When we bestow such lofty praise on women, we also doom them to fail
Yes! I think that praise in any form is a great thing and nice to receive, however, too much praise can cause someone to think maybe too highly about the work they've done and might actually cause them to slip up the next time. If there is no valuable feedback and advice for future improvement, how can we expect anyone to take their current work and grow above and beyond that?
Culturally we are so deprived of women who write (flawed) women (that many of these current female icons are extremely well-educated, often wealthy and white says a lot of who we give license to tell “relatable” female stories), that when they do arrive, we leap at the chance to call them messiahs who intricately understand the female experience or indeed any experience.
I heavily agree with this statement. I feel like when we read stories of women who are quirky or "relatable" to the average girl or woman, it is told from the perspective of a woman who no longer lives in this stage of their lives or really, never have. It honestly is really uncommon to hear directly from a woman who is an accurate representation of this character that we all desire, because frankly, I feel like that type of individual would be petrified to say all of the things that makes her stand out, and in some ways, standing out is not always a good thing. I think that because of this, we as an audience and reader seem to jump at any opportunity to get to read a story of someone who has experienced life from this point of view, and lives to re-tell it through another character.
The most recent example I can point to is Olivia Wilde’s film Booksmart, which was heralded by critics as “sensational masterpiece and a miracle” and in a more nauseating review “a riotous, candy-covered celebration of sisterhood” (a guy wrote that). Despite the giddy critical review, Booksmart has received mainly a mixed audience score on Metacritic. No one I know has seen it and more often, never even heard of it, despite critics’ assurances that it will be quoted and beloved by young people.
I know so many "raved" films that have been shown to be this amazing, once in a lifetime movie to watch, but in reality, hardly anyone has actually seen it. What I'm wondering though is why do critics give overly positive reviews of films or novels when the review is not exactly the most accurate? Are they in a way trying to one up the novel by making the film look more appealing?
Perhaps the reason why Normal People has struck such a chord is that at its core the central romance was indeed sweet and occasionally affecting. It’s nice to read a love story that has something to say, even if that something is not much. The fairly simple characterisation speaks to the novel’s popularity in a way My Year of Rest and Relaxation cannot.
After re-thinking my original thought of this novel, which was that I sort of looked at Normal People as a millennial novel, I now think that I view this piece more so as a book that my pre-teen cousin would read. I think that the surface-level plot and the confusing, yet sweet romance definitely speaks more to very young teens who are just immersing themselves into this world of love and dating and everything that comes with it. I don't think that this is a novel made for the young adult, or millennial by any means.
Never once does Normal People try to prove its intelligence with coldness.
Although I can't say that I am finding myself to be a huge fan of this novel, I will agree that the simplicity of this story is in a way, refreshing. Often times with novels, the language can be hard to understand and the characters a bit too complex and overall, it can sometimes get in the way of the main concept that the reader is supposed to pick up on. I do appreciate the fact that Rooney simply just tells the story and does not feel the need to use these complex characteristics. Her confidence in writing in this way is something that I find to be extraordinary and again, refreshing.
Rooney tells us Marianne is isolated, lonely and also very smart but she never actually shows us Marianne’s supposedly exceptional intelligence or feelings of remoteness. Marianne may have been intended to appear deeply flawed, or difficult, but we only ever get a sense of her isolation through her persistent sexual degradation at the hands of men. As a character, Marianne is a cipher, inherently desirable to men and envied by women.
I found it to be interesting that Rooney differentiated how Connell and Marianne were both shown. It is clearly shown through specific situations and examples that Connell is this popular, well-loved individual but when it comes to Marianne, I tend to agree with this statement. Rooney tells us all of these poor characteristics about Marianne, such as the fact that she's a loner and oddly smart but when do we ever see this actually play out in the story? We don't. I find this difference to be a little disturbing to be honest. I don't see why the men are viewed as so transparent and women are seen as this overly complex individual that we think we know but in reality, never actually get to know on a deeper level.
