Princess of Mars intro

ConversesLibrary of America Subscribers

Afegeix-te a LibraryThing per participar.

Princess of Mars intro

Aquest tema està marcat com "inactiu": L'últim missatge és de fa més de 90 dies. Podeu revifar-lo enviant una resposta.

1Ollerman
abr. 3, 2012, 4:03 pm

I posted this under another topic but no one's responded and I wonder if the question, assuming it's worth asking, is better placed in its own topic.

I got my copies of the ERB books the other day and I read through the intro to "A Princess of Mars." I didn't care for it (I don't really need a comparison with "Avatar" and a discussion of James Cameron) but what really shocked me was the use of the phrase "fucked up."

"Princess" is at its heart a boys' book, and always has been. Granted, there are plenty of editions out there that don't have language like this anywhere near them, but unfortunately I think this phrase is extremely inappropriate given the context. Not only as the opening of a boys' book, but of a Library of America edition of the same.

Gee, isn't it hip to shock and use swear words in unexpected places. I guess I'm too old to be shocked and worried about being hip. Unfortunately I'm not too old to be disappointed. It's a beautiful book but it's blemished for me, at least. I can imagine a parent or grandparent buying this as a beautiful keepsake edition as a gift for a boy. Then I can imagine them having the same reaction to that phrase as I did. I think it's a big "oops."

I'm in my forties, I swear in my personal life, sometimes I yell at my dogs. I don't mind the phrase, I mind where it's turned up. I want to use it myself, right now.

2artturnerjr
abr. 3, 2012, 7:45 pm

>1 Ollerman:

Hey, Ollerman. I'm not someone who's easily offended by profanity (one wouldn't have to delve very deeply into my preferred reading matter to ascertain that) and I certainly don't want to go off the rails about something that I haven't read in context, but yeah, that does seem odd and more than a little inappropriate. Having a kid that loves to read myself (not to bring in numerous book-loving nephews and nieces) and being an Edgar Rice Burroughs fan since my own youth, I can very easily imagine the exact sort of gift-giving faux pas you describe taking place. I mean, it sounds like an otherwise-beautiful edition - not something I for one would feel comfortable redacting.

3brother_salvatore
abr. 4, 2012, 12:54 am

>1 Ollerman:. I haven't read the intro yet, so I'll reserve judgement for now. I think though I'd probably concur with what had been said. I'm not a prude and can spin vulgarities all day long - but there is a time and a place.

4DTS59
abr. 22, 2012, 8:53 am

I read the intro mentioned in this post, and I gotta say, the objection to the language seems akin to the sort of objections that result in books being banned from highschool libraries and such. But, in this case, the objection seems even sillier. The novel hasn't been changed. And it's not as if this edition was published under the YA aegis, or with a banner saying, recommended for kids 12 and under. If one is worried that one's own children are too young to encounter a word that they will eventually read (or hear -- or see written on a bathroom wall, or scratched into a desk, at school), simply make sure the book isn't placed anywhere it can be easily perused (I would assume that if that last point is what is objectionable, ALL books containing expletives would be out of reach). If not, why make a big deal about it? Skip the intro and read the book.

Maybe it's just me, but more and more (and more) of my fellow Americans are getting far too conservative about matters regarding sex and printed language. Those puritanical roots run deep.

5Django6924
Editat: abr. 22, 2012, 11:30 pm

>5 Django6924:

One doesn't have to be a Puritan or puritanical to object to the use of street and gutter language in a book which is very likely to be read by impressionable youngsters. (And it seems a little silly to have to put books like the John Carter series under lock and key). And the point is, was it really necessary to utilize such language in this particular book. I'm reminded of Cole Porter's "Anything Goes":

...good authors now who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words writing prose....


Having done my time in service, I am no stranger to the use of such language, but I prefer not to hear my 10 year old son complaining about his "fucked up" day at school during dinner.

