Book Riot: "Letter to a Young Reader"

TalkBook talk

Join LibraryThing to post.

Book Riot: "Letter to a Young Reader"

This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.

1timspalding
Edited: Apr 20, 2015, 6:38 pm

Do you guys read Book Riot? This post by Rebecca Schinsky caught my eye:

Book Riot: "Letter to a Young Reader"
https://bookriot.com/2015/04/20/letter-young-reader/

There's much here to agree with here. But I'm irritated by the anti-scolding scolding—a common refrain at Book Riot. It seems the only acceptable literary opinion is to be against others having literary opinions. No book is better than another. No genre is better than any other. "De gustibus non est disputandum" ad nauseam. "You do you" as poetics.

So, what do you think? Are there "guilty pleasures"? Can aesthetic arguments progress beyond "I say A, you say B, let's talk about movies now."? Can we meaningfully say that Homer and Austen are better than Bulwer-Lytton and Clancy? Can we do so generously, without passing judgment on others' whole selves? And how does this work in today's hyper-connected, hyper- (or perhaps pseudo-) democratized world?

2Lyndatrue
Apr 20, 2015, 6:44 pm

I often refer to this as the "Special Snowflake" problem. There doesn't seem to be an easy answer, either. Recently, the local paper printed this article, and it summed up the problem in less words than I'd use.

Being 'special' is not a predictor of success

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2015/04/05/3493759/herald-columnist-being-special....

3anglemark
Apr 21, 2015, 2:59 am

After postulating our measuring stick, we can have a reasoned discussion why a particular work succeeds better than another. We can also talk about the effect of a work on ourselves, how we feel about it and which impact it has.

But ultimately we are all just a bunch of atoms and energy, so quality is a treacherous concept.

4MrsLee
Apr 21, 2015, 8:16 am

I have my opinions, and I judge people by what they read, I just don't tell them so. ;) I'm sure they return the favor.

IMO, it is ridiculous to say that an author such as Janet Evanovich is on a par with Edith Wharton, or even in her same genre, Dorothy L. Sayers. However, I can find pleasure reading all three authors.

5aulsmith
Apr 21, 2015, 8:44 am

While hanging out with some fan fiction fans, I discovered that everyone has a way to judge what's good and bad, but those criteria can be diametrically opposed. I personally am interested in character growth, so I want to see a character learn something from each incident in a novel and become a different person. However, many of my fan fiction friends were interested in the intensity of the emotional interaction in a story, and they really didn't mind if this was because the characters kept confronting the same problem over and over in the story and not resolving it. So our ideas of what made a good story varied widely.

I've come to call these differences "aesthetic communities." I think many of us here on LT are trained in the modernist literary aesthetic and judge books that way. But I don't think there's anything inherently better in that aesthetic than another

6suitable1
Apr 21, 2015, 9:30 am

I judge books by their covers.

7timspalding
Edited: Apr 21, 2015, 10:42 am

I judge books by their covers.

Well, by that measure, the quality differences are great indeed.

IMO, it is ridiculous to say that an author such as Janet Evanovich is on a par with Edith Wharton, or even in her same genre, Dorothy L. Sayers. However, I can find pleasure reading all three authors.

Well, basically, I agree. But this is a very unfashionable, "elitist" attitude today, although primarily one held to by the elite. I find Book Riot's "don't tell us what to read" particularly irksome as they are constantly telling people what to read. I don't see the essential difference between "read quality authors" and "read more women and people of color." Both are teleological in nature—reading has some purpose. Once you concede that, it's hard to maintain that one purpose must be embraced by all and another is not only wrong, but actually illogical.

But ultimately we are all just a bunch of atoms and energy, so quality is a treacherous concept.

Right. I think that's where this ends up. Philosophical materialism is incompatible with aesthetics. First, it's incompatible with normative ethics, so aesthetics which root themselves in normative judgment (i.e., empathy, open mindedness, psychological understanding and observational exactitude are goods, so books which build those are to be preferred) falls down. So too non-normative aesthetic qualia.

>2 Lyndatrue:

I agree there's a connection between the narcissism of much contemporary society and a turn from aesthetic judgment. I'm not sure I'd draw the line quite like that does, but there's something there.

8Lyndatrue
Apr 21, 2015, 11:14 am

>7 timspalding: I've been participating elsewhere on a discussion of this article:

"The study of philosophy helps to foster intellectual freedom"

http://ideas.aeon.co/viewpoints/1729

From the article:

According to Epicurus, young people and old alike can benefit from the study of philosophy, which is a source of happiness:

"Let no one hesitate to study philosophy while young, and let no one tire of it when old, for it is never too soon nor too late to devote oneself to the well-being of the soul. Whoever says that the time for philosophy has not yet come or that it has already passed is saying that it is too soon or too late for happiness." (Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus)

I’m inclined to agree with Epicurus about this. It is my experience, and the experience of philosophy teachers the world over, that students find the exploration of philosophical ideas in the classroom enormously enjoyable.


It's well written, and certainly worth reading, but in this country, there's a larger problem. I have cousins who are teachers, and friends, and the current state of education in this country is so sad that I fear for the future. When we have people who are getting good grades, and who do NOT know who Colin Powell is, or what George Washington did (other than being our first president, and NO, I am not kidding), and... Well, I was about to write a treatise on our educational system, but I'll stop for now.

We need to teach the value of argument for its own sake, of general debate, and how there can be value in fluff literature and in Sartre in equal proportions, even though one satisfies the soul, and the other is forgotten moments after reading.

I wish I had more time to devote to this today, but life intrudes. I may return in a day or two, if it continues. It's an interesting problem.

9thorold
Apr 21, 2015, 11:20 am

Maybe the problem is with the idea of "objectively better" - in the real world, it's not about abstract definitions of abstract qualities, but about pragmatic solutions for ways of making cultural choices. The "random book" function on LT is simply not an efficient way to decide what to read next. Other people's opinions are a more reliable way of finding something relevant, enjoyable and worthwhile. With experience, you learn how to interpret those opinions and use them to predict how far a book will be likely to meet your requirements (which is what we really mean by "quality").

10MarthaJeanne
Apr 21, 2015, 11:48 am

>8 Lyndatrue: I know what GW did. He cut down a cherry tree.

Oh, yes, and he had slaves. Is that enough?

11reading_fox
Apr 21, 2015, 11:56 am

Whilst there certainly are better books and less good ones, in the end the only criteria by which such discriminations can be made are set by the reader. And so it is down to a reader with experience who can decide what is best for themselves at that moment in time whether they are looking for something to satisfy the soul or indeed philosophy to be forgotten moments after reading.

The tricky part is that ot all readers have enough experience to judge for themselves which books will meet their current desires/needs, and providing guidance without sharing their experiences is, as in all walks of life, prone to error.

12southernbooklady
Apr 21, 2015, 12:03 pm

>7 timspalding: Well, basically, I agree. But this is a very unfashionable, "elitist" attitude today, although primarily one held to by the elite.

I'm an unapologetic elitist. But when it comes to matters of craft I think it is worth taking into account what a book is trying to do and say, and how well it manages to say it, instead of trying to place every literary work on a scale that has 50 Shades of Gray at one end and Joyce's Ulysses at the other. I try to avoid faulting apples for not being oranges.

I don't see the essential difference between "read quality authors" and "read more women and people of color." Both are teleological in nature—reading has some purpose.

Well, ultimately isn't the purpose of all such directives to broaden the reader's experience? To increase the range of their literary expsoure they have a stronger foundation of experience to draw upon when they are trying to come up with what it means to say "that's a good book"?

13timspalding
Apr 21, 2015, 12:53 pm

>12 southernbooklady:

No, I agree. For example, The Martian is an exceptional page-turner, not to mention a good guide to certain ways of thinking (i.e., problem-solving in engineering). There's nothing wrong with that. But not every pot-boiler is as good as any other, and someone who only reads pot-boilers is missing out on aesthetic, intellectual and moral edification.

There, I said "edification." Stick a little fork in me because I'm a weenie!

Well, ultimately isn't the purpose of all such directives to broaden the reader's experience? To increase the range of their literary expsoure they have a stronger foundation of experience to draw upon when they are trying to come up with what it means to say "that's a good book"?

