Huff Po lists some books/authors who are clearly one-hit-wonders: Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind, J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man, Anna Sewell's Black Beauty. I'm not convinced it's fair to label an author a one-hit-wonder if they were prevented from writing more by death, but I'll play along.
What I won't play along with is calling an author a one-hit-wonder when they wrote more than one successful book. Charlotte Bronte published four novels, F. Scott Fitzgerald published five, William Golding published 12, Joseph Heller published 7, Herman Melville published more than Moby Dick and Jack Kerouac published more than On the Road. Maybe not much more I'll grant, but more. They are not one-hit-wonders.
And why not include Dante, Cervantes and Chaucer on the list instead? What about Henry Roth's Call it Sleep and and John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces?
While I like mindless lists of books, put a little thought into it next time Huff Po!
Also recently on Huffington Post, Sarah McCarry wrote a piece on women book bloggers called Faking Nice in the Blogosphere: Women and Book Reviews. See if this passage makes you nod your head in agreement or shake your fist in rage.
Book bloggers and reviewers--female book bloggers and reviewers especially--often seem to subscribe to a kind of cultlike apologism, in which they feel the need to defend the author as a person even if they are temerarious enough to be displeased by her book. Negative reviews are met with a resounding chorus in the comments: the author is a wonderful person, the author worked hard, the author did her very best. The idea is, apparently, that women are so exhausted by the intellectual labor required to produce the text in question that we are unable to withstand any subsequent critique, and ought instead to fall back on some kind of rosy-cheeked sorority of lady writers, exchanging stain-removal tips and sob stories. It goes without saying that male writers are accorded no such coddling, and that entry into this misty realm of sisterly solidarity requires acquiescence to a strict set of codes of behavior. Nice lady writers don't rock the boat, they don't hurt people's feelings, and they sure as hell don't write about topics that make other lady writers uncomfortable. But instead of promoting community, this obsession with niceness wields a potent silencing force.In other news this week......
I've had to change the design of my blog again. The template with the birds flying off at the top of the page vanished this week. I don't know what happened, but one morning the birds were gone. Flew the coop. The next day the text background color mysteriously switched to black making everything too difficult for me to read. So, I found this new template. Not sure I like it, but it is easier for me to read.
And, I found out that Ready When You Are, C.B. is listed on Wikipedia in the footnotes to an article about an author I interviewed here. I've been a bit obsessed with Wikipedia lately-- just finished reading a book about it's history. Many people, teachers especially, condemn Wikipedia outright because anyone can write or edit an article on it. Most condemn it without having actually looked into it, I might add. So I decided to look into it and see just how easy it is to make a change. It's very easy. Sign up, long in, make your edits wait and see it anyone adds to them. I added some information to the article on Patrick Ryan who wrote Send Me and Saints of Augustine, two of my favorite reads. All of my additions were factual, by the way and I did provide footnotes. I'm planning on posting more about the experience when I review The Wikipedia Revolution later this week or next.
Lastly.....
Friday I spent the morning trying to teach my 7th grade students about the ideas of several major Enlightenment thinkers. This is the first time I've made it to the last chapter in the history book which is on the Enlightenment. In my heart, I just think it's a little bit crazy to try to teach a roomful of 12 and 13-year-olds about the Enlightenment. Hobbes? Voltaire? Locke? Try getting a bunch of 7th graders interested in the natural rights of man with just 13 days of school left. Heck, try to get me interested.
Full Disclosure: Temerarious means reckless or rash according to Dictionary.com.
22 comments:
I think what people forget about book bloggers is that many of us choose books which satisfy some sort of criteria of enjoyment. Because I'm reading for fun and not for money, I'm reading books I'm truly interested in. This means of course that more than likely I'll enjoy the book. I would think that many of us do the same.
Also on the lady book blogger front, I don't see the problem with defending an author as a person; damned if that doesn't just sound nice. We are so concerned with being "more male" aka "less emotional" but I honestly don't see being kind as being weak. I don't think the idea is that "women are so exhausted by the intellectual labor" that they can't take criticism. I think the idea is that people are trying to be kind. And as long as kindness does not detract from honesty it should most definitely be a priority.
Okay, I'll stop before this becomes an entire post.... :)
I love Henry Roth's Call It Sleep! Definitely a "one hit wonder" of books- it was years before I realized he'd published anything else, and then I simply could not slog through the thing.
On the wikipedia thing- crazily enough, I started a wiki article myself. It was several years ago. I'd just read Farley Mowat's book about an indigenous northern-canadian peoples called the Ihalmiut. I went to read more about them online, and was shocked when there was practically no info available. My husband said: "you can write about them" so I did (under his name). Now so many people have added to that article I can only recognize a few sentences that were my own, but I'm sure they have far better facts at hand than I did!
I LOVED this post! I found myself nodding in agreement, thinking about some issues, and laughing out loud!