6DTS59
Editat: abr. 23, 2012, 2:07 am

Hey, Django,
I thought I kinda sorta glossed over all the possibilities (having been a parent, I think we both know "under lock and key" regarding books and ten year-olds is silly -- out of sight is usually out of mind. But even telling him or her to wait a few years, if you're worried, should work). From graffiti to other kids to music on the radio, etc., etc., I seriously doubt you'll protect your kid from every hearing the workd fuck -- or shit (I did time in service, too). She or he will likely emulate those that are most looked up to. My daughter rarely, if ever, uttered expletives when she was a teenager in highschool (and never did when she was in middle school). Yet she read a wide variety of books -- including Dante's inferno, on her own, at fourteen -- and probably heard LOTS of her peers utter a lot of choice words at school. My point is: if one is the parent, one looks over the things brought into the house (as the original person posting this complaint did) and, if one is THAT worried about a word influencing his or her child, one makes the proper adujstment (setting the book out of sight, whatever). I would hope, however, that other people (as did I) communicate enough with their children that language of any sort can't be seen as a corrupting influence. Because it isn't. (I's the _actions_ of people which influence our children, not the language used. And when our children are raised correctly, and communication is open between mother and child, or father and child -- everything from asking how things went at school to reading togther and talking about the book, or story, later on -- then there is nothing to fear from the written word and a child's exposure to it, especially when the child is old enough to handle it).

If your son comes home to tell you how "fucked up" his day was, it won't be due to his reading it in a book. It'll be because he wasn't taught proper behavior in certain situations (and no, I'm not talking about corporal punishment, which should have gone out with the McCarthy era). Given that you seem to be a responsible parent, I would think that it won't happen.

That said,
How about we bring the discussion back to the book:

A PRINCESS OF MARS, introduction and all, is a stellar addtion to the Library of America cannon, and I, for one, and thrilled to pieces to own a copy. Which I will proudly, and assuredly, hand over to any future grandchildren who want to read it (because I'm always available to discuss books with children after they read them). (Whoops: in my hurry to sign off, and get the discussion back to books, I typed TARZAN OF THE APES, first time out. In truth, BOTH Edgar Rice Burroughs volumes are welcome additons to my home library! I plan to set them out on proud display, without warning signs or black tape or any sort of "gardyloo" for anyone -- 'cause that ain't needed -- salty language be damned!) :)

7Django6924
abr. 23, 2012, 9:47 am

>7 Django6924:

I probably didn't make my point clearly. Graffiti, rap, and the bathroom language of peers is the context one would expect to find such usage: not in an introduction to works aimed towards a literate and presumably well-educated group, especially in a work likely to appeal to young readers who would be the children of that group (unlike say, Mailer's The Naked and the Dead). Your comment,

"If your son comes home to tell you how "fucked up" his day was, it won't be due to his reading it in a book. It'll be because he wasn't taught proper behavior in certain situations "

points up the importance of CONTEXT. What's the point of my teaching him that "fucked up" is inappropriate usage for many social contexts if he can point to the Library of America condoning its use--not in a work of fiction but a scholarly introduction?

One would have thought the writer had been taught proper behavior. But then I'm probably very old-fashioned. I suppose it won't be long before we will hear the President of the US begin his State of the Union address with telling us how "fucked up" the country is.

8beatlemoon
abr. 23, 2012, 9:57 am

>7 Django6924:

"I suppose it won't be long before we will hear the President of the US begin his State of the Union address with telling us how "fucked up" the country is."

I, for one, would welcome such a statement in the State of the Union address. It would be a refreshingly honest turn, instead of the usual dog-and-pony show. ;-)

9Django6924
abr. 23, 2012, 10:16 am

>8 beatlemoon:

chacun à son goût

10Pablum
abr. 23, 2012, 10:51 am

Maybe this isn't the edition to give to children anyway. I'm sure there must be plenty of other story-only editions, especially with the Disney movie out recently. This is a more scholarly edition, which reproduces the first edition down to the binding, and contains a lengthy introduction and endnotes that a child would most likely find uninteresting.

11DanMat
Editat: abr. 23, 2012, 11:55 am

Profanity is an issue for me, but I have to say it doesn't quite irk me here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=947_QrcojUsC&lpg=PT23&dq=A%20Princess%2...

I think any young person reading this intro would be getting more food for thought than any damage that might be caused by exposure to words they've probably already heard on the school bus.

12Django6924
abr. 23, 2012, 12:03 pm

We aren't talking about damage--we're talking about lowering of standards, paucity of imagination, and poverty of vocabulary.

13DanMat
abr. 23, 2012, 12:13 pm

Well, nothing in that essay suggests any of the things you mention.

14artturnerjr
Editat: abr. 23, 2012, 5:26 pm

>11 DanMat:

Thanks for the link. Wasn't aware it was up on Google Books. 8)

ETA: Just finished the intro. It's quite good, isn't it? Slightly prolix and digressive, perhaps, but very funny and pungent and thoughtful. The language is a little harsh, perhaps, but I think it's also pretty central to the humor and pointedness of the thing.

15Django6924
abr. 23, 2012, 11:16 pm

Personally, I don't think it's very good at all. I dislike "criticism" of period literature when it drags in modern sensibilities of which the author--particularly a pulp fiction Romantic like ERB--had no inkling (or interest), and proceeds to criticize him on grounds that have very little relevance to someone who wants to read Burroughs for his imagination and storytelling verve. I remember the nonsense that went on in the 1960s showing how every work of American pop culture was deliberately reinforcing racial stereotypes--reaching a zenith (or more appropriately, a nadir) in the interpretation of the 1933 "King Kong" as symptomatic of the "black man-white woman" fear among white males. Was it Freud who said "sometimes a cigar is only a cigar"?

16dukedom_enough
Editat: abr. 24, 2012, 12:50 pm

DanMat >11 DanMat:,

Is that the entire introduction? Looks like it. I'm surprised the LoA allowed that - the rest of the book is public domain, after all.

17DanMat
abr. 24, 2012, 1:48 pm

I think there's been some mistake and it will probably disappear soon enough. Looks as though it's the LOA's ebook version of it.

18Ollerman
abr. 24, 2012, 4:51 pm

Aside from the questionable language, I just plain don't like the intro. I think it tries to hard and comes off as pedantic. When the last paragraph cautions against ignoring the book, it's the intro that I will ignore. The book will live forever, my guess is that intro not so much. I read an intro by Jane Smiley one time for a book where she was so besotted with her own analysis that she gave the ending of the book away. The publisher shouldn't have kept it at the front of the book, or else had her change it. It's hard to write introductions: you want to say something new, you want to promote the book, but you don't want to spoil it either with inappropriate language or tangential observations or other material.

But as in all literature, everything's relative. Some people will love the thing. I'd prefer to rip it out of my book and find a better use for the paper.

19brother_salvatore
abr. 24, 2012, 9:45 pm

>15 Django6924: & 18. I sympathize with your view of the intro as pedantic. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but the feeling I'm getting is it is a theory-influenced, post-colonial takedown of Burroughs, all with a little ironic twist, saying "hey we can still enjoy him, as long as we know there's a bunch of fucked-up racist stuff to muddle through."

I think these type of intros are geared towards making Burroughs "safe" for academic study, which I kinda find a little boring. It's easy to apply a theoretical model to any sort of "literature" and make it "safe" of academic perusal. But the question remains: does such theorizing help explain Burroughts enduring attraction and enjoyment by readers?

20Django6924
abr. 24, 2012, 11:23 pm

"it is a theory-influenced, post-colonial takedown of Burroughs, all with a little ironic twist, saying "hey we can still enjoy him, as long as we know there's a bunch of fucked-up racist stuff to muddle through."

