On books as sweaters (part 1 of 3)

When did books become totally irrelevant to the life of the majority of the population in the US?  The one purpose they could be counted on to serve, that of entertainment, has been gradually replaced by the movies, the television, the Internet, the MP3 player.  The other function of the novel, for instance, to instruct, has been usurped by reality television. The reading masses who in Victorian England made Dickens and Trollope and Collins bestsellers and kept Mudie’s lending library in business today are now learning how not to behave from the derelicts on "The Real Housewives of the OC."

The next sector up of the reading public is reading whatever Oprah (the Mudie of the 20th century) tells them to.   And still more sophisticated readers ignore Oprah and listen to the New York Times, which is not much more reliable.  Not that there’s anything wrong with Oprah’s picks, or the NYT anointed.  They’re usually fine.  But very rarely is the writing anything great. 

You know what is great? Their marketing team. The amount of negotiating it took for those books to get under the nose of the right person at the right time.  Sure, they all have a basic level of excellence.  But they are reduced to commodities instead of texts. In this schema, it is irrelevant to establish why Special Topics in Calamity Physics is inferior to On Beauty.  People will buy and read both because the New York Times told them to, and who cares about the difference?

I care about the difference. 

It’s like that scene in “The Devil Wears Prada” when Meryl Streep coolly explains the trickle-down theory of fashion: that what Andie thinks is an anti-choice (throwing on the first sweater she sees in her closet in the morning) is actually a choice that has been made for her by the people she thinks are irrelevant to her life: those at the very apex of the fashion industry (who are responsible for the sweater’s existence).  And you’re right to assume that in this schema, books are sweaters.  (It’s just that On Beauty is Chanel whereas Special Topics is J. Crew).   The people who buy Oprah’s books are making a non-choice.  They’re just bringing in pizza because they’re too lazy to cook.  Nothing wrong with pizza.  But what’s wrong with cooking? And besides—who are you going to trust to recommend something to eat, Oprah or a food critic? Both, probably, but I would hope more credence would be given to the trained professional.

There are only five freestanding book review sections left in the country and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution fired their book editor two weeks ago.  This is bad, and over six thousand writers and book lovers  have signed a petition asking the AJC to reinstate her. But does anyone actually care if book reviews have their own section in a newspaper or if they’re just thrown in with all the other arts coverage.  For that matter, why should books get their own section?

I can’t really give you a convincing enough reason. I can only shake my head and say wistfully that books ought to be much more important than they are. Books do everything the other arts do and they do it more articulately.  Books teach us to be functioning, expressive individuals.  Movies and television give you empty lines to repeat while you get drunk with your friends. Books make you think for yourself.

« La littérature peut beaucoup, » writes Tzvetan Todorov in his recent essay La littéreature en péril. « Elle peut nous tendre la main quand nous sommes profondément déprimés, nous conduire vers les autres êtres humains autour de nous, nous faire mieux comprendre le monde et nous aider à vivre.  Ce n’est pas qu’elle soit, avant tout, une technique de soins de l’âme ; toutefois, révélation du monde, elle peut aussi, chemin faisant, transformer chacun de nous de l’intérieur. »  (p. 72)

“Literature can do many things.  It can lend a hand when we are profoundly depressed, open us up to the other human beings surrounding us, help us better to live and to understand the world. This is not to say that it is above all a means of healing the soul; nevertheless it can be revelatory, and transforming.” (p. 72)

“Literature has a vital role to play,” Todorov argues, but in order for it to do so it must return to the status it enjoyed up until the end of the 19th century.  This is where literary critics come in.  So you want to read something other than what Oprah tells you to? Great! But without book reviews in newspapers—at the very least—where are you going to find out what’s worth reading?

Ah yes, that’s right.  I forgot.  You’re already there.  You’re here.  The internet. 

We'll talk about that more, next class.  I promise I won't leave you hanging.  But this is long enough for now.

