. I'm drawn to these books because their themes are pertinent to living, breathing humans. Perhaps they're coated in situations that only women must endure, but looking beyond the surface, the reader can notice some universal topics. In Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper, a young woman gets diagnosed with hysteria because she was forced to stay home and do nothing all day--an issue a vast majority of women faced in the 1800s. In fact, writing was discouraged for woman at this time. While most women were diagnosed with hysteria, we have all (and will) felt restless. We have all felt trapped. We should all acknowledge that yellow wallpaper is a horrendous idea.
Even Ann Brashares, who writes about sisterhood for goodness sakes, spins a girly plot into a universal theme through her examination of fading friendships. While the interpersonal is something women typically spend more time thinking about, it's not like men are always best bros for life. They too must deal with the loss of losing someone they'd grown up with, someone whose wavelength they have finally wavered from.
Feminist theory, as several writers have noted, is the hardest to pinpoint because the only thing that all feminist theorists can agree upon is that it is different from all other theories and that one synonym cannot do it justice. Feminism, in writing, neither encourages nor discourages wearing tons of makeup, or joining the workforce, or knitting cat-hats. It is simply a lens in which we take a piece of literature and examine the role of women in that work. Any piece of literature could be chick-lit, as every work has literature about chicks. And not the clucking kind.
Yes, I still sometimes feel that twinge of embarrassment when I tell my guy friends that I genuinely enjoy Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and that my favorite books are often about mothers and daughters, but hey, it's better than not reading at all, right? Which brings me to my next question: our friend Keri raised a very important issue when trying to find something new to read. She noted that she would only like to read fanfiction, and consoled herself that it was better than reading nothing at all. While I agree with that statement, I find it sad that a lot of young readers are picking books of lesser quality--especially those who want to become writers. It seems we're lowering our standards because of the decline in reading in general. If kids aren't playing video games or punching each other, we congratulate them. But what kind of message does that send when we say it doesn't matter what you read--pick a cereal box, Twilight, anything at all? Our standards will continue to be lowered for this generation, and come college, these people won't know a classic when it bites them in the butt.
This notion seems to be particular to reading. We wouldn't tell an anorexic to "eat anything at all," and then celebrate if she eats nothing but doughnuts and ice cream. We'd teach her about proper nutrition and balanced diets. What makes reading different?
How can we encourage students not just to read, but to read well?
Peace and Ponies,
Kira
Book Sexism
Dear Kira,
Your last post was quite thought provoking. Personally, I've been on the fence about this question for a while. I think that the sorts of books you read can definitely inform your thinking, but the idea that reading shapes your personality kind of makes me nervous. While I think the whole, tabula rasa theory makes a good point, I like to think that certain aspects of your personality are inborn. I mean, it would be sort of a scary world where who you are as a person could be totally shaped by outside forces; that's sort of like being brain washed.
So, to make a long story short, I'm going to answer your question by saying yes, I think that someone's personality shapes their reading. I realize that this is a kind of controversial topic in our society. We live in a society where books are often grouped into categories based on gender.
For example, I've been informed on multiple occasions that I don't like Hemingway's work because Hemingway is a man's man. I can't appreciate his writing because I'm a woman; I don't understand. I take issue with that on several levels. Firstly, I don't dislike Hemingway because I'm a woman, I dislike Hemingway because I don't have a lot of respect for him as a person and because I think fishing is boring. Secondly, I'm sure there are women out there who like Hemingway and I'm sure that there are men out there who don't. It's all a matter of personal taste.
But I think that there are a lot of women out there who let this sort of thing keep them from reading "serious" literature (however you want to define that). I call this book sexism, which, like normal sexism is bad. One particular instance of book sexism has been bothering me a lot lately. As you know, Game of Thrones (both books and television show) has sort of taken over my life lately. So, when I read this review of HBO's Game of Thrones television show, it made me really angry. The reviewer, Gina Bellafante, wrote of George R.R. Martin's books
"While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first. “Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half."