I think that's at the heart of it, but it's more than that. For example, I think reading good literature is not just about broadening. In some sense one could "broaden one's experience" by reading the worst novels in six non-literary genres more than by reading the six novels of Jane Austen. Should we do that? It seems to me "broadening" is an important good, but it's not the only good.

Either way, however, I think the focus has to be on the reader. One of the alternate arguments—much favored by BR—is that, by buying diverse books (i.e., "someone who isn’t of white European descent"), one is helping to make the publishing industry itself fairer. I don't disagree with that on principle, of course, but I find targeted buying a vanishingly weak way to create social justice. It might seem more important when you yourself are "part" of the industry, as Book Riot is, but I think it should strike an average reader in Des Moines rather like social justice voodoo. I also disagree with the whole interpretive framework of BR-style diversity, which is preoccupied with certain, mechanically-defined sorts of diversity and blind to others, not to mention pitchfork-y and humorless to boot. I'm tired of being told—albeit not in so many words—that reading a highly conventional contemporary novel by a highly-educated, Park Slope-dwelling Hispanic graduate of the Iowa Workshop is a blow for social justice, and reading ancient authors, who are in the main deeply alien to everyone of every color today, is a crime against diversity! But that's another story :)

14Bookmarque
Apr 21, 2015, 1:02 pm

One aspect of Book Riot’s continual harping about diversity is how people want/need to recognize themselves within fiction. That if a person can connect with the characters in a book they will ultimately get more out of it whether it be enjoyment or enlightenment. In the next breath they tell me that I, as a white woman, need to stop reading about characters like myself and read about other experiences. That will enrich me the way reading about Caucasians didn't and can’t. Well, which is it?

15southernbooklady
Apr 21, 2015, 1:03 pm

>13 timspalding: I'm tired of being told—albeit not in so many words—that reading a highly conventional contemporary novel by a highly-educated, Park Slope-dwelling Hispanic graduate of the Iowa Workshop is a blow for social justice

heh. that sounds like a boring book. :)

But really, isn't "greatness" somehow in sync with what we call "universality"? And if it is, doesn't it behoove us to make sure what speaks to us in these books as "the human condition"-- what we think of as universal -- really is? I think calls for more diversity really are calls for us to examine our own myopia. We all have our comfort zones. It's good to be pushed out of them.

16southernbooklady
Apr 21, 2015, 1:06 pm

>14 Bookmarque: Book Riot’s continual harping about diversity is how people want/need to recognize themselves within fiction. That if a person can connect with the characters in a book they will ultimately get more out of it whether it be enjoyment or enlightenment. In the next breath they tell me that I, as a white woman, need to stop reading about characters like myself and read about other experiences. That will enrich me the way reading about Caucasians didn't and can’t.

That doesn't strike me as contradictory. The great thing about art is that it does reach across the prison of our own existence and experience, and allows us to step into the life of another.

17timspalding
Edited: Apr 21, 2015, 3:35 pm

>15 southernbooklady:

I know you and I disagree on much in politics, religion and so forth, but there's a deeper agreement here. I'm reminded of a piece Peter Kreeft wrote about a car trip he took with a conservative, a liberal and a socialist, discovering the aesthetic politics cut a different direction from the politics politics http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/11/004-the-politics-of-architecture

>14 Bookmarque:

That whole argument gives me a big case of the yes-and-nos. There's no question that literature leans strongly toward white and male characters; we're the default. I see how that perpetuates subtle racism and sexism.(1) So too I think a too easy recourse to "universality," can be morally and intellectually stunting; the universal exists in the particular.(2) And I feel the pull of stories of the first time someone "saw themselves" in literature—the first strong black female character encountered by a young black girl, etc. Books aren't a tenth as bad as, say, the toys children play with. But they have an effect.

At the same time, identity is complex and so is "seeing yourself." I'm worried that simplistic, victim-driven identity politics is leading people into blind alleys, with ever more specific sub-identities demanding to see themselves in literature, when the first thing is to see the literature and the second is to see the other.


