I'm writing this one in English becuase it's reading break and i'm SO not in Spanish mode...
The first half of the course for me was mostly about learning to approach books from a different perspective, and to be more ready to question universally accepted ideas of a best seller and/or of a "good book". I think that this is a valuable skill, and while I was worried that being told a book was bad before I read it would taint my interpretation, I've found that really this hasn't been a huge problem. It is definitely something that is still always present, but I still like Como agua para chocolate even though I can definitely see the reasons why it is not very good literature, and I can also see why people can appreciate a book that I don't like, such as The Alchemist. I like the conversations in class, and how there is a strong emphasis on the discussion of ideas amongst the group. I appreciate the medium of the blogs much more than I thoguht that I would, because let's face it, I have a tendency to ramble and here no one can interrupt me haha. More seriously thoguh, I think it is a good way to be thinking about the books in a critical way before getting to class to discuss them, and in this way it forces us to have our own thoguhts instead of just having thoughts spoon fed to us. I think that the results of the ratings of our first three books are interesting, because I would agree with JBM's order of Eva Luna best (literature-wise...though I didn't really like it), then Como agua para chocolate, and lastly The Alchemist, and yet that's not what we concluded. I think Allende's book seemed more well thought out, rather than just a story told to us like the Alchemist was. That said, Eva Luna lacks resonance- it's easy to forget after one's finished reading it, whereas becuase the Alchemist is so unwaveringly repetitive (maybe that's redundant) in its message it sticks with you, like an over-used cliché...maybe this is where the people who like this book are coming from: a cliché could be seen as something that is so good it was worth repeating many, many, many times. So what makes a bad book? As discussed, cheesiness is a definite, but what else is a clear-cut sign? Are there clear cut signs or not? I wonder if it is worthwhile to define a bad book as not a good book, and therefore we'd need a list of things that make a good book that we could then reject to determine a books "badness". Haha I jsut reread that sentence and it's sort of confusing, but this is kind of how I feel this course makes me think...in a circular way without too many solid conclusions. However, to paraphrase Paulo Coehlo, it's the journey that's important, not the destination.
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
9 comentarios:
I think the fact you have the impression of thinking without the security of solid conclusions tells of the fact that we have ventured into the more philosophic terrain of of trying to define the good and the beautiful, a task which has had no satifactory answer since is was proposed by the Greeks 2500 years ago.
oA few other people have commented on their opinions on books as good or bad and whether other people's opinions have changed ours, etc. I thought that I wouldn't like any of the books because I was told that they were bad. I didn't know if I should keep a positive attitude about them, and it was difficult to see through what people said about the books. I ended up liking (not too much though) the Alchemist even though it was greatly made fun of in class....but I agreed completely with what Jon was saying about it and its cheesiness....so all in all, I don't really know if my opinion was changed based on what other people said about the book, but it certainly wasn't as if I had just picked up the books myself and made my own clear opinion....Elena
Hey Gill,
I think your thoughts on why some of these books are popular are quite interesting, especially the one about the Alchemist. I had never thought of that, but it makes sense that the message of that book would stick with the reader easily, if for no other reason than having been repeated so many times. Have you ever considered the idea that some readers (I am not like this at all) might base their judgements of books on how well they remember them afterwards? I mean, if they read a book that they enjoyed, but then forgot about, then they would call that a bad book, versus if they read a book like the Alchemist which didn't particularly impress them, but they remembered it forever, then they would call that a good book. For me, value judgements are always based on the experience of reading the book, and I remember how much I liked it or didn't like it, even if I forget the plot entirely. In fact some of my most favourite books are books I don't remember at all, but I remember the amaxing feeling of reading them.
I like it how you come right out and say you still like a book even though you can appreciate the reasons why it is not very good literature. I find that in an academic setting, when so many students are sitting around you and harping out intelligent thoughts about a topic, it is sometimes hard to just say, that is great, I appreciate this knowledge, but personally I still like so-and-so. The sometimes "high brow" atmosphere of a class can makes it difficultfor some people to voice opinions that are not the norm.
One of the points that you brought up that I really agreed with was the fact that we are developing skills to challenge our ideas of what a bad book is. When I first registered in this class I assumed that we would be learning 'why' the books were bad instead of talking about a whole number of other issues surrounding popular culture and Latin America, as well as other aspects of literature. We are learning to make our own judgements and not just absorbing other people's and making them our own. Discussing these issues in class has allowed us all to come up with our own ideas about the books without just thinking they are bad because they form the reading list for a course entitled "Bad Literature...". Also, as you mentioned before the break, the group discussion time is great.
I agree with you that the blogs are a good way to critically think before coming to class and hearing what everyone else thinks. However I disagree that cheesiness is a clear characteristic we can use to define bad quality literature since there is no clear cut definition of "cheesiness" it's very nature is subjective whereas "quality" should be objective.
hey pienso igual que ti la primera parte del curso fue para ensenarnos como criticar y enfrentar a los libros desde otra perspectiva a pesar de que son considerados como bestsellers! a mi me gustan tus comentarios porque eres bien abierta y siempre agregas algo y no tienes miedo de usar tus ideas y conveerlas en otro idioma!
Holy moly I can't believe how many people commented on my blog!
PS. Thanks for the comment re: my "cheesiness" statement, Emily. You make a valid point that it is subjective, but I think we did a pretty decent job of defining it in class, and the list of those things was definitely not good. I guess I use the idea of cheesiness so much in my life that it doesn't seem ambiguous to me, but your comment will make me take another second to make sure what I'm saying is clear if I do choose to talk about cheesiness in a paper or anything, so thanks for the feedback!
Publicar un comentario