bunnyjadwiga: (Default)
Someone posted these lightbulb jokes about white male novelists:
http://the-toast.net/2013/11/04/male-novelist-jokes/

I don't read horror. The closest I come is Shari Tepper's Beauty which is enough to put you off horror altogether. In fact, I don't read books about terrible people and how pointless their lives are-- that would be the entire literary output of the second half of the twentieth century. That leaves me not a lot, you know? Especially if I don't read 'men's fiction' genres.

I gave up on modern literary fiction in general after majoring in English and then encountering Barthleme's Snow White (from a class I was bright enough NOT to take). Boring white guys and their problems. I complained in high school about taking a short fiction class at a college where we had to read Miss Lonelyhearts among other stuff. My mother said, basically, we are all having to read books about middle aged white guys feeling how much their lives suck (or young white guys feeling how much their lives suck) because that's what middle aged white guys writing at that time-- and they were all middle aged white guys-- were thinking about. Basically, it's all just fridge horror. Think of Jude the Obscure. When I finished it, I upset the entire class by saying "Thank goodness. I'd been praying he'd have the guts to off himself for the last six chapters." (It was a spoiler, you see; not everyone else had actually kept up with the assigned reading.)

Now, if I want to deal with terrible things happening, I read non-fiction. I read more non-fiction than you'd think. But for fiction, I'm not all that interested in fiction that goes nowhere except up its own anus. And that covers so much 'adult' 'literary' fiction that it's just not worth it to keep trying. If I hate dark chocolate, and 95% of the wrapped candies are dark chocolate, but it's unclear which ones, why would I buy wrapped candy?
bunnyjadwiga: (Default)
Interesting snippet from a book review essay in the Chronicle of Higher education:

In Between Women, Ms. Marcus observes that the big theoretical movement of 20 years ago compelled scholars interested in gender and sexuality to dig up what mainstream culture "excludes, represses or pathologizes,"-- gay and lesbian desire, for instance, or the idea of women as sexual creatures independent of men. Even queer readings have obeyed a sort of inverse heterosexual template: Desires had to be either hetero or homo. There was no middle ground.
Victorians made no such distinctions, she argues. "Our contemporary opposition between hetero- and homosexuality did not exist for Victorians," writes Ms. Marcus. "Victorians were thus able to see relationships between women as central to lives also organized around men."

-- Jennifer Howard, "Beyond Wives and Lovers," Chronicle of Higher Education, June 22, 2007, p. A14-A17.

The book in question is:
Between women : friendship, desire, and marriage in Victorian England. Sharon Marcus. Princeton : Princeton University Press, c2007.

While I don't buy the argument entirely, I think our view of history in the late 20th and early 21st century has been warped by the mid-20th-century decades. I've always been uncomfortable with the idea that deep same-sex friendships and emotional relationships in history and literature should be examined carefully for signs of repressed desire, to 'uncover' buried homosexuality. This method has its values, of course, but it tends to replicate the late twentieth century [adolescent] emphasis on sex and the repressive categorizations of the same time period.

Profile

bunnyjadwiga: (Default)
bunnyjadwiga

August 2017

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516 171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 9th, 2025 01:38 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios