In "Popular Literature" class—when I was a student at American Studies Gadjah Mada University majoring 'American Literature and Culture'—my classmates and I used to have lively discussion on "dichotomy" of popular literature—often considered as low quality literature—versus high-brow literature. Why should this dichotomy exist? Who has privilege to decide which kind of literature is considered pop and which is high? And why should some people feel that they have that privilege?
Some literary critics said that when a work was produced only to follow what public wanted to read—just for fun or entertainment, no "deep meaning" under the surface of the story—then it would be categorized into "pop literature". In addition to that, people also said the work was only for commercial's need, because the writer needed money when writing. On the contrary, when a work was produced not only to follow public's needs, it was written more to fulfill the writer's ambition to communicate "something important" to readers, so that the work had "deep meaning", then the work could be categorized into "high-brow literature".
However, when talking about Jack London's works, who would say that his works do not have deep meaning whereas London himself said that he wrote them only for money? Literary critics even classified London's works into high-brow literature.
Besides that, critics said that the parameter of high-brow literature was when one work deserved to be included into canon. The canon here usually refers to "big anthologies" such as Norton Anthology, Heath Anthology, etc. Again, I want to ask, who has privilege to select which works to be included into those anthologies?
The publication of THE NORTON ANTHOLOGY OF LITERATURE BY WOMEN can be considered one way of women's struggle to include women's works into high-brow literature. In the 'preface' of its first edition published in 1985, Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar wrote:
"… no single anthology has represented the exuberant variety yet strong continuity of the literature that English speaking women have produced between the fourteenth century and the present. In the NORTON ANTHOLOGY OF LITERATURE BY WOMEN, we are attempting to do just that."
"Complementing and supplementing the standard Norton anthologies of English and American literature, NALW should help readers for the first time to appreciate fully the female literary tradition which, for several centuries, has coexisted with, revised, and influenced male literary models."
Furthermore, in the sixth edition of The Norton Anthology of American Literature appearing in the beginning of the twenty first century, Nina Baym, the general editor, stated in the preface:
"That the "untraditional" authors listed above have now become part of the American literary canon shows that canons are not fixed, but emerge and change."
It can be included that in the long run dichotomy of pop and high literature will disappear peacefully. It is up to public to value and to choose which works they will read. I am of opinion that in society where people are mature enough to choose which works to read, bad writings will be left behind.
P.S.: This article was written to 'answer' my Abang's challenge, related to the hot topic on the polemic of two sides—the community of TUK versus the community that is against it.
PT56 21.40 190907
Some literary critics said that when a work was produced only to follow what public wanted to read—just for fun or entertainment, no "deep meaning" under the surface of the story—then it would be categorized into "pop literature". In addition to that, people also said the work was only for commercial's need, because the writer needed money when writing. On the contrary, when a work was produced not only to follow public's needs, it was written more to fulfill the writer's ambition to communicate "something important" to readers, so that the work had "deep meaning", then the work could be categorized into "high-brow literature".
However, when talking about Jack London's works, who would say that his works do not have deep meaning whereas London himself said that he wrote them only for money? Literary critics even classified London's works into high-brow literature.
Besides that, critics said that the parameter of high-brow literature was when one work deserved to be included into canon. The canon here usually refers to "big anthologies" such as Norton Anthology, Heath Anthology, etc. Again, I want to ask, who has privilege to select which works to be included into those anthologies?
The publication of THE NORTON ANTHOLOGY OF LITERATURE BY WOMEN can be considered one way of women's struggle to include women's works into high-brow literature. In the 'preface' of its first edition published in 1985, Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar wrote:
"… no single anthology has represented the exuberant variety yet strong continuity of the literature that English speaking women have produced between the fourteenth century and the present. In the NORTON ANTHOLOGY OF LITERATURE BY WOMEN, we are attempting to do just that."
"Complementing and supplementing the standard Norton anthologies of English and American literature, NALW should help readers for the first time to appreciate fully the female literary tradition which, for several centuries, has coexisted with, revised, and influenced male literary models."
Furthermore, in the sixth edition of The Norton Anthology of American Literature appearing in the beginning of the twenty first century, Nina Baym, the general editor, stated in the preface:
"That the "untraditional" authors listed above have now become part of the American literary canon shows that canons are not fixed, but emerge and change."
It can be included that in the long run dichotomy of pop and high literature will disappear peacefully. It is up to public to value and to choose which works they will read. I am of opinion that in society where people are mature enough to choose which works to read, bad writings will be left behind.
P.S.: This article was written to 'answer' my Abang's challenge, related to the hot topic on the polemic of two sides—the community of TUK versus the community that is against it.
PT56 21.40 190907
Minds are like parachutes, they only function when they are open.
(Sir James Dewar)
visit my blogs please, at the following sites
http://afemaleguest.blog.co.uk
http://afeministblog.blogspot.com
http://afemaleguest.multiply.com
THANK YOU
Best regards,
Nana
visit my blogs please, at the following sites
http://afemaleguest
http://afeministblo
http://afemaleguest
THANK YOU
Best regards,
Nana
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
.
__,_._,___
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar