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

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

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

Reading Shaping People, or People Shaping Reading?

Dear MC,
I suppose many people ghost write because the writerly sort often does not want to be in the public eye. I mean, this isn't the case for every writer in the world, because I'm sure Lauren Conrad didn't publish her book under a modest hand. But the kind of observance a writer needs in order to be successful normally involves a certain level of distance from other people. Some people feed off ego; others feed off of anonymity. It's nice that it's a choice to not put your name out there, otherwise we'd have a lot less inspiration due to discomfort towards publicity.

Oftentimes I read people who had no problem being in the public eye. Many of my favorite writers participated in countless interviews and even had a YouTube page (cough cough John Green, cough). But as I expand to include classic literature, I realize many of the most inspiring writers were not only okay with, but wanted to be alone. As I identify more and more with these authors, it's put my whole introvert/extravert battle at (more) ease. Reading Emily Dickinson, I realize that staying completely secluded isn't always the best option (her poems sometimes got a bit too dark), but while I read books like Les Misérables and Jane Eyre, I tend to become more isolated and introspective.

Dickinson

While this leads me to believe that reading shapes the person, I've also always been naturally drawn towards realistic fiction. As much as I would love to fully engaged by fantasy novels, that hasn't been the case for 19 years. I love people watching, so my reading often reflects just sitting back at an airport and watching people's dynamics. Even in fifth grade, when we were taught to "expand our horizons," I curled up with Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and felt completely satisfied with that series.

So do you think someone's personality shapes their reading, or does someone's reading shape their personality? I suppose it's one of those nature/nurture debates. And you know how I feel about nature/nurture debates. It's like walking into a candy store with a thousand dollars.

Peace and Ponies,
Kira

The Song-Novel

Dear Kira,

I'm glad you brought up this topic, because I have stuff to say about it.

I'm a big fan of analyzing music in the same way some people analyze books. A lot of music has a good story behind it, like the series of songs Led Zeppelin wrote about Lord of the Rings ("Ramble On", "The Battle of Evermore", and "Misty Mountain Hop"). Also, as you know, there are entire bands who write songs specifically about specific stories, like Chameleon Circuit and Doctor Who and The Ministry of Magic and Harry Potter.

Like you said, purely instrumental music can also be analyzed. One of my favorite pieces of classical music is the Appalachian Spring suite by Aaron Copland. This piece tells the story of a pioneer wedding on the frontier. A lot of pieces of music are written with the intention of telling a story in this way.

I'm always trying to figure out the story behind the song and how it fits into the singer's life. Like, I was fascinated when I learned that the story behind Eric Clapton's song, Layla, was that Clapton feel in love with Patty Boyd, which was a problem for him because she was married to George Harrison. I think most songs, as long as they're good and written by someone who cares about music, have some sort of back story. I call this the Song-Novel. The problem is songs aren't as easy to analyze as novels. Usually you have to know something about the life of the person who wrote the song to be able to figure it out.

Which is why I have no respect for people who consistently sing/perform songs they didn't write. I'm not talking about covers here; I'm talking about who don't write their own songs. It used to be expected that if a band performed a song, they wrote it. These days, while a some people co-write songs, most people have nothing to do with the creation of their songs. While it can still be a good song, it lacks any real sincerity in performance. Books that are ghost written have the same problem. To me, it seems really insincere to have someone ghost write a book for you. While I have respect for ghost writers in general; I think if you want to write a book, you should write it yourself. Do you think it's possible to write a good book if you don't actually write it?

MC

The Intentional Fallacy and the Literary-ness of Dubstep

Dear Maria Cristina,
Part of what made English 200 such a tricky class, was that it often offered contradictory views. As the Formalists and New Critics demanded that only the text be looked at and the author/reader were totally irrelevant, other theories such as psychoanalysis and New Historicism claimed that yes, the author's intent matters and you Formalists can get off your high horses. Get some sober horses instead.