Go on to part two

Comments

[delphine]

Yes I think it is a dangerous precedent!!!! And it is a form of censorship and the media's control of what the general public will read on some level. (Although to be fair, Oprah did have Tolstoy's Anna Karenina included in her book club). And yes something must be done to prevent other newspapers from excluding book reviews.
But I don't think I agree with you when you say "Movies and television give you empty lines to repeat while you get drunk with your friends.".... If I am watching a big budget Hollywood film, I expect to be entertained and just that. But film, especially auteur films are a valid art form. I can provide numerous examples of films that have touched me and good films can elevate the mind equally as great literature can. Films also provide a wonderful marriage of all the arts. Unfortunately great films are overshadowed by the dramatic spread of tv and video games.
Anyway, great post and food for thought.
Delphine

[maitresse]

Delphine, yes, absolutely.

I was thinking more along the lines of "movies" rather than films-- my suggestion was that books even as a form of entertainment have been greatly undermined by movies, TV, video games, etc, in comparison with the role they once played in mass culture.

And boy does that Tolstoy have a great marketing team!!

But seriously-- while I think it's great that bookclubs across the country are tackling Anna Karenina, without literature professors and literary critics, how will they know how to read it? Let's be honest: the average 21st century housewife doesn't have the reading skills for a 19th century Russian novel. That doesn't mean she is incapable of acquiring them. But she's not going to learn how to "read" from talking to her friends. It's a dead end, full of comments like "I thought it was, like, really sad when she killed herself" and "I think the train represents, like, maybe, she feels like her life is out of control or something."

It just isn't enough for Oprah to say "go buy some culture at Barnes and Noble for 10% off the retail price."

[delphine]

No I know :) what you meant. Of course I was shocked that a book by Tolstoy was chosen by Oprah. I just wanted to be fair... Once again, I just think that abandoning book reviews for economic reasons is sad and damaging to culture. I'll just put my soap box aside now.
Delphine

[Matthew Tiffany]

Enjoyed this post a lot - expect I'll froth at the mouth at my site about it, fairly soon -

[maitresse]

please don't put your soap box aside!

matthew, looking forward to reading...

[Aralena]

Anna Karenina was standard A.P. English reading in my day, so I think the average 21st century American housewife can probably manage it without too much cerebral smoke. Faulkner, on the other hand, was an Oprah recommendation that surprised me. (related Slate take on it : http://www.slate.com/id/2126351/)

That said, I don't think that reading great literature must systematically be accompanied by a certified lit theorist/critic/professor. Call me a literary populist, but just because you've been raised on McDonald's (nay, perhaps because you've only tasted silicon-soaked fries and wilted pickles) doesn't mean you can't appreciate a meal at El Bulli. In fact, it may inspire the atrophied palate to seek out more of the good, real, and enriching. Or not. But the tasting must take place.

While lit classes can nudge along the less informed, creative, or intuitive reader to a deeper reading experience, we shouldn't discourage those trying to educate themselves outside of the confines of the ivory tower. I would rather the average 21st century housewife read Tolstoy and have the "right interpretation" go entirely over her head, than to have her stick to grocery store Fabio fare and experience the same old titillation and mind-numb.

This is such an important debate, and your writing on it is thought-provoking, maîtresse. Looking forward to seeing where the discussion winds.

[Mikeachim]

I think the most profound problem is that of width - less an Information Revolution than an Information Explosion. The Internet is a perfect illustration, running into the distance at a fair lick in every direction, and every day the amount of quality Interjournalism grows accordingly. Too much to keep up with. Too much variety. I hate to say it as it seems to represent a mode of thought I profoundly disagree with, but....too much variety. So we're taught to dip & sip. Skim the surface and move on. Digg.com. Stumble.com. etc.
If we follow the analogy of lierature as food, then people are finding themselves unable to cook, or seek out choice ingredients, because they're moving too fast. They decide they can't spare the time - possibly because they have DVDs to catch up on, websites to read (!), computer games to play online, and so on.
That's an overarching problem. Freedom as a mental constraint, as a claustrophobic sense of muffling clutter in the mind. In such an environment, the loudest wins - and that's what we get culturally programmed to accept.
That's why we need simplification. Modesty of possessions. Spartan thinking. A little of the mental IKEA.
{/luddism}
....
The fun, the challenge, exists in the marrying of extremes, the liminal zone between, say, the Movie and the Arthouse Film. Same with fiction. To become literarily famous/infamous, you can take a shock-jock approach and you can get somewhere very fast (James Frey, for example) because novelty sells. But the pot of gold that is the popular and accessible work of High Literature....that's the challenge. It's a fickle path to tread, though. But the rewards are great.
....
Regarding the importance of reviews: surely that would negate the heady narcotic thrill of discovery, of reading something that wholly unexpectedly speaks to *you*. If someone told me that in advance, I'd get indignant and uppity. I like discovery.....