Thanks for expressing exactly my response to the intro better than I have expressed it.

21brother_salvatore
abr. 25, 2012, 12:00 am

>20 Django6924:. You're welcome, but I think you hit it on the head.

I would only add that, we should all feel an appropriate amount of guilt (both racial and pulpy) while we enjoy Burroughs "imagination"' and "verve" (as you nicely put it).

22LucasTrask
abr. 25, 2012, 7:51 am

I thought the introduction was decent enough and I even see and understand where Diaz is coming from. I don't agree with everything we writes, but as a white American male I suppose that's expected. I also don't like the postscript as I think his pointing out current day racism has little direct connection to the book.

Like the OP I also don't see the need for writing "fucked-up", but I was more surprised to read the line "Carter is presented to us from the beginning as a Western genre homoerotic wet dream." The OP also states that "Princess is at its heart a boys' book", which bring up many questions. Does Diaz really think that about all masculine heroes? What about the boys who read the books? Why even bring it up, only to ignore it?

23brother_salvatore
abr. 25, 2012, 8:21 am

>22 LucasTrask: "Carter is presented to us from the beginning as a Western genre homoerotic wet dream."

Now that's fucked-up.

Is Carter actually "presented" this way in the novel? I doubt it. Good question LucasTrack, why bring it up only to ignore it? IMHO, just more theoryspeak masking as intelligence, despite the Diaz's actual intelligence.

24LolaWalser
abr. 25, 2012, 9:22 am

I don't particularly care for the vernacular style of the intro, but I agree completely with its content.

I'm amazed (and I expect Diaz would be too, otherwise he wouldn't have chosen "grown-up" speak--obviously he assumes his readership will be adult) that some people seem to expect books such as Burroughs (or, say, Rider Haggard, or Kipling--heck, ANY of the good ole boys' own classics) can be presented and read as if this were still 1911.

Since there's no doubt that Burroughs' books are imbued with the prejudices of his times, why shouldn't someone discuss that? HOW could someone not discuss that? And where children readers are concerned, I'd absolutely expect that someone point it out.

Have you tried reading out loud some the good old classics in company (preferably other adult company, although it's true we most often happen to read to children)? Can you really shut your eyes to the screaming racism and antisemitism (there's probably no point to mentioning sexism and misogyny, that's still as normal as breathing air) of, say, Bram Stoker and Sax Rohmer?

These aren't obscure exceptions, those are the fantastically successful representatives of the NORM in pulp literature of yester-century.

I too read Tarzan as a kid; all I remember is loving the books. But I'm not sure I'd give them cold to my niece and nephew. I had a bad surprise a few years ago when I started rereading some of my old favourites, books I lost and found, Karl May's adventure classics. The philosophy of white man's conquest, of white man's natural right to rule over all and sundry, the horrible stereotypes of "natives" and women--I just couldn't get over them now. And if I couldn't get over them, how could I recommend these books, how ever much I loved them?

So yes, I would expect nothing less than that the classic pulps, with their dehumanising baggage, are reissued as adult fare.

I've ordered both the Princess and Tarzan, btw, I'm sure I'll collect any sequels LOA may issue, and I want to say to whomever may be listening from their side, thank you for doing no less than what a person might expect in way of a decent analysis of such problematic titles.

In contrast, do compare the recent Penguin edition of Bram Stoker's The lair of the white worm. It's text only. Read it, as far as you manage, and let me know how you'd feel about giving that book, without any explanation, any discussion, to your favourite ten year old.

25brother_salvatore
abr. 25, 2012, 10:12 am

Certainly racism, colonialism, sexism, etc... permeates most of literature, and not just early 20th century pulps. Homer, Shakespeare, Milton, Austen, Dickens, Conrad, Joyce, etc....

So what is one to do?