1. To speak from my experience, when I read much contemporary literature, I see the other—not racially but in modes of thinking—that are powerfully present to me as an other that thinks of itself as the default. Hence I tend not to read much contemporary literary fiction after Nabokov. I felt this particularly powerfully during a recent read of Elif Safak—that her fictional imagination was trite in a particularly modern zeitgeist-y way, despite her being notionally diverse.
2. I'm reminded of the reviewer who objected to the stage version of the Diary of Anne Frank's line about misery always happening to Jews—that it diminished the universality of the thing, as if acknowledging the Jewishness of the Holocaust was special pleading.

18Bookmarque
Edited: Apr 21, 2015, 3:38 pm

I guess I didn't put it clearly. It strikes me as dishonest to say that people need to identify with characters in books as the basis of their whole diversity argument (which I don't disagree with), then tell me that the straight/white/male/American perspective is invalid if you are of those groups and you shouldn't be reading those bad old white dudes. As a proper white person you shouldn't read anything by white people because you're not being inclusive. Granted, the old white dudes have had a nice run and hey give others a chance, that's great, but I'm not going to be 'white guilted' into it. It seems the folks at Book Riot have a lot of guilt over a lot of things and their attempts to assuage it by making others complicit is just weird to me. Sucks the joy out of reading and I don't need finger-wagglers in my face trying to shame me into some social justice that may or may not need championing.

19southernbooklady
Apr 21, 2015, 3:41 pm

>17 timspalding: the aesthetic politics cut a different direction from the politics politics

So maybe what I'm thinking of is not so much "universality" as the ability to see and hear truth when it is in front of us. Which is, I suppose, why I'm drawn to all those "literary" works, and why I think reading diversely is vital. Truth comes us in unexpected, unfamiliar fways. Telling a good story is fine, but for a good story to be a great one, there has to be something true about it.

20timspalding
Apr 21, 2015, 3:43 pm

>19 southernbooklady:

No, I agree with you. I'd "like" on Facebook to avoid the verbiage, but we can't do that here. :)

21wifilibrarian
Apr 21, 2015, 11:27 pm

>1 timspalding: I think she's writing the letter with a very specific audience in mind. It's to her younger-self, and even though some of the advice could be taken on board by many book-riot readers. I know book riot are prone to telling people what to read, i.e books by people of colour, ultimately the article only makes sense when you read it as if she's writing to herself. I absolutely agree that the author, and book riot, and everyone judges people by what they read. But removing that stigma of judging ourselves is important. It does seem a bit schizophrenic to have articles like these and others telling us what to read, but I guess book riot is a bunch of different people, so their articles will reflect different views. Schinsky shouldn't feel guilty for not reading classics, but there is objective quality in literature, in any form of human expression.

I think we are usually our own worse critics, and taking guilt into the realm of reading, which should be an enjoyable activity, is not healthy. And I think that's the most valuable advice I could take away from that article.

>13 timspalding: I bet your ancient authors aren't in the best seller lists anywhere, which book riot disparage for their lack of diversity. So would that get you off the hook?

>18 Bookmarque: I think you make a valid point. The fact many "diverse" communities are minorities, means that there'll always be fewer characters and books that reflect their lives, (our? lgbt "community member" here) it's just the way it is. As you acknowledge, white guys have had it good for awhile, and until ratio of quality literature with diversity reflects actual population size of reading community, we have work to do.

22southernbooklady
Apr 22, 2015, 6:55 am

>21 wifilibrarian: and until ratio of quality literature with diversity reflects actual population size of reading community, we have work to do.

The problem isn't mathematical. The question isn't why do we only read books about people who look like us, but why do we think books about people who don't look like us have nothing to say to us, aren't relevant to us?

I used to get into arguments about this when I ran a bookstore. People who would complain that they couldn't find a book they were looking for because it wasn't shelved in fiction, it was over in the African-American section or the Gay/Lesbian section. Of course, shelving decisions in a retail bookstore are as much about sales as about political statements. Stores put books in the places the people they think will buy them will be able to most easily find them.

But it begs the question, why wouldn't a white person look in the African American section first? And why would they ignore that section unless they were looking for something specific? Because those books weren't about them? Didn't have anything to say to them? Really? How can we know what it means to be white in the US if we don't know what it means not to be white?