[maitresse]

thanks, aralena-- the slate article is a perfect illustration of my argument-- especially this section:

"In describing the "modernist practice of representing consciousness" Davis invoked the usual suspects—Joyce, Proust, Woolf, Lawrence—but she also included Dorothy Richardson, the inventor of stream-of-consciousness, whose name I'd never heard or had long since forgotten. A tap on the keyboard and I'd learned that Richardson was the author of Pilgrimage, a four-volume modernist tome not read much today. (Our next book, Oprah?)"

[Incidentally, Pilgrimage features prominently in my dissertation]

[amy]

I have mixed feelings about the loss of book reviews. On one hand, I'm sad, because I like reading. On the other hand, I'm a big advocate of "the long tail," and I find newspaper reviews focus on a handful of "hot" books, most of which are of no interest to me whatsoever.

A smart book-blogger who shares my tastes in literature (as low or highbrow as they may be) would be of much greater interest/use to me than the blandified, mainstream book reviews in major papers.

Also, I'm not sure I see the point in praising one art form at the expense of another -- why set artists against each other? For me, content is a lot more important than form -- I'll take a smart movie (yes, movie) over a dumb book any day.

[amy]

Ugh, that first paragraph should say "I like reading *them*." I don't like reading in general, I like reading book reviews in particular, even if I'm not all that interested in the book.

Sorry 'bout that.

[Mikeachim]

Interesting article.
But that kind of message-board interactivity, that level of communal discourse, is exactly the kind of thing that goes on in messageboards related to many contemporary TV shows (albeit in a less structured, rigorous fashion).
For example, in a messageboard relating to the new 'Battlestar Galactica' I've seen references to / recommendations to read Proust, Adam Smith, Malthus, Sartre, Orwell and Derrida.
I think it's simplistic to suggest that other forms of media are leading people away from literature and other classical works. And in the case of many TV shows, sometimes there is the kind of useful, enriching discussion that get people interested in criticism and want to take it further and deeper....

[rhino75]

You see, I think we're missing the point that it's PUBLISHING that's obsessed with marketing rather than literature. In a market dominated by a few major corporations, suddenly everything is reduced to a "pitch". Sell me the idea first, let me sort out the tv tie-in and then you can write it. And how apposite that you illustrate your post by quoting from that DREADFUL Prada book...(already written a thousand times but hey, it's got Prada in the title and it's about fashion... and oooh...trails off). Big business is what's making the book market - just like everything else - bland and unchallenging. It's mall culture gone mad. I love these posts, though, so keep 'em coming!!

[delphine]

In an article published by Bob Hoover, in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (2004)....stated that Americans are reading less and less according to a survey released by National Endowment for the Arts.
(Sorry please do not think I am picking on Americans...I am sure that it is the case world wide).
Here are some excerpts from the article:

"Chuck Kinder at the University of Pittsburgh and Jim Daniels at Carnegie Mellon University, both of whom are writers and teachers of writers, say many undergraduates in their classes do very little outside reading. 'We did a survey in our writing courses and we were flabbergasted at how little the kids read,' Kinder said. 'It got to the point that I felt I was sounding like I was from feudal times if I mentioned something from a book. I got more response by alluding to 'Seinfeld.' At his Carnegie Mellon writing workshops, Daniels said he was surprised to learn just how little his students read for pleasure. 'I came to notice that there's a reluctance by the students to do outside reading,' he said. 'More interesting was the fact that reading literature isn't seen as a component of learning how to write.'

