In the Spring 2009 edition of Ms. magazine, there is an article by Carmen D. Siering entitled "Taking a Bite Out of Twilight". The basic premise is that the Twilight series is anti-feminist because Bella is not in control of her her sexuality, her relationship with Edward, or even her life. However, others (including Stephanie Meyers, the author) have claimed that the Twilight series is feminist-friendly because it is focused on a female as a lead character and addresses issues that are feminine- namely relationships and love- and yet appeals to a mass audience. That argument is further taken to the movie, which is the first top-grossing action movie to have a female director.
My first reaction was that none of this should matter as long as it is a good story, which I think Twilight is (although I understand that we don't all agree on that point). But it led me to wonder, what is more important? A good story? Or social consciousness?
For a long time chic-lit and feminist books were ignored by mainstream publishers because they didn't think they were good stories. This is still true to some extent. Look at our own book club reading list- only one book so far that has focused on a female character ("House of Seven Gables") and only one by a female author ("Like Water for Elephants") and yet we, with the exception of Aaron and Harold as partial participants, are all women!
While I do not believe that books with a social conscience (not just feminism, of course) can't also be good stories, can books that perpetuate stereotypes while telling a good story still be considered good literature?
Hmmmm you leave me thinking. Ouch! A good story or social consciousness first made me think of Satan Bug which I had just finished 2 days ago. Definitely a good story (with mainly men) but with a very definite social consciousness. Also, besides the books that we have read (of which I've only been a small part), I also thought of those we had listed as FAVORITES! And our favorites were a lot of FEMALE lead books - Little House, Anne of Green Gables, Gone with the Wind, Evanovich, etc. The book list has been a lot of classics which were mostly male authors but then our favorite books have also been considered classics which have been mostly female authors. So I think WE (AMABOOKCLUB) read equally male/female.
I think the chic-lit books have been overwhelmingly "romance" type books (and I hate them) and give female lead stories a bad rap, in my opinion.
This question has had me thinking for a couple of days; indeed, I'm still thinking about it!
First, two comments in regards to the male/female author debate. Reading for myself I much prefer to read books by women; I've read a lot of them, and since we made a rule that our picks should be new or mostly new to us, I've been picking a lot of male authors. Also, I think the numbers are a bit skewed to begin with, as there are so many more male authors to choose from. Really up until about ... oh 1850 literature was very male-dominated. To some extent it still is.
I would like to think that literature's only priority need be telling a good story, however, I don't think a good story can exist unless it somehow relates to readers' lives. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. I think all good stories have social consciousness, but not all stories are good. So, for a book to be dubbed "literature" I think it must include both. I don't consider Evanovich's books literature, though they are highly entertaining. Do you?
It makes me wonder which modern-day authors will be deemed "classics" by future generations. I see a little bit of this at the used book store, which has separate sections for "fiction" "classic literature" and "modern classics." I often wonder who decides if something is deemed fiction rather than modern classics. (Water for Elephants was a MC, as was Remains of the Day. Satan Bug was fiction, Moby Dick and Pudd'n Head were CL)
I see a poem about used book store pecking-order in my future!
No, I don't consider Evanovich literature, nor Holt either for that matter. Good reads, for sure (for me anyway!), but not literature.
So, it sounds as though we agree that to be considered literature, it must be both a good story (according to someone- I disagree with Moby Dick and some other classics I've read) and have a social consciousness. To be a good read- just a good story. So, my feeling that the critic of Twilight is looking too deeply into it is at least partially validated!
4 comments:
In the Spring 2009 edition of Ms. magazine, there is an article by Carmen D. Siering entitled "Taking a Bite Out of Twilight". The basic premise is that the Twilight series is anti-feminist because Bella is not in control of her her sexuality, her relationship with Edward, or even her life. However, others (including Stephanie Meyers, the author) have claimed that the Twilight series is feminist-friendly because it is focused on a female as a lead character and addresses issues that are feminine- namely relationships and love- and yet appeals to a mass audience. That argument is further taken to the movie, which is the first top-grossing action movie to have a female director.
My first reaction was that none of this should matter as long as it is a good story, which I think Twilight is (although I understand that we don't all agree on that point). But it led me to wonder, what is more important? A good story? Or social consciousness?
For a long time chic-lit and feminist books were ignored by mainstream publishers because they didn't think they were good stories. This is still true to some extent. Look at our own book club reading list- only one book so far that has focused on a female character ("House of Seven Gables") and only one by a female author ("Like Water for Elephants") and yet we, with the exception of Aaron and Harold as partial participants, are all women!
While I do not believe that books with a social conscience (not just feminism, of course) can't also be good stories, can books that perpetuate stereotypes while telling a good story still be considered good literature?
Hmmmm you leave me thinking. Ouch!
A good story or social consciousness first made me think of Satan Bug which I had just finished 2 days ago. Definitely a good story (with mainly men) but with a very definite social consciousness. Also, besides the books that we have read (of which I've only been a small part), I also thought of those we had listed as FAVORITES! And our favorites were a lot of FEMALE lead books - Little House, Anne of Green Gables, Gone with the Wind, Evanovich, etc. The book list has been a lot of classics which were mostly male authors but then our favorite books have also been considered classics which have been mostly female authors. So I think WE (AMABOOKCLUB) read equally male/female.
I think the chic-lit books have been overwhelmingly "romance" type books (and I hate them) and give female lead stories a bad rap, in my opinion.
This question has had me thinking for a couple of days; indeed, I'm still thinking about it!
First, two comments in regards to the male/female author debate. Reading for myself I much prefer to read books by women; I've read a lot of them, and since we made a rule that our picks should be new or mostly new to us, I've been picking a lot of male authors. Also, I think the numbers are a bit skewed to begin with, as there are so many more male authors to choose from. Really up until about ... oh 1850 literature was very male-dominated. To some extent it still is.
I would like to think that literature's only priority need be telling a good story, however, I don't think a good story can exist unless it somehow relates to readers' lives. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. I think all good stories have social consciousness, but not all stories are good. So, for a book to be dubbed "literature" I think it must include both. I don't consider Evanovich's books literature, though they are highly entertaining. Do you?
It makes me wonder which modern-day authors will be deemed "classics" by future generations. I see a little bit of this at the used book store, which has separate sections for "fiction" "classic literature" and "modern classics." I often wonder who decides if something is deemed fiction rather than modern classics. (Water for Elephants was a MC, as was Remains of the Day. Satan Bug was fiction, Moby Dick and Pudd'n Head were CL)
I see a poem about used book store pecking-order in my future!
No, I don't consider Evanovich literature, nor Holt either for that matter. Good reads, for sure (for me anyway!), but not literature.
So, it sounds as though we agree that to be considered literature, it must be both a good story (according to someone- I disagree with Moby Dick and some other classics I've read) and have a social consciousness. To be a good read- just a good story. So, my feeling that the critic of Twilight is looking too deeply into it is at least partially validated!
Post a Comment