Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonReader
Sorry for being so grumpy but I do fail to see much of a point in Ebert's rambling piece beyond "some authors stand the test of time better than others". He claims that he doesn't want to compile a "list", yet in that case what is the point of telling us about all the authors he has read, unless he only wants to show us that he is such a prolific reader?
The "list" he does not want to provide has some astounding holes. What about European literary giants as Homer, Virgil, Dante, Cervantes, Goethe?
I do not want to rant against lists of "Dead White Males" as I am a white male myself (fortunately not quite dead yet), but do we really still need lists that almost completely ignore all other great civilizations? What about Chinese classics like "The Dream of the Red Chamber"? Japanese literature? Persian? African authors? The only non-Western author seems to be Mahfouz. As a Nobel laureate hardly a very daring choice.
The unbelievable wealth of Spanish and Portuguese literature and all he comes up with are Marquez and Borges? Seriously?
I guess that his list wouldn't have been considered adventurous even 40 years ago. Today it seems exceedingly conservative.
(BTW, Georges Simenon was Belgian, just like Hergé, not French. Thanks.)
|
ITA! Ebert's rant seemed rather pointless and read like another list of "great American and British writers with some French and a couple of other European writers thrown in". Why is it that most "what to read before you die" or "what to read in order to be cultured" lists are overwhelming white and male (no offense to white males)? Where were the Latino writers, the African American writers, the writers from the Third World on Ebert's list? It's really frustrating because there are so many great writers from all over the world who have such different experiences and perspectives to share but somehow, they always get the shaft. Some of the best literature I have read have been by writers from places such as the Sudan and India. Their use of language, their perspective on the issues affecting their culture as well as the way that they make those issue universal is amazing.
This isn't to say that I don't like Dickens, Gaskell, Austen, Trollope, etc. They're great but I don't think one is necessarily "well read" is he reads these and the other authors that Ebert mentioned or not "well read" if she doesn't read these authors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billi
Same here - and the more if I'm allowed to use "well read" in it's true sense and don't have to reduce it to the classics.
What I don't get is the snobbishness about reading the classics, their preference over "younger" works, the equation reading the classics=being intelligent that was made in one of the posts here.
I love reading the classics, I read a lot of them, so I don't feel addressed personally, but after finishing one of the old books I would never ever assume myself being smarter than anyone who has read a good contemporary book at the same time. In the best case, we both have learnt something about life and the human nature or we have been well entertained.
|
IA. I do think there is a bias towards the "older" works. It's understandable considering that older literature has withstood the test of time but it does feel problematic sometimes.