26Django6924
abr. 25, 2012, 10:27 am

"compare the recent Penguin edition of Bram Stoker's The lair of the white worm. "

Thank you, Penguin. I firmly believe introductions are usually a bad idea--introductions to works originally intended for a pop audience are invariably bad. The books were originally sent out to the world by their authors without an introduction, and I think that's how they should be published today. In libraries one can find mountains of criticism of the ilk of the ERB introduction, and on the internet an avalanche of people offering their opinions and insights so I would prefer all introductions be limited to biographical and historical information and any subjective analysis or interpretation be rigorously avoided. (After all, as a reader that's my job; I think it rather interesting, though, that while pulp lit and movies have spawned a vast number of exegeses, works that would probably deserve such commentary and analysis, say Melville's The Confidence-Man, have been neglected stepchildren--except for PhD dissertations.) I'm fairly certain that the LOA editorial board, anticipating a reaction from those who insist on rubbing America's collective face in their collective mistakes and abuses, felt such an intro a necessary prophylactic measure.

Incidentally, I would not have thought of giving Stoker's book (any of them, for that matter) to my favorite ten-year old, and I doubt Stoker had that audience in mind when he wrote them. Stoker, however, had literary pretensions not shared by Burroughs, who was hard up and writing to support his family.

27LolaWalser
abr. 25, 2012, 10:57 am

#25

Certainly racism, colonialism, sexism, etc... permeates most of literature, and not just early 20th century pulps. Homer, Shakespeare, Milton, Austen, Dickens, Conrad, Joyce, etc....

Yes, and one is to read with understanding of those issues, how else? And how are you going to understand the issues without discussing them?

#26

Introductions can be skipped, left for later, or ignored altogether.

Incidentally, I would not have thought of giving Stoker's book (any of them, for that matter) to my favorite ten-year old, and I doubt Stoker had that audience in mind when he wrote them.

It's not just ten year olds. Personally, I couldn't give that book as an ordinary present (that is, without some special necessity and a bunch of excuses) to any of my friends, white or not. I'd really like to know how anyone could. And, when it comes to the publisher, introductions serve to explicate the "special necessity" of republishing such a book, and offer excuses, where such are due. I think excuses are very much needed, in case of the Lair at least. It's a book which soils the reader.

28Ollerman
abr. 25, 2012, 11:23 am

I like to think that I can read a book with all its prejudices and attitudes and stereotypes and, as I know it's a product of its time, read it as such without apology, discussion, or anything else. I cannot constantly filter all of my reading or exposure to modern anything through the lens of outdated attitudes. They're outdated, they are no longer the norm, and that's all I need to know.

And I think younger readers are certainly capable of appreciating this, as well. I grew up listening to my father and people close to me making comments and telling jokes that would be really, really out of place today. Was my dad a racist, misogynistic pig, or was he typical of his time?

These books don't soil the reader any more than any other historical artifact does. There are publishers that do nothing but reprint pulp magazines and these attitudes are often quite evident. Do they soil, or can they be read as they were intended for their original audience? I think they can, by most people.

I won't read books that feature rape or child molestation or even the kidnapping of a child. I feel it too much. Clearly some readers feel the attitudes prevalent in the past are too much today. Your choice.

I agree with the comments that the books don't need introductions. I much prefer introductions that perhaps talk about the author's history or body of work, and while some analyses can work, I just plain don't like the one in this book. It may not soil me, but it nearly offends me not only with its language but with its tone.

29LolaWalser
abr. 25, 2012, 11:38 am

#28

Yes, as individuals we react to different things in different ways. I agree that there's been collective progress in understanding how certain groups have been dehumanised in the past; I also agree that the young today are likely to be far more conscious of diversity and egalitarian than the older people (certainly those of 1911).

I don't see how the fact that something was "typical for the time" change in any way the problem, though. Racism and antisemitism were typical for much of European (and colonial) history; still are, in many places, and obviously, people who hold and broadcast such views ARE racists, antisemites etc.


