Jump to content

Books NOT to read-


Recommended Posts

I'm actually a Stein fan. Not necessarily on the Tender Buttons level, but in the class that determined whether or not I was going to be an English major (serious doubts for a while) we read Autobiography, and I adored it. I also really liked Three Lives.

I was trying to think of something else to contribute to the thread, but really the only thing I can come up with is Austen, again. I'm the running joke in my English department, so much so that when one of my letter writers was doing research abroad over the summer, she came back with a refrigerator magnet that says "I Heart Mr. Darcy" with a portrait of Colin Firth on it. It is horrible and wonderful all wrapped into one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't Drown his outstanding short story collection?

Yeah, I meant the tone or something.

I think reading the bible is important because it'll make you not christian. the majority of practicers haven't read it, hence they still are.

I actually think The Bible is good... I am an agnostic, and I tend to read a lot more stuff about the Bible than I do actual Bible, but there are some decent things in there. I think the topic of women in the Bible is fascinating.

"This" to the last two quotes. I'm big on the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas myself. I vaguely consider myself (philosophically) Daoist and I find a lot of similarities between the DaoDeJing and the G.O.T.

I suggest "The Five Gospels" by Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar: an attempt to figure out, by looking at original docs and linguistic and literary tendencies, the source gospel (or, at least, the one with the earliest oral parables). They posit the Gospel of Thomas (with parables circa 50 C.E., written aout 100 BC) as the earliest form that we have available to us. It looks to be influenced by the Theraputae, the Essenes, and other "Eastern" influenced Jewish groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think The Bible is good... I am an agnostic, and I tend to read a lot more stuff about the Bible than I do actual Bible, but there are some decent things in there. I think the topic of women in the Bible is fascinating.

I agree that when read as a book and not the divine word of God--I was raised Catholic and am now somewhere between agnostic and atheist--it has a lot of interesting subject matter. The problem is, it manages to take things as intriguing as incest, murder, betrayal, a man living in a whale, etc., and makes them so dry that even teenage boys fall asleep reading it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dislike Octavia Butler because she is an abysmal writer. Kindred was part of the curriculum for a majorlevel* course I took, and it did not belong there. She is a YA writer, which is fine, but the writing is subpar even for that world. She took a complex historial/racial/science fiction premise and made it facile. I do not, and will never, understand why so many college professors believe her work belongs at the college level.

Both Faulkner and Joyce's masterful use of language and narrative structure is what makes them as famous as they are. They only way I understand not appreciating their work is because it was not approached or taught well. I am not saying anyone is stupid or "reading it wrong," but I know that if I had not read both of these authors in the context of a classroom and with great teachers, I would not have liked or appreciated them.

*My dash key is broken argh.

Edited by Julianne Pigoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one doesn't fall so much into the literary canon (I hope) so much as the popular one, but: The Perks of Being a Wallflower. A copy made the rounds in my high school friend group, each of us reading it in about a day, and spending the rest of the year sneak-attacking each other with some of its most memorable lines. "I feel infinite.

HA! I had the same experience in HS. We moved on to Salinger and Vonnegut, and were satisfied (although the Franny and Zooey jokes/impersonations were not much better)

I'm now the textbook manager at a college bookstore, and one of the professors actually adopted The Perks of Being a Wallflower as required course reading this semester! (It was for a "Coming of Age Lit." course, but still...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dislike Octavia Butler because she is an abysmal writer. Kindred was part of the curriculum for a majorlevel* course I took, and it did not belong there. She is a YA writer, which is fine, but the writing is subpar even for that world. She took a complex historial/racial/science fiction premise and made it facile. I do not, and will never, understand why so many college professors believe her work belongs at the college level.

Both Faulkner and Joyce's masterful use of language and narrative structure is what makes them as famous as they are. They only way I understand not appreciating their work is because it was not approached or taught well. I am not saying anyone is stupid or "reading it wrong," but I know that if I had not read both of these authors in the context of a classroom and with great teachers, I would not have liked or appreciated them.

*My dash key is broken argh.

Oooh, a hater on YA fiction *and* a defender of Joyce! What if I told you Harry Potter deserves priority in the canon over Joyce?

To be more precise, Joyce is a writer's write, imho. His ability to put words on page is absolutely amazing -- but in terms of plot, theme, characters, I would rank him very low. It's a criticism I would level against much of the modernists.

@Eggers,

I'm half in, half out on this one. What is the What and Where the Wild Things are masterpieces. A Heartbreaking work I just couldn't stomach. Writers really need to stay away from postmodernist tendencies.

Speaking of which. . . .

My candidates:

Giles Goat-boy by John Barth

Anything by Thomas Pynchon.

Oh em gee, how do I loath Thomas Pynchon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if I told you Harry Potter deserves priority in the canon over Joyce?

