See Below
I've been thinking about the comments made below, and thank you by the way for contributing. I've figured out which horse I'm going to back, so to speak. The argument against Little Women is that it's too didactic and morally simplistic. I think that's a valid point, although if I recall correctly, the same criticism could apply to The Scarlet Letter. National Velvet is, I think, stylistically a lot more interesting than people give it credit for, but I don't know how influential it is or what novels influenced Enid Bagnold, so I'm not on sure argumentative ground there.
I'm going to argue on behalf of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, though. I was driving around today and thinking of our discussion, and I recalled the final essays I had my students write in our great American novels class, in which I asked "what are the qualifications for a great American novel?" Their answers were pretty varied, but some of them were:
Where it falls short, I think, is that it isn't as far as I know stylistically groundbreaking or particularly influential. I suppose I could do research on that issue, but again, I think it's begging the question in the first place. The canon doesn't feature many books about young girls, or books by women. (Remember that the Modern Library list doesn't even include To Kill a Mockingbird.) Books seem to get extra points if they're about slavery, the South, or war. But in many ways, I think A Tree Grows in Brooklyn explores New York the way that To Kill a Mockingbird explores Mississippi, and Scout Finch and Francie Nolan have more in common than not. So why is one in the canon (sort of) and the other is dismissed as children's literature? I'm not arguing that they're exactly on par, since Mockingbird truly is one of the greatest books ever written, but I would argue that they are at least comparable.
Anyway, so there's my argument. If nothing else, reading Look Homeward Angel (so far on page 300 and not seeing any point to it yet) has at least led me to ponder these other novels in, for me, interesting ways. Let me know what you think.
I'm going to argue on behalf of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, though. I was driving around today and thinking of our discussion, and I recalled the final essays I had my students write in our great American novels class, in which I asked "what are the qualifications for a great American novel?" Their answers were pretty varied, but some of them were:
- It stands the test of time.
- It is about the American Dream.
- It offers a slice of Americana at a particular historical point, bringing that time period to life.
- It is about sex and alcohol. (This guy went on to argue that The Sun Also Rises was the great American novel. Heh.)
- It deals with issues of race.
- It is well written.
- It is on the syllabus of a class called "Great American Novels." (That one is of course begging the question.)
Where it falls short, I think, is that it isn't as far as I know stylistically groundbreaking or particularly influential. I suppose I could do research on that issue, but again, I think it's begging the question in the first place. The canon doesn't feature many books about young girls, or books by women. (Remember that the Modern Library list doesn't even include To Kill a Mockingbird.) Books seem to get extra points if they're about slavery, the South, or war. But in many ways, I think A Tree Grows in Brooklyn explores New York the way that To Kill a Mockingbird explores Mississippi, and Scout Finch and Francie Nolan have more in common than not. So why is one in the canon (sort of) and the other is dismissed as children's literature? I'm not arguing that they're exactly on par, since Mockingbird truly is one of the greatest books ever written, but I would argue that they are at least comparable.
Anyway, so there's my argument. If nothing else, reading Look Homeward Angel (so far on page 300 and not seeing any point to it yet) has at least led me to ponder these other novels in, for me, interesting ways. Let me know what you think.
posted by mo pie at 11:57 AM
3 Comments:
Well, you can argue that it doesn't belong in the canon, but I think you have to throw out Main Street and Look Homeward, Angel first, so I'm okay with that!
As an outsider (as it were) I find the whole "Great American Novel" thing a bit strange.
Does it matter if a novel is about America or not? Is Henry James not a Great American Novelist because a lot of his books aren't set in America? If someone who isn't American writes a book that ticks every other box*, does that make it an American novel?
Just some questions that came to mind.
*Neil Gaiman's American Gods comes to mind. He's from Essex. He lives in Minnesota. He says he lived in fear of someone asking him how he had the nerve to write about America in that way...
I think Little Women definitely qualifies as a classic because it stands the test of time. It also has a unique quality: Jo is an early feminist before feminism as we know it even existed.
I don't think of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn as a children's book at all. It is told mostly through Francie, who is a child, but I think the story it tells is ageless. It is well written and there is just so much to it, that it has to be a classic. Right?
Maybe I'm biased because I love these 2 books. I confess that I have never read To Kill a Mockingbird, but reading what you have written here, I am putting it on my summer reading list.
Post a Comment
<< Home