And finally...
"Kristin Kovacic, who teaches writing at the Creative and Performing Arts High School and Chatham College, said her students 'spend a lot of time reading, but the temptation is to be surfing on the Internet or sending e-mail.' For many people, 'the reading muscle is atrophied because the head is doing something else,' Kovacic said. 'My hunch is that people no longer have the habit of mind to be readers. Reading should be a passion. You can't force anyone to be passionate. You have to build that habit.' "

(Oh I am always enticed to partake in these debates...I think Maîtresse and Aralena are working for Lucifer.)

:) Delphine

[Bradley]

...and so it seems to be with the latest 'coming of age' book (Prep - Curtis Sittenfeld) that is titillating publishers. What exactly could be the travails of the twenty-something set at boarding schools today ?
Give me a book with thought, one that provokes me, that stimulates my curiosities and passions; one that makes me reach into history; one that gives me elements of culture and parlays them like threads into the weave of the story and I will be a happy man.

[Misplaced]

I agree, its marketing- although it probably always has been that way.

It's funny that you bemoan the fact that people get their entertainment more from movies and less from books. You then state

It’s like that scene in “The Devil Wears Prada” when Meryl Streep...

You quote the movie and not the book.

[Misplaced]

I agree, its marketing- although it probably always has been that way.

It's funny that you bemoan the fact that people get their entertainment more from movies and less from books. You then state

It’s like that scene in “The Devil Wears Prada” when Meryl Streep...

You quote the movie and not the book.

[maitresse]

Misplaced, she says it in the movie and not in the book. At least not that I recall.

And here I should back up and say I don't generally believe hierarchizing art forms is a productive use of one's time. In this case, I was trying to come up with a reason why books enjoy autonomy (in some newspapers) over the other arts; the only reason I could think of is that books enjoy an elevated place in contemporary (if not mainstream) culture; someone well read certainly enjoys more cultural capital than someone who has seen a lot of movies. And someone who is looking for articles on dance or film is probably also someone who enjoys reading-- books, you might say, are the lowest common denominator among the cultured classes.

A quick look at this book shows that the literary supplement of the Times came about when book coverage was edged out of the main section of the newspaper by more important news-- i.e. parliamentary reports.) So much for the idea of literature "deserving" its own section.

I refer to the film rather than the book because this is one instance in which the film was greatly superior to its source. Also, it's a reference many readers are likely to get. However, if you would prefer I cite only written texts I would say the situation is pretty much best summed up by Andre Schiffrin in his 2001 essay The Business of Books.

Good point, Rhino. That's in Schiffrin too, although lately he's taken to ragging on literary agents (rehashing the same arguments hurled at AP Watt and Walter Besant), which I find utterly counterproductive.

[Alice]

Wow, I was on the verge of spouting one of my typically mundane comments like "this is such a stimulating discussion," but that's sort of obvious. And now I'm trying to come up with an intelligent way to contribute here...

Maîtresse, you always find a way to get my wheels turning and to get me thinking about things like this, most often in your posts relating to literature. Interestingly, I think my own personal experience is sort of the exception to the rule... While living in the U.S. a few years back, I felt like I'd gotten so far away from reading as enjoyment, and although I still read for pleasure at the time, it was far from as often as I would have liked. And then when I moved back to France I was "lucky" enough to spend some time working in a bookshop -- I say that with a hint of irony, as the experience was a bit bittersweet, to say the least -- and it was then that I found myself coming "home" again, to years and years of missed literary pleasure...

But one thing I can say for sure, as a result of that stint in bookselling, is that it got me back into REALLY enjoying literature again... Like when I was a little girl! That probably sounds ridiculous, but I honestly had drifted away from something that held such an important place in my life for so long. Now I find myself overwhelmed by all my options (not to mention the distractions of the Net, music, movies, magazines, etc.!) and have a hard time keeping up with all the things I want to read -- I seem to have come full circle somehow, and I'm more inclined to read a good book now than to watch any television. In fact, I'm completely out of the loop when it comes to the latest "popular" series and TV shows in the U.S. today (case in point: I JUST saw a few episodes of Desperate Housewives for the first time... And although I admit it was "entertaining", I still don't get the phenomenon...).

This is far from contributing to the discussion, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents. I'm glad to make books a priority in my life, but I do find that it's harder and harder to make time for them on a regular basis. And it really is a shame... I agree that it's not necessary to place different art forms in some kind of hierarchy, or to establish one as more valid and valuable than another, but books just seem to stand the test of time far more than other forms of expression. I just can't imagine the possibility of the written word, on actual paper, disappearing and people actually reading novels "on" the computer screen. It seems unfathomable! And yet there are some who claim that this is what the future holds...

[DDJ]

I've been pulled away from novels, not because the pleasure of reading has been replaced by 21st century entertainment, but simply because my job is reading and writing for 10+ hours a day. I can't bring myself to sit down with a book when I get home; if I'm feeling adventurous, I'll attack the magazine pile that goes unread far too often.

I do expect when I go back to school this fall that I'll have a bit more time for books. The flexibility of a student's schedule is more conducive to reading, although it remains to be seen exactly how flexible my program will actually be.

[Aralena]

adding insult to injury :

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/business/media/21predict.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[David Weman]

Psst.

[Awake early]

Maitresse, I see your point, but I guess the question i have for you is based on your line - "They bring in pizza because they're too lazy to cook." -- and the question is: so what? Maybe it's not laziness, but that they're too busy to cook; maybe it's that they hate cooking. But they're eating just the same. It's easy to look down on Oprah's book choices because they're not High Literature --- but my inquiry is this: shouldn't we be excited that people are reading at ALL, esp. given all the other distractive forms of entertainment available to us? They might not be reading Gravity's Rainbow but every time my mom - who is not a big reader due to time and other interests, nor does she really read the newspaper OR the internet for that matter - ends up with a new book because it was suggested by Oprah, i'm happy just to see it on her bookshelf. I see the point that you're trying to make, but to be honest, it just seems a bit snobby to me. Anyone choosing to read Sophie Kinsella rather than watch Lost is still choosing the written word over the televised image. And good for Oprah for turning people who are home at 4 pm (most of whom have children, i would guess, based on her studio audience and demographic, and prob have lots more to worry about than reading a book) to watch the tv towards a novel.....it might not be the most academic or most riveting novel, but it's a novel nonetheless.....

I work in the music industry; i'd prefer for people to buy the cool indie bands i love, not shlock like Maroon 5 or Linkin Park. But at least people are buying and consuming music, no matter what it is. That makes me happy even if i don't necessarily personally agree with their taste or how they found out about it.

I read your site pretty often btw - thanks for the always-thoughtful topics. : )

[nardac]

Regarding a previous comment about people "reading at all," I find this argument disturbing. What people choose to read is completely related to a new kind of illiteracy that plagues the middle class. There was a very good article by Michael Silverblatt, featured in GOOD magazine. on the new illiteracy.

It inspired me to write a kind of personal post, on what reading means to me. I don't think being tired, apathetic or lazy cuts it as an excuse. It's very acceptance as an excuse is lethal.

[maitresse]

Aralena: I know! Perhaps I should have titled the series "on books as stocks."

Awake early and Nardac: Thank you for your comments! stay tuned for part three.

[The Bold Soul]

As a writer who has written one small e-book and is working on a couple of more substantial projects, and who makes her living ghostwriting and editing books for other people, I too am concerned about the fact that people do not seem to want to read the way they used to before all the technology got in the way. Even *I* read less today than I did ten years ago; it just seems there are always other things I need to do. Maybe the influence of Oprah and the NY Times at least keeps people reading SOMETHING, even if they are too lazy to choose for themselves. I know that's why Oprah started her book club in the first place, just to get people reading for pleasure again. And I have to say that if I ever write a book that gets featured on Oprah or a good Times review, I won't be complaining about the subsequent surge in book sales. ;)