As an English teacher (and perhaps I am in the minority?!) I tell students that they can use Wikipedia as an initial research tool, but they cannot claim it as a legitimate resource on the works cited page. Each fact they find on wikipedia must be validated by another "reputable" site. I use the site all the time in my personal quest for knowledge :)
I am sorry you have had such issues with templates lately, but I do enjoy this background of lovely bookshelves.
I hope you have a great rest of the weeekend!
Sir you have so many things to comment on here, where to start!?
1. Confederacy of Dunces is a no-brainer. Fitzgerald, really? Just because gen pop might not know his other works hardly makes him a one-hit wonder. (Sounds a wee bit more snobbery than what I intend).
2. Warm fuzzies with women bloggers. Huh. That's a short and narrow bridge to gender generalizations, if you ask me. I think that most don't review bad books because we want to talk about books others *should* read. And, quite honestly, I never really consider the author as a person when I am reading a book. It's like they're this distant godly being...moses and the 10 commandments, if you will. They are separate from their creation.
3. I am inspired though by the article to end my posts with *hugs*
4. Stain removal...uhhh, club soda doesn't work? I just usually wear a bib.
5. Thanks for defining that monstrous word. I would have been too lazy and relied on context clues.
6. Englightenment to 7th graders. Geez louise. I am finishing the school year with Martin's A Corner of the Universe and the kids can't stop giggling when Adam and Hattie walk in on Angel Valentine topless with her boyfriend. (And keep in mind, being an award winning book set in the 50's what is said is, (paraphrased) "Adam cannot stop looking at her bare chest".
7. 9 more days left with the kids. But who's counting, right?
It miust be hard getting 12-year olds interested in Enlightenment philosophy. Strangely, I really enjoyed it as a topic in the lower grades of highschool, but I can imagine it's considered boring by most.
It is very easy to change information on wikipedia. I have to admit I do use it: it's easy to look things up when you're in a hurry. But I did come across long articles that insert things like "blablabla you're not even reading this, are you?" in between information, so I like many teachers, I'm hesitant to use it as a "real" source. However, I do think it will turn out more accurate in time, or maybe that's just my weird confidence.
Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to your review!
HuffPo is always stupid. They're science literacy is in the toilet (they've defended vaccination denialists for crying out loud) so I'm unsurprised at their poor book choices.
I personally think Wikipedia is awesome. Check out the "Everything is miscellaneous" youtube video. I especially like reading the discussion tab on articles and seeing the debate involved. It's almost BETTER than a regular resource because they blatantly say what is authoritative and what needs work. As for actual research, I agree that it's an excellent starting point because of all the links at the bottom ofarticles but even Wikipedia says it shouldn't be used for true research.
How funny! I saw the post on the one-hit wonders and was writing one of my own when I saw this.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Bravo!
Now, what to do with my post? Eeep.
I still may post it, and link back to yours if that is alright with you.
Fitzgerald - eh?
I'm addicted to Wikipedia, yes it is easy to change it but its my first point of reference for alot of things.
I prefer this look to your blog, its alot easier to read than the other template but have you ever considered changing it to your own design like I did?
Trisha, I agree. Nothing wrong with more nice in the world. But I do recommend reading the entire article, too. There were some valid points in it.
Jeane, You can check their sources, too and find out just how good they were. I was all set to start my own article about Patrick Ryan, but there it was, already started.
Molly, Glad to hear you enjoyed the post and that you like the new template. It's growing on me, but I still think it looks a bit cluttered. The other one was much cleaner.
Christina, Club soda only works if you interrupt your meal to get at the stain. I never interrupt a meal....
Irisonbooks, I've yet to encounter anything like that on Wikipedia. If I did, now I know how to delete it and how to report it. I think High School is the perfect time for the Enlightenment. Ideas like the rights of the accused are perfect subjects for 9th and 10th grade. They are a bit of a stretch for 7th graders, certainly at the end of May.
Jim, I agree on both counts. For college level work, Wikipedia should be just a starting ground. But for high school and middle school, and for the needs of most people, I think it's fine.
J.C. Please do, go right ahead and post. The more the merrier. Huff Po really needs to raise the bar if they want to be taken seriously. The more pressure we put on them the better.
Oh, so much to respond to.
I saw that HuffPo article about women bloggers, and I of course got aggravated because I'm a woman blogger and do not hesitate to post negative reviews. But then again, I know she's not talking about me. I just wish she'd kept gender out of it. That aspect of the article got my dander up something fierce!
I do agree with her that we shouldn't hesitate to express displeasure at a book in the interest of being "nice". I'm not sure it's an obsession with niceness that keeps people from posting negative reviews, though. I think it's more that people are good at choosing books they like. Or that they read more books than they have time to blog about and would prefer not to take the time and blog space to write about a book they didn't enjoy.
Personally, I think negative and mixed reviews are important and helpful. Negative reviews help me sort my priorities and keep me from expecting too much from some of the more popular books. So I'm glad that some of us do go negative from time to time.
And Wikipedia. I love it as a first stop for research or just to get a general idea about a topic. And I always look at the references. But I wouldn't cite it in a research paper. I might track down the original sources cited in the article and use those, though.
