Chelsey Franks, my sister-in-law, has a different view. She has a degree in American Literature and has a distinct taste for such authors as F. Scott Fitzgerald, William Faulkner, and Ernest Hemingway. Here is here response:
Let me preface by saying that I have yet to read Ulysses. I have read other Joyce novels , but was actually inspired by your original post to finally go and get the book (at the glorious Strand bookstore, nonetheless). I’ll report back in 80 years when I slay the beast.
My response to your post is really just a clarification. I don’t think you can compare critic’s choice with popular choice in a fair way, as the criteria is completely different. The critics are looking for new forms and techniques, and voices that have never been heard before. The common reader wants accessible and entertaining.
Now, I will concede that Tolkien is one of the few that can walk that fine line of being both critically good and widely read. And I will also admit that, for whatever reason (another post, perhaps), the literary canon has largely ignored the fantasy and sci-fi genres.
The real question I think you’re asking, though, is what makes a book good? Is it that millions of people read it over and over, or that highly educated scholars declare it so? Again, I think we’re talking about two kinds of good. I would say that Tolkien and Joyce are both sound representations of each kind of good – one would read Lord of the Rings and declare it good because it transported them to another world of lively characters and magical happenings, while one would declare Ulysses good because in it, Joyce pioneered a new writing style and took the very format of the book to new heights and meanings.
I think a healthy reader should consume a regular mix of both “goods.” Too much of one or the other can be too safe or too depressing, and I think we know which would be which.Visit Chelsey's blog here.
No comments:
Post a Comment