30geneg
abr. 25, 2012, 12:19 pm

Lola Walser in #27 says, "Introductions can be skipped, left for later, or ignored altogether." This is my preferred method of reading a book. I will make up my own mind, don't need to be coached or instructed, and don't wish any potential spoilers, for which introductions are notorious, to get in the way. I don't need to be told how to read a book for a particular understanding. As someone further upthread said, books upon original publication don't usually come with introductions. I prefer the reading experience of the people who read it new.

As for books like The Confidence Man a scorecard might be more useful than an introduction.

I read an ebook version of A Princess of Mars a few months ago and was struck mostly by how well it holds up as just a pure story. I think this is ERB's genius, he knew how to tell a story. Some books require and stand up to criticism, but these "boys" books don't fall into that group.

Always remember, "Introductions can be skipped, left for later, or ignored altogether." Wise words.

Are introductions just another way for academics to make some additional money? Or are they useful? Of course both is a perfectly good answer.

31Django6924
Editat: abr. 25, 2012, 12:59 pm

>28 Ollerman: "I just plain don't like the one in this book. It may not soil me, but it nearly offends me not only with its language but with its tone"

Well said. The gutter language is not only objectionable, but uncalled for. How does it strengthen his thesis to use such language? Could not he not express himself persuasively by using standard English? That was the point of the original post and all the subsequent discussion here about the perceived racism, homoeroticism, pro-imperialist attitudes, etc., has gotten away from the original objection, which is still valid and pertinent.

But since the matter has been broached, I find not just offensive but reprehensible his casual dropping of semi-libelous remarks such as his comments about T. Roosevelt's effeminacy: "visible lack of manliness," "ladylike," and adding the purely gratuitous anecdote about one newspaper speculating whether TR "was given to sucking the knob of an ivory cane." Was it really necessary to use such tabloid tactics to demean the memory of a president who, despite how much one may disapprove of his imperialistic tendencies, also accomplished much that was commendable? If you want to attack him on grounds of racism and imperialism, do it on the facts and not on dredging up 100 year-old political mudslinging of the lowest kind on the justification that it motivated his actions in the political sphere--a highly dubious and unproven premise. Likewise Kit Carson's "conquests" in the form of his several native American (oops, First Peoples is the current PC term) wives.

I regret that the LOA chose to use an introduction such as this rather than just supplying their wonderful timelines (after the text) which set the author's biography in an historical context mercifully free of prejudice expressed in inappropriate language. I also regret that so much discussion has been given to this sorry piece of "criticism," which shows its intellectual standards when the author drags in references to Avatar to bolster his argument. I simply hope that more people take the time to read The Princess of Mars than just to have read the introduction, and to place it in its proper position as a literary and social-historical document.

>30 geneg: "As for books like The Confidence Man a scorecard might be more useful than an introduction. "

Actually, the Penguin edition of the novel supplies an exceptionally insightful introduction by Stephen Matterson, who also edited the text and annotated it. I find it a model of what an introduction should be (for those works which need it). But I concur (as does Matterson) that it is as frustrating as it is stimulating to try to pin down what Melville is up to.

32artturnerjr
abr. 25, 2012, 4:24 pm

Well, this is certainly one of the liveliest discussions I've followed on LT in quite some time. If the primary intention of Mr. Díaz in writing this introduction was to be provocative, I'd say he succeeded.

33LolaWalser
Editat: abr. 25, 2012, 6:14 pm

Who knows; but I for one would be surprised if he had had the faintest intention of being provocative. As Django noted, modern literary criticism has revisited classic literature with an array of post-colonial, feminist, every-stripe-of-liberationist viewpoint. It's hardly news that there's racism etc. in it.

But, because all this seems rather negative, let's remember that Diaz concludes, all things considered, that Burroughs comes out looking good, or at least better than some other hits of his day.

34LucasTrask
abr. 25, 2012, 7:40 pm

I agree that Burroughs comes out looking good, or better than some of his contemporaries. Diaz mentions Carter falling in love with and eventually marrying Dejah Thoris in what I think is a positive way, but in my opinion he overlooks the rest of the positives in the book. Carter becomes best friends with Tars Tarkas and more importantly remains best friends with him even after joining Red Martian society. And of course in The Gods of Mars Carter befriends Xander, a First Born, a race of supermen who are black and also comes across the Therns, a race which characterizes the worst of the white race on Earth.

In fact as the adventures on Mars continues ERB continues to bring us upon different races on Mars and they all have good and bad people, except it seems to me the Therns. By the end of the series there is a true multiethnic feel to the Mars series as Carter stands alongside good Green, Red, Black, Yellow, etc., colored Martians, as well as his own mixed breed children, against evil Martians of every race.

35brother_salvatore
abr. 25, 2012, 8:27 pm

>27 LolaWalser: "Yes, and one is to read with understanding of those issues, how else? And how are you going to understand the issues without discussing them?"

Certainly there is nothing wrong in discussing them, in fact it should be encouraged!

But when it comes to literature, I just find such easy pigeon-holing a little tiring. It takes very little intelligence to point at something and call it racist. And I think there is a tendency in human nature that once an accusation of racism has been made, then the thinking is done and the discussion ends. How many books have been censored due to an accusation of racism, when in fact such books expose and explore the dangers of racism? (Huck Finn should come to mind immediately.) These are thoughts in general. I'm uncertain if Diaz's introduction reduces Burroughs' prose to such sermonizing. I'll read the intro after reading Princess, then I'll have a more developed opinion about Diaz's approach.

Having said that, I'd recommend a novel that touches on this particular aspect of race and political correctness. The Human Stain by Philip Roth is one of the most provocative novels about race in America and the fallout of politically correct speech in academia. His novel does what I expect great literature to do: explore the complexity of human nature as a bulwark against simplistic thinking, creating human characters while not perfect, are sympathetic nonetheless.

36artturnerjr
abr. 25, 2012, 9:25 pm

>35 brother_salvatore:

Would you recommend The Human Stain as a stand-alone novel, or is it better understood as a part of The American Trilogy?

37LolaWalser
abr. 25, 2012, 10:37 pm

Well, I haven't read Burroughs since I was a child, but if he's anything like Twain, in terms of literary quality, I'll be pleasantly surprised. As for his intentions (I have no idea what you mean by his "sermonizing"--I don't think Diaz alluded to anything of the sort?), those too will have to wait a new reading.

I wouldn't say Diaz pigeonholed the book as racist; that's a very uncharitable and reductive interpretation of his much more nuanced criticism. As for other books, I don't read much criticism, so maybe there's a sampling bias in my experiences, but I can't think of any other example of such "simplistic pigeonholing" either. Has any respectable critic called Huck Finn flatly racist? I don't think one could remain a respectable critic after that.

How many books have been censored due to an accusation of racism, when in fact such books expose and explore the dangers of racism?

How many? And censored by whom? Where? I vaguely know schools in the USA are battlefields for various interests, but I think none of us are schoolchildren.

As for "political correctness", I'm not American, and I had to learn what discussions of the phrase mean to Americans by observation. What I have observed is that attacks on "political correctness" come mainly from white males, but not the very young ones. For some reason, it's usually white males of a certain age who feel aggrieved by any effort to acknowledge that people who aren't white or male are indeed people with the same rights as those who are white, male, or both, or at the minimum, equally deserving of courtesy. That's about the entire scope of political correctness anyway--a kind of verbal politeness. Why is that a problem?

Especially when one remembers that this thread was started because someone objected to, basically, a lapse in a kind of verbal politeness?

Is Diaz' "fuck" and slangy expression in general a worse offense than the problems he discusses in his essay?

As for Roth--well, I must laugh. I like his writing, I'm one of seemingly four women in the world who have more than a passing fondness even for Portnoy's complaint, but really, offering HIM as a pontificator on the ills of PC--it makes one think of Phillip Morris scientifically proving smoking is harmless.

Besides, Roth is a dinosaur, and he can never be unbound from his own prejudices, freed from the seventies' "war of the sexes" mentality. Let's look at what the younger generations have to say on these topics.

38brother_salvatore
abr. 25, 2012, 10:37 pm

>36 artturnerjr: I heartily recommend it as a stand alone novel. I haven't yet read American Pastoral or I Married a Communist myself, which didn't diminish my enjoyment of The Human Stain.

I'm not sure how "The American Trilogy" got labeled that way, whether marketing or Roth himself, but each novel is a complete and separate story, tied together thematically by exploring the a different time and aspect of American life: Vietnam War, the red scare, and race. The only thing that ties them together specifically is the narrator Nathan Zuckerman, who works as a secondary character/observer.

39brother_salvatore
abr. 25, 2012, 10:53 pm

>37 LolaWalser: LolaWalser, we'll simply have different views on political correctness, and we'll have to respectfully disagree. We simply have had different experiences with it, and that's ok with me. I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. Funny though you should mention "white males." My disdain for political correctness and post-structural theory only came after encountering the criticism of Camille Pagilia, the last person I think of when it comes to the "white male" mentality. Go figure.

Your critique of Roth is one I've heard before, dinosaur, etc... but when you say "but really, offering HIM as a pontificator on the ills of PC--it makes one think of Phillip Morris scientifically proving smoking is harmless" - I really don't understand your analogy. My post was specific to The Human Stain, which captures a time in American life when political correctness literally had crushed people's entire careers, and he captures that inquisitorial culture brilliantly. Political correctness was not the same as verbal politeness. Certainly things have mellowed a whole helluva lot since the late 80s to the mid 90s, and thank God for that.

40LolaWalser
abr. 25, 2012, 10:55 pm

#39

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree, on everything from Paglia's mentality to the widespread suffering caused by political correctness.

41brother_salvatore
abr. 25, 2012, 11:07 pm

When thinking about this thread, this song has been in my head off and on throughout the day. It always cracks me up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbud8rLejLM&feature=fvsr

42dukedom_enough
abr. 26, 2012, 8:31 am

I haven't read the introduction yet (shh, don't tell LoA about the Google Books view), but I do like the idea of having someone like Diaz writing on Burroughs. Diaz is especially qualified to frame the story for modern readers, because he combines SF/comics fandom and his descent from a colonized-nation background - which is what The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao was about, in part.

I reread Princess recently, and liked it better than I expected to. Burroughs did know how to move a story along. But the beliefs of his era are clear in the book. I don't see how LoA could not add some sort of commentary, of the sort that Diaz' introduction appears, from the discussion here, to be.

43Ollerman
abr. 27, 2012, 12:22 pm

>42 dukedom_enough: Read it first, and then decide. I like the notion of an introduction, just not this one. At all.

44LesMiserables
nov. 19, 2015, 12:09 am

>1 Ollerman:

I completely agree; it's bizarre.

45jckern
des. 17, 2015, 1:01 pm

I have no comment on this particular introduction (having not read it), but I find introductions in general useful for two purposes. One, I often like reading them after a book just to see one possible critical perspective or reaction to the work.

The only time I read introductions before the books are for non-fictional classics (e.g. works of philosophy or history), or books that I suspect may require some "help" just to read at all (e.g. Melville's _Confidence Man_).

46jasbro
des. 17, 2015, 1:49 pm

>45 jckern: Thanks for those thoughts. Why did it take me this long to think, you DON'T HAFTA read the "Introduction" first? I can think of a couple things right off the bat, which I want to read, but actually got bogged down with a perfectly, profoundly somnolent Introduction ... Silly me!