Are the highly educated defining society's view of good literature? Are some works considered classic just because "they" categorize them as such? Who decides what books should belong to the literary cannon? I really am curious to know why certain books are considered so great.
Take, for example, Cathcher in the Rye. Now I read this book in high school and though I may not remember all the details, I do remember that I was not impressed with it. Of course is was part of a summer reading assignment, so I was not inclined to read it from the beginning. But even so, I thought it was stupid and kind of annoying to read about some bratty teenager (was he a teenager? I don't remember exactly) being upset with the world.
I'm sure if I read the book now I may find different qualities to enjoy which were not so apparent the first time around. (Because my personal economy has now changed ;)). Yet I can't help but wonder if I would even think of returning to this novel if it was not so highly esteemed by literary circles.
I guess this kind of comes back to the question of must we as English majors learn to appreciate different works of literature even if we don't like them? If I was a good and proper English major I would probably say yes, but now that I am staring at graduation which is less than two months away I am going to say no. Inspired by my bout of senioritis, I declare that I will make my own canon of literature which will include all the books I actually like to read. Among them will sit great writers like Jane Austen or William Faulkner, but I will also include childhood favorites such as Beverly Cleary and Zane Grey from my middle school western novels phase.
No more of this pressure to try to like and appreciate authors and books that I don't really care about (Sorry Emerson, this includes you). Still, I must refer to the ultimate literary canon for suggestions of what to include in my own creation; exposing myself to new literature is still key, but if I don't like something or don't understand it, I am not going to feel guilty about it.
Sometimes I feel like to be an English major one has to appreciate and like everything that is considered good literature and hate everything that is "bad" literature. Some say that is too much to ask and only require you to appreciate without having to like it but still hate the bad literature. I say just expose yourself to it and learn about it and leave it up to yourself to decide if you like it or not. If it's good and you don't like it or appreciate, fine. If it's bad but you still like it, I say embrace the badness of the plot and style and its overused cliche's. As long as you can recognize it and understand your own tastes, I think you're justified.
Take, for example, Cathcher in the Rye. Now I read this book in high school and though I may not remember all the details, I do remember that I was not impressed with it. Of course is was part of a summer reading assignment, so I was not inclined to read it from the beginning. But even so, I thought it was stupid and kind of annoying to read about some bratty teenager (was he a teenager? I don't remember exactly) being upset with the world.
I'm sure if I read the book now I may find different qualities to enjoy which were not so apparent the first time around. (Because my personal economy has now changed ;)). Yet I can't help but wonder if I would even think of returning to this novel if it was not so highly esteemed by literary circles.
I guess this kind of comes back to the question of must we as English majors learn to appreciate different works of literature even if we don't like them? If I was a good and proper English major I would probably say yes, but now that I am staring at graduation which is less than two months away I am going to say no. Inspired by my bout of senioritis, I declare that I will make my own canon of literature which will include all the books I actually like to read. Among them will sit great writers like Jane Austen or William Faulkner, but I will also include childhood favorites such as Beverly Cleary and Zane Grey from my middle school western novels phase.
No more of this pressure to try to like and appreciate authors and books that I don't really care about (Sorry Emerson, this includes you). Still, I must refer to the ultimate literary canon for suggestions of what to include in my own creation; exposing myself to new literature is still key, but if I don't like something or don't understand it, I am not going to feel guilty about it.
Sometimes I feel like to be an English major one has to appreciate and like everything that is considered good literature and hate everything that is "bad" literature. Some say that is too much to ask and only require you to appreciate without having to like it but still hate the bad literature. I say just expose yourself to it and learn about it and leave it up to yourself to decide if you like it or not. If it's good and you don't like it or appreciate, fine. If it's bad but you still like it, I say embrace the badness of the plot and style and its overused cliche's. As long as you can recognize it and understand your own tastes, I think you're justified.
No comments:
Post a Comment