(Arlt looks like a pretty intense guy)
I have no idea what else I can say about Los Siete Locos, except maybe that Arlt tried a little too hard to be both high brow and low brow at the same time. Though people's reactions to this book in their blogs and in class has made me think...
One thing that I have noticed about the books that we have studied in this class is how some of the books, namely Como Agua Para Chocolate and Eva Luna, were liked by some of the women in the class, but maybe none of the men. With Los Siete Locos, there seemed to be the opposite reaction. Not that this is a surprising revelation; however, it did make me wonder, especially after reading the Jane Austen article, if this contributes to what makes a book a bad piece of literature. Though, the opposite could be said about The Alchemist.
Take for example, a book that other members of the class and I are studying in Span 365, Cien años de soledad. This book, along with most others that we have been studying, are books readily enjoyed by both genders. Though, the books that we are studying in this class have generally been liked by only one gender. Does the exclusion of half of a potential audience make a book "bad"?
The Alchemist, I am sure you will agree, would be exempt from this list as it is not aimed at any one gender. But it is extremely accessible. As we discussed in class, this book is universal. It doesn't really leave out anyone, from child to elder, Muslim to Christian, man to woman... So, can it also be said that a book that swings too far in the other direction and becomes too universal is also a "bad" book?
Just postulating theories, I am interested in what the rest of you think...
7 comments:
"Arlt looks like a pretty intense guy"
Heh, he does, doesn't he?
I think your comments about gender are important. We never quite got into this in discussing Allende and Esquivel. But think of the comparisons we've already come up with for Arlt: Kerouac, Bukowski, Miller. I'd say these are all men's (even "boy's") books.
And, yes, good question: should that be a problem? If so, why and how?
i'd hope that it isn't a problem because in my opinion, we can't censor the style and content of writers via a gender prism.
now, if publishers were to be selective in only publishing men, or women, or say only giving literary awards to one or the other, then that's an issue. or even if as part of a literature BA our professors only assigned books from one or the other.
very thought provoking entry ashea, now i'm thinking about the right to censor and freedom of speech, all based on what criteria....
Asto what Marina said in her comment- I would say that publishers go out of their way to market to gender and that we need to be aware of that especially in this class.
And as to Ashea's blog- another question: does a book have to appeal to every potential audience (eg. every race, gender, sexual orientation) to be good literature? Can literature be good if it only appeals to specific audiences?
Does the exclusion of half of a potential audience make a book "bad"?--interesting thought. I wonder if any conclusions can be drawn to whether more men read books or more women. And based on those results, perhaps it does matter for which audience a book is being written, if its purpose is to sell more copies.
mmmm esta bueno esto, la verda que no habia pensado que este no era un libro femenino y en principio no acuerdo con que haya divisiones tan marcadas. probablemente lo que me hace rechazar esta afirmacion es el estereotipo de genero que hace equivalente romance - sagas familiares : femenino vs. crudeza - violencia accion - masculino. en este criterio hay un cruce entre lo masculino como mejor y lo femenino como no tan bueno. la verda que no me identifico con esta grilla, pero justamente por ahi habla que me constituí como persona en contra de esto, (me quede pensando, les voy a preguntar a mis amigas que opinan).
ana
Ashea, you have certainly characterized my reactions to the books studied. I hated EL and CAPC, reading the latter of which was like a protracted form of torture. I love Los 7 locos. I almost don't want to admit it, but I can identify with Erdosain in a way that I never could with Tita.
re: suggestion that the alchemist is 'accessible to all readers (despite race, gender, etc.)'
just a little point to play devil's advocate: i'd say that although the alchemist parades about as 'accessible to all' one must admit that it is.. how you say.. 'cock heavy'. it's not just because the protagonist is male either (because the author would have to choose one or the other). but even the people that the shepard encounters along the way are all male -at least the significant (wise, strong) ones. -unlike the deranged gypsy. and the only other significant women presented (from what i can remember) is one that serves as a potential wife to the protagonist (and, it is suggested, becomes just that). and even she is not presented in a fully positive light. she is portrayed as a potential antagonist in fact. the suggestion being that women are potential obstacles in a man's pursuit of his Personal Legend. yes, one could argue that it was meant to be read both ways, in that you could invert the gender equation vice versa style. but the fact that all of the other elements seem quite 'cock heavy' as well, leads me to believe otherwise. the time period in which the alchemist was set in fact was one that appears old-fashioned -in which women were to exist and operate in the domestic sphere. and one cannot deny that the setting of a novel is the author's choice. he could have set it in more modern times to overcome this gender role issue, no? just a thought. :)
Post a Comment