23Cecrow
Edited: Apr 22, 2015, 8:00 am

I can easily agree that what you enjoy reading and what's actually better written (technically speaking) needn't correlate; nor should you be (or feel) judged when they don't. But I think that, outside of that, we can still debate and even conclude whether one work is technically superior to another (even if both people arguing were to confess they actually enjoyed reading the agreed-upon inferior more.)

I enjoy many of the classics for the way they're written. I enjoy many cliched fantasy novels for their atmosphere and giddy action. There's things to like about both. Place me in a debate and I'll pull for the classics, regardless of which I'm reading (and abundantly enjoying) at the moment.

In my case it would have been no good preaching to my youth about critical reading, and possibly that's for the best. There are days when I wish I could have my younger non-critical reading self back, when it seems like I loved almost anything I picked up and read. I would have liked those days to last longer than they did before too much thinking got in the way.

There is one bit of readerly wisdom I could have used, though. I was too anxious to venture beyond my experience and read classics I couldn't relate to yet at a young age (eg War and Peace), skipping others that I could have identified with perfectly well (eg Treasure Island). I didn't get much from the former (which I could have waited for), and now I can't get much from the latter (and I can never go back.)

>22 southernbooklady:, I've never seen a bookstore that had an African American section. That's intriguing. Did it also have a European section, an Asian section ... ?

24southernbooklady
Apr 22, 2015, 8:12 am

>23 Cecrow: I've never seen a bookstore that had an African American section. That's intriguing. Did it also have a European section, an Asian section ... ?

I began my bookselling career in Boston in the 80s -- I think there were as many bookshosp in the city as there were take-out Chinese restaurants. And believe me, if there was a politically-correct way to say it, there was a store that had a shelf for it. It was kind of awesome, really.

25lilithcat
Apr 22, 2015, 8:27 am

>23 Cecrow:

Did it also have a European section, an Asian section ... ?

I see those sorts of sections, not for fiction, but certainly for history and politics and art. "Art - Japanese", "Renaissance history - Italy", etc. are not uncommon.

>22 southernbooklady:

why wouldn't a white person look in the African American section first?

Well, what is this person looking for? A history of the civil rights movement? Yes, I'd probably look there. A book by Toni Morrison? I'd be more likely to look in the literature section.

But of course much depends on my familiarity with the particular bookstore and their shelving policies.

People who would complain that they couldn't find a book they were looking for because it wasn't shelved in fiction, it was over in the African-American section or the Gay/Lesbian section.

Drove me nuts that a local bookstore (well, it was a big chain) shelved Steven Saylor's Rosa sub rosa series in the GLBT section. Why? The books are mysteries set in ancient Rome, and there's not much, if any, gay content. Was it because Saylor is gay? Made no sense to me.

26anglemark
Apr 22, 2015, 8:31 am

All bookshops I've visited in Ireland certainly had a "Books of Irish interest" section.

27wifilibrarian
Apr 22, 2015, 5:51 pm

>22 southernbooklady: The question isn't why do we only read books about people who look like us, but why do we think books about people who don't look like us have nothing to say to us, aren't relevant to us?

Do you really think people are consciously doing this? That authors in the bestseller lists are white women and men is because people exclude other authors? I think the best sellers lists are influenced mainly by quality, entertainment value and effective publicly by publishers. But of course, those in the lists have benefited from being in a privileged position in society that has lead them to be able to have a career as an author in the first place.

I read books that I think I might like, that are discoverable and accessible to me (at the library, or cheap). The genres I happen to like, sci-fi, bit of horror, usually have no characters like me, sometimes anyone living today. I've never read an LGBT romance or fiction apart from a few YA in my teens, so most books don't have people that look like me.

The other question that book riot crowd seems to want to address is diverse authors, particularly authors of color. I don't usually look for books based on authors color or their orientation

And the issue becomes even more confusing if you're talking about "diverse" authors vs diverse books and characters, you get things like >25 lilithcat: found, books put in to a section when there's nothing inside the actual book that merits it.

I understand all the advantages race, wealth may have influenced someone to be published and then to be popular, so by default I'll end up seeing books by white guys, but I don't actively exclude or include authors based on their race.

I understand from a sales point of view sectioning in a bookstore. But I can understand how specifying a section African american fiction, could put white or non-African Americans off even visiting the section, the sign says it's not for them, they aren't supposed to be there. Why not integrate the gay section with the rest of the books?

