Or else what? Objectionable use of the word “must” it seems. Of course the editor, Peter Boxall, wants to raise our literary antennae because he knows we haven’t read these books, not most of them, and so with the implied inferiority of cretins like us, the challenge to our education, we read his list. We are weighed and found wanting. Score one.
A vampire book, Mr. Boxall?
According to William Grimes in the Books section of the NYT, (RSS to right) Boxall wants to critique “canonicity.” Academics subscribe to a long-standing list of must reads of their own: what an educated person should have read to be considered well-read, having encountered significant ideas well expressed that are life and possibly world changing. The classics. They are under scrutiny if not attack. Interview With a Vampire is on par with Nineteen Eighty Four these days.
And the point can be made: So if I haven’t read Macbeth, I don’t understand overweaning pride and ambition? Minus Huck Finn I won’t ever comprehend racial injustice or the painful initiation into adulthood and self reliance?
No one “must read” anything. And I suspect that good common sense, humanity, pathos and social conscience may be bred without any reading, especially fiction, which comprises most of the 1001.
Having said that, I’m a Canon-ite. I believe in the value of certain agreed -upon fictions in providing illumination, clarity, appreciation, and joy regarding the human condition, all areas.
What I object to is the cocktail party game of one-up everybody with what we’ve read. Using classic literature for snobbery and denigration is ironically unfortunate. Somebody missed the lesson in all those pages.
7 responses so far ↓
Daughter Dearest // May 23, 2008 at 7:25 pm |
I object strenuously to your objection to Interview with a Vampire. One- you haven’t read it. Two- it’s been around since the 70’s. It’s time to acknowlegde its greatness. After all, nobody objects to Dracula being called a classic.
paisleyandplaid // May 23, 2008 at 9:02 pm |
“Strenuously object?” Isn’t that from “A few good men?” Noted. However, Dracula isn’t in the canon that I mention. And you’re right; I haven’t read anything by Anne Rice and don’t intend to. Around since the ’70’s?
Daughter Dearest // May 24, 2008 at 10:31 pm |
I don’t know if it’s in A Few Good Men…the only speech is can recite from that movie is the famous one. Which canon are you talking about that Dracula isn’t included? My hardback copy is from the Barnes and Noble classics line
And yes, Interview with a Vampire was published in 1979 I believe.
theexile // May 28, 2008 at 10:36 am |
The Canon. It’s ever evolving; books and writers drop in and out of favor over the centuries for various reasons: political, social, religious, aesthetic, etc. The Western Canon seemed a big issue in the 90s, when I was in grad school. At least it was for some writers like Milton. Of course, the question of canon also rests on the question of whose canon are we talking about? Do Westerners (west of what?) include Murasaki Shikibu’s novel Tale of the Gengi, written at least a thousand years before a recognizable novel like Don Quixote surfaced in Europe?
Anyhow, this is a nice post, especially questioning “must reads,” although lists like that are nice to have and explore and maybe follow if so inclined, should a particular book on the list intrigue you. The only “must reads” I can think of would be knowing at least some of the Authorized Version (King James) of the Bible, and at least some Shakespeare. Those two just to manage the allusions in some of the literature — at least in the English canon — before, say, 1968.
But the best reference for reading is other readers. Word-of-mouth marketing.
And Ann Rice does a novel thing with the vampire figure in Interview With the Vampire, making the vampire an existential antihero. Also, it’s worth a read for the language, sopped as it is with the rhythmic lilt of Rice’s native New Orleans, though the prose is spare and economical, or at least that is how the language is as my memory recalls it.
paisleyandplaid // May 28, 2008 at 11:27 am |
I appreciate the comment. And you and D.D. talked me into it: after these last few pages of Beloved, I’m going to read Interview w/a Vampire! Will I need garlic? I’ll try to willingly suspend any disbelief and not be too biased. Bible and Shakespeare — true must reads, I agree.
theexile // May 28, 2008 at 12:11 pm |
Garlic really only necessary if you decide to read Dracula as well.
paisleyandplaid // May 28, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
No Dracula. But semi-seriously, this is dark stuff. And with the power of words and all . . . I’m just saying . . .a little concerned here. I’ll brave it — daylight hours only.