21st Century Literature discussion
Question of the Week
>
Do You Excuse/Overlook Things In Some Writers That You Don't In Others? (10/2/22)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Marc
(new)
Oct 03, 2022 09:18AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
I do tend to overlook Bukowski - he is sexist, refers to hard sex as rape and is condescending but in post office, factotum and Ham on Rye ONLY, I forgive him because those three books are enjoyable page turners.The rest no, women is just him bragging about how much sex he has or women kicking him out of his house plus the last segment being embarrassingly puerile. His poetry is just barroom talk put to verse and his short stories are only about his sexual exploits, gambling and encounters with college students during readings.
Mod
I don't think I've read any Bukowski novels. His "Laughing Heart" is a favorite poem, but there's nothing offensive about it: https://thebestamericanpoetry.typepad...
I think I tend to overlook Roth's sexism in his novels, whereas I can't stand Kundera's. I'm not entirely sure they are all that different although Kundera's female characters tend to feel like mere props.
Robert wrote: "I do tend to overlook Bukowski - he is sexist, refers to hard sex as rape and is condescending but in post office, factotum and Ham on Rye ONLY, I forgive him because those three books are enjoyabl..."I like Bukowski but always think I shouldn't too! Also love Chandler and various hard-boiled detective fiction writers, none of whom are great when it comes to writing women.
I skate over the issues with modernist writers like Woolf on class and race but always feel slightly conflicted about doing so.
Gosh I read and enjoy a lot of male authors who are heavy on the sexism. I'm not sure I excuse it, but I feel comfortable saying I loved a book even if it included some things that I didn't like. Murakami, Chabon, George RR Martin, Neal Stephenson come to mind. But I might be at a point with all three of those authors where the novelty of their writing has worn off on me and I might have less patience with the sexism in the next books I read by them.In most sci fi and fantasy and maybe in fiction in general I excuse "believability" a lot. I tend not to get stuck on whether something could really happen and just try to enjoy the story.
Alwynne wrote: "Robert wrote: "I do tend to overlook Bukowski - he is sexist, refers to hard sex as rape and is condescending but in post office, factotum and Ham on Rye ONLY, I forgive him because those three boo..."Same here - I remember the Maltese Falcon being particularly degrading but I loved it.
Marc wrote: "Robert wrote: "I do tend to overlook Bukowski - he is sexist, refers to hard sex as rape and is condescending but in post office, factotum and Ham on Rye ONLY, I forgive him because those three boo..."After reading I Married a Communist, I went off Roth, that novel was just a long spiel about how devious and manipulative women are.
Robert wrote: "Marc wrote: "Robert wrote: "I do tend to overlook Bukowski - he is sexist, refers to hard sex as rape and is condescending but in post office, factotum and Ham on Rye ONLY, I forgive him because th..."With you on Hammett, and Roth pretty much unreadable imo. Just seems so dated apart from anything else, and not in any way that's interesting.
Agree on Roth..I did not like his books when they were initially published, let alone now.
Mod
I tend to forgive a lot in literature, although I have very clear ideas of what I think is acceptable out of literature. But I read a lot of classics, and if I wasn't going to be forgiving... I wouldn't read very much. I'm actually more annoyed by modern writers who express correct viewpoints in a grindingly obvious way (i.e. recent American writers who wring their hands over Trump in their fiction; tell me something I don't know) than I am by good writers with objectionable views. I'm sure there are exceptions to that though.
Love Bukowski's Post Office!
Emily wrote: "I tend to forgive a lot in literature, although I have very clear ideas of what I think is acceptable out of literature. But I read a lot of classics, and if I wasn't going to be forgiving... I wou..."Exactly I read a lot of classics too, as well as interwar fiction which can be decidedly dodgy in places. I have my own array of hard to summarise boundaries: love Dickens but avoid "Oliver Twist" because of Fagin, although Dickens did eventually apologise for the anti-Semitism in that one; can't stomach 'Gone with the Wind' because the entire thing is an argument in support of racism and white supremacy but again a novel that was considered extreme at the time. But, I can forgive the odd, dubious scene in Wodehouse or the 'William' books because they're otherwise brilliant.
And I know what you mean about heavy-handed political rants in contemporary fiction, can be extremely tiresome.
I just reread the question and saw that it's not just about chauvinism per se.Interestingly, I don't tend to overlook literary evils for any other virtue in the writer. No problem with long sentences (it's short ones that usually get on my nerves), but flat characters, yikes. I can't think of anyone I make exceptions for when it comes to the things that signal "literariness" for me. Maaaaybe some writers I liked as a teenager for nostalgia.
A great many good writers give us objectionable matter such as anti-semitism, racism, sexism, and (less often) arrogance. I can tolerate almost anything if the writing is good. I have a low tolerance for bad or pretentious writing.
I can forgive small ‘ignorant’ digs at race, creed, sexuality, class or gender by any writer, if it was acceptable at the time it was written. I don’t have to like it, and if there’s a lot of it, there are other books to read.One author that always drives me crazy is Hemingway. I love his writing style. That ability to say so much with so few words, to create vivid descriptions with small words-it blows my mind.
But the taste in my mouth after I finish his books negates a lot of that- what a misogynist jerk! And he was proud of it. Ugh.
Tracy wrote: "I can forgive small ‘ignorant’ digs at race, creed, sexuality, class or gender by any writer, if it was acceptable at the time it was written. I don’t have to like it, and if there’s a lot of it, t..."I've managed, so far at least, to completely dodge Hemingway. I've read about him and his work but that's it.
Emily wrote: "I just reread the question and saw that it's not just about chauvinism per se.Interestingly, I don't tend to overlook literary evils for any other virtue in the writer. No problem with long sente..."
It's the extent of the 'flatness' I think. I can't cope with Agatha Christie's writing at all, but I can handle plot-driven work if there's a level of discipline/skill in the expression, but can't think of any actual examples.
Alwynne wrote: "Emily wrote: "I just reread the question and saw that it's not just about chauvinism per se.Interestingly, I don't tend to overlook literary evils for any other virtue in the writer. No problem w..."
Oh that's interesting! I actually find Christie quite a good writer! At least the few I've read in recent years...
For me plot-driven isn't a problem if the writing is good and the characters are acceptably fleshed out; so long as they're not cartoons.
An example of an author who is generally loved and who I accept probably has could things to say but I can't handle the flat writing is NK Jemison.
In general, yes, I think we all have our biases to certain authors/genres, etc. For instance, I tend to "forgive" Victorian melodrama and emotion when reading a classic novel, but I suppose some drama irks me in more modern novels, especially if it is not handled well.
