She’s a winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, National Book Critics Circle Award, Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the National Book Foundation’s Medal of Distinguished Contribution to American Letters; one of the most celebrated writers in American literature. I understand that you may not personally like the book of hers you read, but to suggest that people read her just because they’re required to is absurd.
>but to suggest that people read her just because they’re required to is absurd
Its not, source: the OP
Your comment made me realise how much I hated being required to read X because of all the exact reasons you mentioned above. Just because what I've read didn't win a nobel prize doesn't mean I cant find it subjectively better.
When I was a kid, to me no book was subjectively better than the Star Wars Expanded Universe (now "Legends") novels. I've never read anything from Toni Morrison but my life is richer for having been made to read outside the niche I chose for myself.
You can discount awards and the opinions of professionals but there is still value in being exposed to things you wouldn't have picked on your own during your formative years. Maybe most of it leaves you cold, but sometimes you find something you would not have picked that speaks to you. That's how I was introduced to my favorite author. You never know what will land a little differently than you would have expected. Sometimes the classics are classics for a reason.
Yeah, I used to be very adverse to such things, I still am, in part because I know just how impossible it is to read something you dont believe and get an understanding of the material at the same time. It requires suspension of disbelief. anyone can have an open mind sometimes, but no one can do that all the time. For some concrete examples I would implore you to read excerpts from 'Ageless Body, Timeless Mind' by deepak chopra. To put it mildly, I know I have my limits.
Required reading material is usually more mundane than some of the stuff out there. But that could also mean that it's not daring enough to require reading. So my philosophy is that you should support people in choosing their adversity, never mandating.
From what I can determine, the books that kids are forced to read in high school are the books that their elders really loved; and often were not forced to read in high school.
Most every book I was forced to read I still hate enough that I'll never bother rereading it. I'm sure they're all great; they also weren't for me, not at that time.
Which is why the absolute last thing I'd ever do is assign anyone to read any of the books I love.
I find that I generally love most of the books I was forced to read. Even if I didn’t at the time.
I make time to re-read Grapes of Wrath once every decade and I connect with it differently every time I do. Catcher in the Rye has also taken new meaning as I’ve aged to where I can imagine Holden as my troubled, disaffected teenage son.
I hated Romeo and Juliet as a teenager because everyone saw it as a beautiful romance and I thought I was so smart recognizing it as a cautionary tale of the impulsiveness of youth. But now I see it as a beautiful love story.
I’m grateful that I was forced to read these as a young teenager because now I can reflect on these works and my reaction to them as a reflection of my own life.
I find most kids are required to read very little. If it wasn’t for AP courses I probably would have skated through high school only having to read 5-8 books. That’s absurd. Kids should have to read a book at least every month.
I’m in the same camp as another replier in that I’ve come to like - even adore - much of what I hated because it was required reading. If you feel like you’ve changed since high school then I encourage you to consider rereading some of what you hated because it just might take a new meaning for you.
On a broader point, it’s a shame there is such much focus on subjects like literature and history for children and young adults. As I get older I realize that it takes one’s own life experience in order to connect with these subjects. History without your own lived experience is just words on a page.
A thing to consider about the goal of education: when done correctly, they’re not trying to make you love every you read (I will never appreciate reading Shakespeare) but ideally are just trying to expose you to a wide range of things to help you find what you might love.
I would have never read “The Things They Carried” independent of school but “How to tell a true war story” is one of the most important chapters of any book I’ve ever read in my life.
Another way to think of this: often/for-some, none of the above has anything to do with the qualities of the author - but a failing of the eductational system/style.
I remember being forced to read some books in high school. I hated them.
When I returned to them later in life, by choice, I absolutely loved them.
Not taking sides but this is argument from authority fallacy. Whether she is a Nobel Prize winner or not is irrelevant to answering OP's comment and whether her books are page turners or majority find them uninteresting.
I find that it’s fairly reliable unless there is a ton of money involved. A marvel movie with a giant budget that the studio needs to do ok? Probably gets a 10-20% curve. But a cryptic indie film? Generally pretty close. Basically usi
The two groups looks for very different things in the media. One care deeply about it and appreciates many different aspects of it, and sometimes the intellectual challenge is part of it. They are utterly bored by most books and films.
The other group wants to relax and be entertained, not solve an intellectual puzzle.
Many are somewhere in between. I don’t care about an odyssey through some neo-Marxist mystery, but are utterly bored by Marvel iteration 25.
Not necessarily authority fallacy. Toni Morrison books had two big booms in sales. One after winning the Nobel Prizes and other, actually others, when Oprah Winfrey included her books in her book club.
I would categorize those readers to be reading her willingly.
People feel like this about a lot of Nobel authors. Patrick White won, I've never finished any book of his after "a fringe of leaves" and Thomas Mann just bored me to tears. To the other side, the ones i loved, Hermann Hesse was un-putdownable. Likewise Doris Lessing. A lot of people dislike Lessings writing style.
So.. it's all about what you like.
But I'd take writing advice from Ms Morrison seriously.
Awards are a racket that perpetuate themselves by making money for a constellation of editors, magazines, and talk shows. They have little to do with talent and even less to do with readability. How many of the Academy Awards Best Picture nominees over the last five years has the average person watched and enjoyed? Book awards are even more out of touch. Also do you honestly think that winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom is an unbiased recommendation? It's a propaganda award.
I think you're going to have connect a lot more dots than that to prove that type of conspiracy. These awards are heralded year after year because of their reliability in giving people what they expect out of an award, whether they're forward looking (for predicting future success) or more backward-looking. There is some flexibility in how people judge deservedness for them.
You can at least concede that when it comes to Toni Morrison, its not like she only won a couple of isolated awards. She won a long string of them, and is one of the most decorated American writers of the last 80 years. One of her books, Beloved, was made into a movie by Oprah. There are plans to make a second book (Sula) into a movie or series as well.
I don't think making movie out of a book tells anything either... Ofc, they will pick such works just because they can put pretentious marketing blurbs everywhere...
Just looking at art market and how it works with artist should tell everything about these markets in general. All marketing and manipulation.
