"How a society orders its bookshelves is as telling as the books a society writes and reads. American bookshelves of the twenty-first centery describe fractiousness, reduction, hurt. Books are isolated from one another, like gardenias or peaches, lest they burise or become bruised, or, worst, consort, cofuse. If a man in a wheelchair writes his life, his book will be parked in a blue-crossed zone: 'Self-Help' or 'Health.' There is no shelf for bitterness. No shelf for redemption. The professor of Romance languages at Dresden, a convert to Protestantism, was tortured by the Nazis as a Jew--only that--a Jew. His book, published sixt years after the events it recounts, is shelved in my neighborhood bookstore as 'Judaica.' there is no shelf for irony."
Richard Rodriquez, Brown: The Last Discovery Of Ameria 12
11 comments:
"American bookshelves of the twenty-first century describe fractiousness, reduction, hurt."
This part of the quote surprised me until I realized it is probably about library or bookstore shelves. I always find myself wanting to--and sometimes actually--reshelving books in bookstores when they are NOT where they belong (in my opinion, of course!). Kay Thompson, the author of the "Eloise" books, used to move her books from the children to the adult shelves all the time.
I'm not sure American bookshelves *always* describe fractiousness, reduction and hurt. One of the few things I enjoyed in library school was learning about cataloging and its history. Library classifications can be odd and sometimes seem to come out of nowhere, and often do a lot to separate, but sometimes can create amazing connections. I love that an actual strategy of research is shelf-browsing.
I think my bookshelves are fairly accurate depictions of me: books are organized alphabetically, but are a jumble of shapes, and sizes, ideas and stories, and all fitted together like an almost complete puzzle.
What I like the most about the quote is how he captures the arbriatariness of catergories. No matter how much science use to create our systems at some point someone makes a decision about what a book is about.
I think one thing he's getting at which doesn't come through in the quote is how we have "Afrian American Literature" as opposed to just literature, etc.
And of course it is such a broad statement...something that Rodriguez does quite a bit...
Our shevles...well it depends on who did the shelving. H likes to have the books in one big jumble just like our CDs. It drivems me mad.I can't find the CDs I want...ever. We do have the poetry in one area, the theory in another but our fiction is mixed with big photo books, and comics LOL. It's a mess.
I read a great book once called "The Book on the Bookshelf", which was a history of the bookshelf as artifact (at one time I was actually really into artifactual history books).
Just one thought (having worked for a few years in a bookstore): if the books aren't organized in some fashion, how in the world, practically speaking, would anyone find what they are looking for? A bookstore with no categories would be a disaster for browsing. Any besides, the bookstores in Canada, Britain, and France (and I'm sure most other places) are organized just like those in the States, so it's nothing particularly American. There are also very real differences between works of fiction, poetry, gardening, cooking, etc. Of course, some books fall between the divisions, but the general categories are still quite essential. Of course, I'm only worried about the practical issues here, but I just can't imagine there are many essentialists about literary genres out there (certainly not BN buyers).
No but again I think to preface, Rodiguez is looking at race throughout this book. And I think his commentary is more about how we regulate things into ethnic studies,etc, etc. This of course engenders a whole other debate but it's an interesting point I think.
As a bookstore customer, I have to admit to finding myself amused at placement, and also at how placement is not the same at every bookstore even within the same chain. A book I find in cooking for instance will be found in dieting at another store. Or a vampire novel shelved in the fantasy/scifi section (there are no horror sections here in the South) will be found in the fiction section of another store. And of course my all time favorite are the stores that have a "literature" section.
I don't think Rodriquez suggests we throw away the categories but he does want us to question them. And I'm all for questioning...
My bookshelves say that I have way too many books. They say that I will never read most of the books on them.
Matt,
In Mexico's (and this is also true to other countries in the Americas) bookstores
there is no distinction between Fiction/Nonfiction: a very telling fact that reveals, perhaps, the way in which different cultures view life, reality, literature, writing...
ooops, that last comment was left by me but since I'm using Ginger's computer it came out on her name (didn't log out)...
let books/genres/writings find their own space and organizational order.
The truly great writers always challenge those assumptions (fiction/nonfiction): what do you do with a "creative nonfiction" type like Truman Capote? or Vollmann or the argentinian Macedonio Fernandez...
our shelves are very promiscous when it comes to genres and/or classification: a phish lyrics encyclopedia is neighbors with the very awesome "American Splendor" and other comic books who share the shelf with McCarthy's "Blood Meridian" and "Beowolf"!
Thanks to Truman Capote and Hunter S. Thompson, to name just two writers, there is now an existing and distinct category of 'creative nonfiction.' It's where Dave Eggers and Bill Bryson and David Sedaris "live," and it's studied in creative writing schools (and lit programs, I would imagine). It's a thing apart from fiction, but it's not journalism or investigative writing either.
It seems to me that good writers sometimes--often?--write the stories they want to write, without trying to fit in and/or break out of categories. I would even say that many great writers just *write*, without concerning themselves with the labels that will be put on their work post-publication. Some writers try to invent and cross borders, and others tell the stories they want to tell, no matter what category it may or may not eventually inhabit. The results from both can be great.
As a writer and a reader (but not a critic or theorist. and maybe that's the difference for me) what matters most to me is story. It's just when work is classified that there's trouble.
Yes, I think some great writing comes out of trying to subvert and cross categories, but great writing can also come from being innovative within the confines of an existing category, or even from just telling a story and not worrying about category/genre.
Yes but I suspect that someone like Capote knew he was playing with the genre. I, do both, write and theorize, and I know that I do play with the lines between fiction and nonfiction.
I also think that categories do play a role for the writer. There is the sad fact that some categories get labeled as "less." So a truely great scifi writer like Octavia Butler gets labeld as scifi and thus many who don't like "scifi" miss out on great lit. Or critics are able to keep her from the "canon" because she's just a "genre writer."
Writes may care about the story but the world cares about the categories as well. Thus a lot of good stories get cut off from readers. I do think that's a tradegy.
Capote especially was a master manipulator. He was willing to do or say just about anything for the sake of his story.
For me--well, I think it's about the virtual and the actual for me, like what you were saying in your most recent post. It's not as though I somehow can't theorize. Although I spent two years getting a master's degree in literature and theorizing about literature, I choose not to do it when I write. For me it's one or the other; doing both at the same time complicates both (in not good ways) for me. For me doing both interferes with what is important to me, and that's story, and character, and good writing.
And as a reader, I don't *necessarily* care about category. It doesn't dictate the reading choices I make. I don't look for things that embrace or reject category. I look for good writing--and that's it.
All I know is what is in my own head as a writer--and what I've read of other writers I admire and respect (and that can only go so far). Yes, some intend to play with categories. Yes, some care about categories. And yes, others don't intend to play with categories. Fantasy writers find freedom within writing within the fantasy genre and making use of fantasy history and convention. I would call Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy great literature, and it is truly fantasy, and deals (in its own particular way) with fantasy history and convention. It deals with philosophical and religious issues as well, but within the framework of a work of fantasy.
The point I really want to make is the act of doing one or the other--ignoring category or engaging category--does not mean "great" writing necessarily. Great writing can come from both methods. I just don't believe that a writer has to invent new genres and categories or live between categories in order to create great art.
Ginger, you mentioned people being marginalized as a genre writer or being out of the canon. That's a problem with *categories,* and prejudices and snobbery--I totally agree. It's a sad fact that as readers we can't help but being cut off from certain things. Reading everything impossible. But I think readers, critics and theorists have responsibility too.
Maybe an act of being a truly great READER is actively reading outside and in between categories.
Post a Comment