And I like the new look!
Teresa, Thanks. I agree, a well written negative review is very useful. Not only do they help sort out your TBR stack, but they can help you re-examine books you loved. If you're forced to defend a book against a negative review, you can end up with a better appreciation of it.
As for Wikipedia, if the sources they are citing are good enough for your research paper, why aren't the wikipedia articles themselves good enough?
I saw that HuffPo piece, and even Salinger doesn't belong there. What about Franny and Zooey, for one thing, and for another, what about his short stories? Oh...I keep forgetting...short stories don't count. And you are right, where is Confederacy of Dunces? I thank my lucky stars every day he never wrote another book (or that his mother didn't find another one sitting in the drawer).
Interesting about lady bloggers: I am sure she may have a point, but she is clearly not reading any of the blogs I read--nor is she looking at the comments. I can't count the number of times I have read a positive review of a book and seen someone leave a comment along the lines of "Really? You liked that? I hated it..." Those always shock me. I am not sure why. But for the record, I also would say I don't see female bloggers giving female authors preferential treatment. Again, it may be a case of which blogs I read.
I have a Wikipedia link as a button on my toolbar. I just don't know what I would do without it.
I also like the new look. Very clean. Happy Sunday.
I think this was my favorite post on your blog ever. There is actually too much here to even respond to. HuffPo is stupid. We love Wikipedia. 12 year olds, based on my daughter, are interested in nothing more than themselves. Hope that changes. As far as the too-nice-rosy-cheeked-blogger editorial? She sounds angry and bitter. Of course, yes, we read books that we think we will like. I tend to write more positive ones than negative, but not just ten minutes ago I pretty much raked one over the coals. I can be a bitch if I need to. Stain removal? Oxy Clean.
True confession: I've never read the Huffington Post, and after reading this I never will. Also, I agree with the commenter who wrote that Salinger should not be considered a "one-hit wonder." Franny and Zooey and Raise High the Roofbeam, Carpenters should take him off that list (never mind the short stories--why do they never count?)
I've used Wikipedia, but I agree that verification is important and backup is necessary (sometimes, though, Wiki is the only source).
Like the new look, especially the bookshelf backdrop. Best of luck...enlightening...your students as the year draws to an end!
Evening Reader, Thanks for the feedback re: the new layout here. I agree with you about Salinger. A hit short story should count as a hit. They certianly count for O'Henry, Poe, de Maupassant, etc.
Sandy, Huff Po is where I go to see what the headlines are in various newspapers. They do post lots of links to other sources. And they post the best bits from Jon Stewarts show just about every day. Those are both handy things.
ds, Thanks. It's true Wikipedia is often the only source. And, from reading the book I now know that for many many languages it's the only encyclopedia there is at all.
Good for you! Why not hang in there and teach a little in these last few days of school? I feel sad when I see every class watching movies...and not movies of the educational sort (of course this is not at my school...but, trust me, I've seen a lot of this).
I really do not agree with the "one hit wonder" when it comes to books. As you pointed out, most of these authors did write other books.
As far as the piece on women book bloggers, I think I'm going to jump in on the side of shaking my fist in rage! She makes us sound like a bunch of housewives who do not really have valid opinions. I certainly do not remember an inordinate amount of author defending in reviews I read and I haven't noticed a lot of sob stories...and certainly not any stain-removal tips (although at times it wouldn't hurt...LOL). As far as us defending female authors and not male, I have not noticed any bias for female authors over male. I think she's way out of left field with this one. Obviously, she researched only a small group of blogs for her article...instead of the hundreds of female book blogs out there.
I'm glad that you said that an author shouldn't be labelled a 'one hit wonder' if prevented by death to write any more!! Poor Emily Bronte was hugely promising, if Wuthering Heights was her first, what might have come next?
Readerbuzz, I teach up to the last day every year. I admit, I don't teach as much as I do the rest of the year, but I still teach.
Michelle, I did quote a particularly fist-shake-inducing passage. I think she does make some valid points and I encourage everyone to read the original post. It's brief.
Elise, I heard conflicting reports about Emily. I've heard there was a second novel in the works that Charlotte destroyed and I've heard that she had already said she would not write another novel. I think even if she had lived she had said all she had to say in Wuthering Heights.
HuffPo is one of the few places that is getting the reporting right on Financial reforms and lack thereof. While the main stream media continues to carry Wall Street's water, or are too lazy to do a little digging behind Wall Street's army of lobbyists and spin doctors, HuffPo has been consistently trying to shine a light on what is really going on.
Having said that, there top 10 lists are usually beyond stupid and lacking in real thought or substance. And their literary one-hit wonders was ridiculous for all the reasons already stated.
It was Buggles who killed the radio star...
Thomas, I'll give credit where it is due. But lately they've had a growing amount of dumb stuff on Huff Po.
Anabell, I checked Wikipedia and you are correct. Several other sources agree as well.
Post a Comment