Sebadoh doesn't promote mind terrors.
I always wonder if a necessary element of writing is to exert authority over a topic or fellow author.
It's easier to criticize something than to create something.
I recently read Kathy Acker's Blood and Guts in High School. Just one more example of the violent, domineering Arab to be found within the text. I should've discussed in class how including this stereotype within the book is a burden against the stand for women's rights that the book creates.
Of course Acker was influenced by Burroughs' Naked Lunch. Both were set in Tangier to an extent. But the topic of Arabic identity in either books is something for another time, since it'll potentially attract discussion/criticism and I should be better prepared than I am now.
Reading a synopsis of Suttree, the book doesn't sound that appealing. Cormac McCarthy's one of the writers to know and study (and I'm sure it's for good reason), like a lot of others whose work I haven't read in full. But I should check out his work and judge it for myself, like every other author I hear about(but a character having sex with watermelons?). It reminds me of when I was in my pre-adolescence and watched movies based almost strictly on what critics spoke of them. I printed out reviews by Siskel and Ebert back in the mid-to-late 90s when Compuserve and Prodigy were popular. Back when there were more R-rated (read: realistic) movies being created.
It made sense; I was young, the critics knew what they were talking about, so why not follow their wisdom?
I remember seeing a poll back then about people who followed critic's reviews or not. The grand majority of them chose that they didn't follow the reviews and instead went by their own judgement. I was honestly surprised by this. But it opened a new door even at that age; I was allowed to fully believe what I wanted to believe when it came to media.
No comments:
Post a Comment