Okay, let's take a minute to be angry about this and another minute to wonder why someone so obviously flawed in their reasoning skills writes for the New York Times, which I used to think was a reputable publication. First of all, I have no idea who Lorrie Moore is, so I guess that means that I just lost my second X chromosome. Oops. Secondly, I take it as a matter of personal affront that Bellafante equates "woman" with "book club attendee".
While Bellafante may feel that she's defending a woman's right to read the degradingly named genre known as "chick-lit", she's really implying that a woman can read nothing else! As if the single woman in the universe (Bellafante's universe that is) who wants to read "The Hobbit" is some how a misfit who is the "quirky" mascot of the group who has to be pitied and spoon fed romance novels.
I know plenty of girls who like sci-fi and fantasy novels and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Nor do I think there's anything wrong with reading books by Lorrie Moore, whoever she is, if you want to. I just deplore the social convention that says you must read this book or that book. By the way, I think that this works both ways. If a boy wants to read Twilight, he should be allowed to without being made fun of. Though, I'm still at a loss to discover why anyone of any gender or species would want to read Twilight, though, if you want to, I maintain your right to do so.
What do you think? Have you ever been the victim of book sexism?
Maria
Your last post was quite thought provoking. Personally, I've been on the fence about this question for a while. I think that the sorts of books you read can definitely inform your thinking, but the idea that reading shapes your personality kind of makes me nervous. While I think the whole, tabula rasa theory makes a good point, I like to think that certain aspects of your personality are inborn. I mean, it would be sort of a scary world where who you are as a person could be totally shaped by outside forces; that's sort of like being brain washed.
So, to make a long story short, I'm going to answer your question by saying yes, I think that someone's personality shapes their reading. I realize that this is a kind of controversial topic in our society. We live in a society where books are often grouped into categories based on gender.
For example, I've been informed on multiple occasions that I don't like Hemingway's work because Hemingway is a man's man. I can't appreciate his writing because I'm a woman; I don't understand. I take issue with that on several levels. Firstly, I don't dislike Hemingway because I'm a woman, I dislike Hemingway because I don't have a lot of respect for him as a person and because I think fishing is boring. Secondly, I'm sure there are women out there who like Hemingway and I'm sure that there are men out there who don't. It's all a matter of personal taste.
But I think that there are a lot of women out there who let this sort of thing keep them from reading "serious" literature (however you want to define that). I call this book sexism, which, like normal sexism is bad. One particular instance of book sexism has been bothering me a lot lately. As you know, Game of Thrones (both books and television show) has sort of taken over my life lately. So, when I read this review of HBO's Game of Thrones television show, it made me really angry. The reviewer, Gina Bellafante, wrote of George R.R. Martin's books
"While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first. “Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half."
Okay, let's take a minute to be angry about this and another minute to wonder why someone so obviously flawed in their reasoning skills writes for the New York Times, which I used to think was a reputable publication. First of all, I have no idea who Lorrie Moore is, so I guess that means that I just lost my second X chromosome. Oops. Secondly, I take it as a matter of personal affront that Bellafante equates "woman" with "book club attendee".
While Bellafante may feel that she's defending a woman's right to read the degradingly named genre known as "chick-lit", she's really implying that a woman can read nothing else! As if the single woman in the universe (Bellafante's universe that is) who wants to read "The Hobbit" is some how a misfit who is the "quirky" mascot of the group who has to be pitied and spoon fed romance novels.
I know plenty of girls who like sci-fi and fantasy novels and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Nor do I think there's anything wrong with reading books by Lorrie Moore, whoever she is, if you want to. I just deplore the social convention that says you must read this book or that book. By the way, I think that this works both ways. If a boy wants to read Twilight, he should be allowed to without being made fun of. Though, I'm still at a loss to discover why anyone of any gender or species would want to read Twilight, though, if you want to, I maintain your right to do so.
What do you think? Have you ever been the victim of book sexism?
Maria
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)