I must admit, coming out of the class I was all "New Critic happy" and to me, nothing but the text mattered. Forget readers; forget writers--the work was coming out of thin air! I was so against authorial intent, I almost tried giving myself half vision, where I could only see the top halves of books, while the author's name would be a blur.

Except I didn't. Because that would be weird.

Since then, I've reconsidered my views on literature. 

I've found that the writer-text-reader inclusive theories are both more poignant and less narrow. Rhetorical theory allows the author's voice to grow stronger through the text, but not be dominated by the text. You can still enjoy a book without knowing an author's biographical history, but it enriches the reading experience to gain some insight on the context in which the author is writing.

Sometimes, however, the author can become overshadowed by the tone of the text. Take Vladamir Knabokov's (sp?) Lolita. We might read the text, and automatically pinpoint the author as a filthy, perverted old man. While he might just be taking a completely different perspective, it's easy to associate the author's perspectives with the text's perspectives. This happens almost constantly with actors. I mean, if I were to meet Daniel Radcliffe, the first thing I'd say to him is "marry me!" but the second thing would be "dude, you're Harry Potter!"

A piece of music that I would argue poignantly mimics this phenomenon is "Shadows" by Lindsey Stirling:

Her shadow has all the complex dance moves that hold our attention, while the artist is seemingly left in the background. At times, she seems to be copying the creation, rather than the creation copying her. That's not to say this always happens in literature, but sometimes the author becomes the text.

Which leads me to a question: Do you think music can be studied in the same way literature can? I know at the tail end of English 201 we studied The Sex Pistols in relation to Shakespeare. Was that stretching it too far? Or could we use the same methods to deconstruct music as we use for deconstructing literature? It's especially interesting with music sans lyrics. There's still a certain tone, a certain effect it has on the audience, but could musical methods be akin to rhetorical devices?

Peace and Ponies,
Kira
(I almost had to pause and try to remember what my spiritual name was. Then I remembered I didn't have a spiritual name. Has it only been 2 days?).

The Memoir Dilemma

Dear Kira,

Again, I must answer your question with both a yes and a no.

I have a lot less experience with memoir than you, but I disagree with you when you say that 'memoirs' are disregarded as classics; The Diary of Anne Frank and Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass are two very good examples of classic memoirs. One of the earliest memoirs ever written, The Confessions of St. Augustine, is now considered a foundational text in Western Philosophy and Christianity. I guess the key to a classic memoir is to move beyond writing humorous stories about your life and personal experiences and write something that can transcend its genere to make a broader statement about life in general.

This all, of course, depends on what you define as a memoir. I have a very inclusive definition of the word. To me, a memoir is anything that somebody writes about their life. One can find published collections of letters and journals by many famous authors and political figures. For example, the letters  of Abraham Lincoln (particularly the Bixby letter) are widely read by some people (but not by me). I don't know if you would consider this a 'memoir', but, if you do, then it is certainly a classic. (And, if you want to talk about biographies, there's a whole mountain of classic texts from Plutarch's Lives to the epic, biographical poem John Brown's Body.)

Besides that, there are a ton of classic novels that read suspiciously like autobiographies  My personal favorite is David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens. Many historians have pointed out similarities between the lives of Copperfield and Dickens; David even became a novelist!

I know that these aren't the sort of memoirs you're thinking of. But, I think its important to remember that, until recently  creative non-fiction for the sake of creative non-fiction was sort of looked down on. Memoirs are experiencing a surge in popularity right now, but a few hundred years ago, if you someone wanted to write about their life, they would probably do it in the form of fiction. So, I can sympathize with your memoir woe in that respect.

This brings up a question that I'm sure we both discussed in English 200 and that we perhaps even touched on in this blog before. How important are the author's autobiographical details in understanding a novel? If David Copperfield was a wholly fictional piece, would it still have the same emotional impact? Would it still be considered a classic?

I hope so.

Maria