Overrated Books?

[Charlie Bernstein]

The only reference I can give is what I use when I teach this idea, as it was taught to me in grad school, and from books I read that I can no longer recall titles for. Sorry for that.

Based on the Wiki article, I get why people would call TKAM a white savior book. I don't think the wiki article is using a good definition though. It's playing with a Barthian view that decontextualizes the book from the culture and time in which it was written. This is common in mid 20th century theory, and even now among some critical studies (critical race theory, critical queer theory, etc.) theorists, but is uncommon among actual practicing lit, history, and cultural studies scholars.

What I was getting as it is that the white Savior trope is usually considered negative. It can only though be considered negative when a white Savior is not needed to advance the plot.

Given that in the time period written about a black lawyer or Savior figure would have broken the realistic tone of the book, a white lawyer or Savior is the only option. Therefore it shouldn't be considered a problem. If the book was set in 1993 or 2003 or 2023 I might feel differently. But given that the only realistic lawyer at this point would be a straight white cismale, the WS trope is not really a critique.

Doesn't mean you have to like the book, and maybe I'm just hyper sensitive to this because I get flack from some of the more radical members (a tiny but shrill minority) in my field. But that's my take, the one i use when i teach US History Through Lit or Pivotal Texts or even my HIST survey.

Edit: But dude I love that you're thinking this deeply about lit and culture. Well played from a dude who doesn't often say that.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I disagree with the reference. Since Atticus doesn't save anyone, To Kill a Mockingbird is hardly a white savior story. His client dies. His daughter saves him at the jailhouse. The sheriff has to talk him out of exposing Boo Radley's role in the death of his kids' drunken assailant.

There's no white savior, but doesn't make the book historically or thematically flawless. I love the book, but it does have a blaring shortcoming. It paints poor white southerners as ignorant sheep who needed to be brought by baby steps to see the light — or at least need to roll over for the sake of progress.

As you might have noticed, in Lee's eyes, to care about justice - not even to be a leftist - is to be a middle-class professional. But groups like the integrated Southern Tenant Farmers Union did as much as anyone in those days to promote social progress as southern liberal lawyers. (In the movie The Great Debaters, Denzel W. goes to a Farmers Union meeting.)

But the only white farmers we see in To Kill a Mockingbird are Erskine Caldwell-esque characatures: stupid, drunk, raggedy, cruel, and arguably incestuous.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . (Also, I must point out that in To Kill a Mockingbird, the good guys lose.)

Yup. See post 361.

To be exact, Atticus and Robinson lose. The kids and Boo Radley do okay.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . By the way, I'm fairly fond of the Puritans (real ones, not the stereotype) but agree completely that a work of art can have intrinsic worth without propagandizing. Nighthawks? Thunder Road? Gorky Park? And yes, Rock Lobster. Good stuff, all.

Not a fan. The Puritans thought native tribe people were the devil and made war with them.

The Anglican Brits here in Maine were getting along fine with the natives until Puritans from Massachusetts stirred things up and got the local tribes angry at British settlers. Lots of bloodshed on both sides just because a bunch of psycho Puritans needed some nice people to kill.

Today, the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in North America is Monhegan Island. The tribes left it alone because it was too far offshore to raid.

For more on the subject, see Colin Woodard's The Lobster Coast.

 

[Jim622]

I'll bet a dollar that's either The Complete Works of Conan Doyle or The Complete Sherlock Holmes.

I agree. Got the CWOSH in high school. Still have it.

 

[ravindave_3600]

Not a fan. The Puritans thought native tribe people were the devil and made war with them.

The Anglican Brits here in Maine were getting along fine with the natives until Puritans from Massachusetts stirred things up and got the local tribes angry at British settlers. Lots of bloodshed on both sides just because a bunch of psycho Puritans needed some nice people to kill.

Today, the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in North America is Monhegan Island. The tribes left it alone because it was too far offshore to raid.

For more on the subject, see Colin Woodard's The Lobster Coast.

I'm no expert on Maine but I've read quite a bit of Puritan literature and "native tribe people were the devil" isn't a theme. For example, the notorious King Phillip's War had more to do with local feuds and economics than hatred (most of those fighting in the "English settlers" army were from local tribes with long-standing disputes with the Pequot. Important Puritan pastors such as Eliot, Brainerd, and Edwards ministered to the Natives. This website and this one (either of which may or may not be accurate) paint a far more complex picture of the relationships. I'll look for a copy of the Lobster Coast though.

Back to overrated books!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I'm no expert on Maine but I've read quite a bit of Puritan literature and "native tribe people were the devil" isn't a theme. For example, the notorious King Phillip's War had more to do with local feuds and economics than hatred (most of those fighting in the "English settlers" army were from local tribes with long-standing disputes with the Pequot. Important Puritan pastors such as Eliot, Brainerd, and Edwards ministered to the Natives. This website and this one (either of which may or may not be accurate) paint a far more complex picture of the relationships. I'll look for a copy of the Lobster Coast though.

Back to overrated books!

Good to know. I'll look at the links.

If you like nonfiction, you'll probably like The Lobster Coast. Woodard is great. My favorite of his is American Nations.

 

[notmyusualuserid]

I agree. Got the CWOSH in high school. Still have it.

Woosh

 

[smartsoul72]

I’ve been enjoying this thread.
The 1 book that most comes to my mind is “Portnoy’s Complaint” by Roth.
I read and enjoyed it, but I remember in 2000 it was declared book of the century for the 1900s(at least that’s how I remember it, a quick google search and all I could find was it being listed as ONE of the greatest books of the century. Anyone else remember?).
Again, I liked the book but I was a bit surprised how highly it was rated.