To be more precise, Joyce is a writer's write, imho. His ability to put words on page is absolutely amazing -- but in terms of plot, theme, characters, I would rank him very low. It's a criticism I would level against much of the modernists.

you don't really want to have this conversation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be the diplomatic waffling person, but I think we're talking about conflicting values, not objective literary worth. Some of us will never understand each others' respective fields, but that doesn't mean we have to be all snobbish about it. The idea that anything belongs/doesn't belong in the canon always gives me a shudder; it's like this form of social engineering through literature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are actual productive ways to talk about canon/the idea of a canon (see: large portions of literary theory in the last fifty years, works on aesthetics, etc.). two ways that are not productive: "different strokes;" harry potter.

There are indeed productive ways. Not in this thread, of course. :)

It seems to me that constructing a canon would be more helpful if we:

1) Defined English programs more broadly as "Cultural Studies" programs because... c'mon, that's what we actually do.

2) Recognized the wide disparity between different genres and periods of literature that make it nearly impossible to make an English canon and subsequently develop smaller, more specialized canons.

3) Edit the existing GRE-Subject Test canon with a heavy hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooh, a hater on YA fiction *and* a defender of Joyce! What if I told you Harry Potter deserves priority in the canon over Joyce?

To be more precise, Joyce is a writer's write, imho. His ability to put words on page is absolutely amazing -- but in terms of plot, theme, characters, I would rank him very low. It's a criticism I would level against much of the modernists.

@Eggers,

I'm half in, half out on this one. What is the What and Where the Wild Things are masterpieces. A Heartbreaking work I just couldn't stomach. Writers really need to stay away from postmodernist tendencies.

Speaking of which. . . .

My candidates:

Giles Goat-boy by John Barth

Anything by Thomas Pynchon.

Oh em gee, how do I loath Thomas Pynchon.

What's it like to be illiterate and pursuing an English PhD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh stop overreacting. I don't even care about the "canon", but there is not a single possible framework you can use to justify Eggers and Rowling over Joyce and Pynchon. All a statement like that says (and especially the criticisms of Joyce that show a complete unfamiliarity with his work) is that this person has no business in an English department--they can't think critically, and their intellectual comprehension is nonexistent.

I'm just stating the facts--if you want to get into academia, the holistic holding hands approach is pointless. I like Pound's notes on the Wasteland manuscript--forceful and not putting up with bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are indeed productive ways. Not in this thread, of course. :)

It seems to me that constructing a canon would be more helpful if we:

1) Defined English programs more broadly as "Cultural Studies" programs because... c'mon, that's what we actually do.

2) Recognized the wide disparity between different genres and periods of literature that make it nearly impossible to make an English canon and subsequently develop smaller, more specialized canons.

3) Edit the existing GRE-Subject Test canon with a heavy hand.

I know I'm new here but I'd like to mostly endorse this. This is not the time and place, but I'm curious about your idea of specialized canons.

Shouldn't we bust the idea of the canon entirely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is being kind to people on a forum that is going to have zero effect on your academic career more "pointless" than attacking someone in a forum that is going to have zero effect on your academic career? This has nothing to do with moving forward in academia, it has to do with being a jerk.

Edited by impending
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, don't fight, guys. We're all friends here. :)

Not to be the diplomatic waffling person, but I think we're talking about conflicting values, not objective literary worth. Some of us will never understand each others' respective fields, but that doesn't mean we have to be all snobbish about it. The idea that anything belongs/doesn't belong in the canon always gives me a shudder; it's like this form of social engineering through literature.

TripWillis: The Diplomatic Waffle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is being kind to people on a forum that is going to have zero effect on your academic career more "pointless" than attacking someone in a forum that is going to have zero effect on your academic career? This has nothing to do with moving forward in academia, it has to do with being a jerk.

I mean, presumably the people in this forum are going to get their degrees and become part of a generation of academics, correct? It has no effect on anyone personally, but the idea that an anti-intellectual atmosphere is being fostered among people that will eventually be heads of their fields is absurd, non?

I'm not trying to be a jerk--I think there are some salient aspects of academia to be discussed here. The philosophy of education and what we value as academics is a major part of the scholarly process.

I only mean to inspire conversation, and the fact that my screen says "8 new messages" since I started typing this means I'm doing just that. But if you just want to circlejerk all over each other, please be my guest, I won't stop you

EDIT: ImWantHazPHD's gif sums this up really well

Edited by dokkeynot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

part of the job of being an intellectual is guarding and promoting intellectualism

I agree. I sometimes have concerns about the intellectual values we're promoting. Contrary to dokkeynot's opinion, thinking critically or supporting an academic or intellectual standard doesn't just entail carrying on certain books or authors from generation to generation. There has to be room for change. Eggers and Rowling could be taught meaningfully in the right context. Literary worth itself doesn't always determine what gets taught. Look at Atlas Shrugged, which is a "bad" novel by consensus, but is also an important piece of culture. It's not about anti-intellectualism; it's about having a comprehensive view of the way literary values are taken up and put down by society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use