28southernbooklady
Apr 22, 2015, 6:03 pm

>27 wifilibrarian: I think the best sellers lists are influenced mainly by quality, entertainment value and effective publicly by publishers.

And also a kind of reader inertia. An author's book is much more likely to make the list if he/she has had a previous book on the list. Especially true of fiction, and of children's books. Readers go for authors they are familiar with. In the case of children's books, they go with the actual book they've always been familiar with, which is why Goodnight Moon has remained on the list for what, 50 years?

Publishers, who are in the business to make money, take due note of this behavior and set their budgets and their marketing accordingly.

Why not integrate the gay section with the rest of the books?

I actually wrote an essay about that awhile ago.

http://www.bibliobuffet.com/a-reading-life-columns-193/1368-rainbow-days-091910

29wifilibrarian
Apr 23, 2015, 10:35 pm

>28 southernbooklady:, good post! I agree it's a trade off when making these sections vs integration, to enable discoverablity. Regarding bestseller lists and reader inertia. Knowing the author is just a part of discoverablity for me, and trusting the known author's opinion -perhaps blurbers have a part to play in this.

Your post made me think back to my experiences as a gay teen - it was so much easier to visit the biography or the general fiction section then to stand in front of LGBT section of the bookshop or library even.

30southernbooklady
Apr 26, 2015, 2:39 pm

>29 wifilibrarian: it's a trade off when making these sections vs integration, to enable discoverablity.

It does make one wonder, though. What would happen if the fiction shelved in all those sub-sections -- African-American, LGBTQ, Asian, etc, etc were all shelved together as "fiction," but all the novels written by straight white people were put in in a section called "straight white fiction."

31timspalding
Edited: Apr 26, 2015, 6:18 pm

>30 southernbooklady:

These fights are so much worse in library land, where there aren't any sales numbers to undergird anything, and even if there were stats on checkouts, libraries aren't skating along near to death based on their stats. My opinion is, of course, that there's no answer. You can't classify well along a two-dimensional shelf system. You need tags!

As a browser, however, I prefer fiction not be pigeon-holed, but that non-fiction be relentlessly so.

In the case of children's books, they go with the actual book they've always been familiar with, which is why Goodnight Moon has remained on the list for what, 50 years?

Meh. I prefer to think it's because it's an awesome book. Goodnight moon is a frickin' masterpiece, IMHO, and all the more so when you consider the modern alternative, Walter the Farting Dog.

32southernbooklady
Apr 26, 2015, 6:50 pm

>31 timspalding: Goodnight moon is a frickin' masterpiece, IMHO, and all the more so when you consider the modern alternative, Walter the Farting Dog.

I would have pegged Guess How Much I Love You the modern alternative.

33timspalding
Apr 26, 2015, 8:46 pm

That's a good book, but Goodnight Moon is a masterpiece. It's perfect.

The piece that explained to me why I felt that way:

NYT: "What Writers Can Learn From ‘Goodnight Moon’"
By AIMEE BENDER
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/what-writers-can-learn-from-good...

However, no judgement. Forget that repulsive canine. All those crapy canned Disney books are equally good. It's not like any book is better than any other.

34elenchus
Apr 27, 2015, 9:54 am

>33 timspalding:

I'd not read that opinion piece on Goodnight Moon, thanks for that. I did not read it until a parent, though clearly it was around when I was a child. I was surprised by how much I liked it. At first read, I feared it would be wooden, but it very quickly grew on me. And the kids definitely responded to it.

I didn't crack the code of "Goodnight, Nobody", either, but was there when it was cracked for me. My son would use the refrain as an opportunity to procrastinate, and he literally said "Goodnight, nobody!" without having had the book read to him, at that point. He found it uproarious that he would bring out that last goodnight, when it seemed he'd painted himself into a corner by already bidding goodnight to everyone in the room. He parlayed it into another 10 seconds out of bed, and I guess that's a measure of success.

35Marissa_Doyle
Apr 27, 2015, 11:01 am

>31 timspalding: Walter is much better in Latin. Walter Canis Inflatus

36timspalding
Apr 27, 2015, 2:52 pm

Civilization is finished.