 

[P Thought]

Luckily it is not very long.

Not very long is bread and butter for high-school and middle-school teachers of literature, the average student there having the attention span of a hummingbird with rabies.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

With a few exceptions, you folks are all Philistines.

(Some great books and authors were really trashed.)

The subject line is an invitation to trash. They're just having fun — and getting even with all their English teachers.

Since there's no right or wrong about how good or bad a books is, it's an opportunity to enjoy the age-old game of taking an untennable position and defending it to the death.

If nothing else, at least the thread is good for starting a new band. Something like Phyllis Teen and the Pageburners.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I’ve been enjoying this thread.
The 1 book that most comes to my mind is “Portnoy’s Complaint” by Roth.
I read and enjoyed it, but I remember in 2000 it was declared book of the century for the 1900s(at least that’s how I remember it, a quick google search and all I could find was it being listed as ONE of the greatest books of the century. Anyone else remember?).
Again, I liked the book but I was a bit surprised how highly it was rated.

Oh. I thought it was Candy.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I don’t worry about the critics’ take on anything—book, movie, music, art—because the critique of all things artistic are in the eye of the beholder.

I personally think that Jackson Pollack’s drip technique paintings are crap. They’re a drop cloth from my buddy’s old sign shop. It’s ok if someone else finds meaning or expression or whatever in it, I don’t…and my opinion, as a semi-literate art consumer, is just as important.

I don’t like 99% of the prog-rock out there. Yep, they’re great musicians playing highly complicated/technical pieces…that often bore me to death. I know there’s people out there who love it, and that’s ok…but my opinion, as a semi-literate musician and music consumer, is just as important.

There are highly respected films that hold high critical praise. I like some of them. I can’t stomach others…and yes, you guessed it— my opinion, as a semi-literate cinema-phile is just as important.

Do I need to make the same statement about literature?

So if by saying I don’t like this or that piece of literature, I have earned the title of Philistine, well—I will wear that badge proudly…because my opinion about an artistic endeavor is just as important as any critic, historian or consumer…

…not because I’m special, but because I took the time and effort to consume whatever artistic endeavor is in front of me.

Oh, good. Now we get to trash painters, too.

You might like John Berger's Ways of Seeing. It puts art eras into perspective, pun obligatory.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I stack all movies against The Lion King. Most don't pass the test plot wise.

Sorry. I only watch 3-D movies.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Of course it blows. It's a whale

White blow! The whales have a new pope!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Call me a lazy arse, but I think life is too short to make myself read a book I do not like. Or make myself listen to music I do not like. Or make myself watch a movie I do not like. Or make myself watch a tv series I do not like.

I just do not. I turn to something else.

So, I do not have an answer to the OP.

But you have time for this?!

=O.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Pollack was an "energy" artist correct? No pre planning, he just let himself go and improvised. Let the paint fall where it may from his movement and form. Interesting concept. I like it, but must admit I did not like his work till I learned where he was coming from. I see his work totally different now. His paintings are like a free form jam. Good stuff.

I see some negative comments about "Moby Dick". I have to admit that it is one of my favorites. I revist it about once a year.

"10,000 Leagues Under the Sea" I found to be dry and dull. I have never reread it. Once was enough.

And 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is twice as bad!

 

[notmyusualuserid]

Oh, good. Now we get to trash painters, too.

You might like John Berger's Ways of Seeing. It puts art eras into perspective, pun obligatory.

Spare copy

 

[Linderflomann]

Oh, good. Now we get to trash painters, too.

You might like John Berger's Ways of Seeing. It puts art eras into perspective, pun obligatory.

I was gifted this recently. Thanks for the reminder to actually read it!

 

[NoTeleBob]

I had my Facebook account hacked and it took Facebook two weeks to figure out that I was me, not some person who logged in as me from Vietnam. They had my phone number, my email and a copy of my driver's license. I spend much less time on Facebook now. I use it to keep in touch with friends, bands, animal rescues. I often say, Facebook is a tool, like a hammer. You can use a hammer to build a house, or you can use it to hit yourself in the face. Don't blame the hammer for YOUR choice.

The incompetence of large companies these days is astounding. Add in their dose of arrogance in many cases about even providing it and you have today's world of customer pain.

The root is that management a) only cares about the quarterly profit; b) measures everything by large "metrics"; and c) makes every decision by a set or rigid written corp rules instead of actually managing.

The individual customer (among millions) and serving their needs is becomes something to those goals and

Stephen King has written 65 novels and over 200 short stories and is one of the best selling authors of all time. You have read part of one of these books (for which you don't even remember the name) but deem him as overrated.

I'm sorry, but that is like only listening to 'Why Don't We Do It In the Road?' and determining based upon that one song that the Beatles are overrated.

I thought that was actually their best work. Only song where they ever brought us real rock-n-roll.

But I understand it was all Paul in the studio with Ringo on drums, so there's that.

 

[DekeDog]

People who really love to read often do it just to appreciate the writing, the prose, the verbal dexterity. I, OTOH, lack focus, so if a book's plot doesn't grab me in the first 100 pages, I'm done... probably why I prefer non-fiction. That said:

Great Expectations (or as someone already mentioned, anything by Dickens)
Lolita
Grapes of Wrath
The Sound and the Fury