Amongst critics there seems a general consensus that Normal People was not “just a romance,” but an astute commentary of social class.
I noticed this while reading the novel as well. The plot seems to be revolved around the romance between Marianne and Connell, but it seems like regardless of the situation or conversation, there is always this tug of war between social classes between the two characters. There was even an instance in the story where Connell is talking with one of his buddies and his friends makes a remark about Connell's mother being a maid and essentially waiting on Marianne for every little thing. This idea of social class between both characters seems to be relevant in all aspects, and even outside characters are aware of it.
I begrudgingly agree with Sefl’s cantankerous analysis. It’s not that Normal People is a bad book — it’s just rather bland.
I also agree with Sefl's analysis of Rooney's novel. I like aspects of it, but in general, I agree that it is fairly bland. Readers have seen similar characters to Marianne and Connell time and time again, the plot is fairly overused, and the idea of young adulthood is similar among all young adults. However, there could easily be an aspect thrown into the mix to make it different. I just feel like when I read this novel, there are too many things that I can't help but compare it to, and I don't know if I really care for that. I really like reading something that may have traditional values, with a twist.
The status quo also signals that certain lives are worthy of being transformed into literature
I think that the idea of the status quo kind of goes along with the concept of mainstream media and how both seem to be portraying this sort of person or lifestyle that everyone, and I mean everyone, is expected to follow or replicate. This not only stands true for every media outlet, including various social media platforms, but it also stands true in terms of literature. When one type of literature proves to gain approval or popularity, it seems as if that is the only worthy option available, even though that is obviously false.
Writers of color are sparingly featured in appraisals of autofiction.
After reading the article fully, I came back to this main point: "Writers of color are sparingly featured in appraisals of autofiction." And, this proves to be completely true. However, my main question is, what can we do about it to ensure that writers of color and various backgrounds are being heard at the same volume that white writers are? What needs to be done to make this change? I know that it is mentioned that literary critics and publishing houses are one of the main factors in marketing and determining who or what a writer will be, but let's be honest, it's not always easy to change a person's mind when they are obviously very set in their ways. So, how can we go about change in other ways? Use of the public voice? Getting opinions and views from the readers themselves? How can we guarantee that writes of color will be more involved in the genre of autofiction?
It’s not entirely surprising that white critics gravitate toward writers in whom they see themselves, and who write about topics and lead the kinds of lives they are familiar with.
This statement is completely valid. I know so many people who gravitate towards literature for the main purpose of finding a set of circumstances or a specific character that is going through similar things as they are. The main reason is because we often tend to look for outside resources as a way of justifying our behavior, our lifestyles, or really just as a way of saying, "Look, this person is kind of messed up too, and that's okay." I know that this is not always a great thing, especially when it comes to the point of being more inclusive, but from the perspective of someone who is familiar with why people do this, I think that it is normally for the individual's own self-gain in regards to personality and circumstances that a character goes through, rather than the idea that the character's background is the main factor in determining who reads what. And, I also believe that this idea of gravitating towards writers in which they see themselves can be true for individuals of all races, not just white critics specifically.
The genre of autofiction would obviously benefit immensely from a fresh infusion of perspectives and ideas and talent. Instead of a profusion of stories about artists in New York, London, or (occasionally) some other Western urban locale, we would hear stories about the concerns and ideas of human beings in other parts of the world, those who are more likely than their peers in Brooklyn to be on the front lines of the crises that will define the twenty-first century, like climate change and economic injustice.
I love this. I think that this article mentions this fact that autofiction stories are practically all the same, which I can definitely get behind, and is reiterated here in this paragraph as well. I personally tend to enjoy stories that are unlike my own experiences and push me out of the ideals that I have always grown to know. I also agree that with providing more diversity, this will allow for more necessary change to occur, such as climate change and economic injustice, as mentioned in the paragraph above.
writers have virtually no power over how they are classified and marketed: Critics and publishing houses are in complete control.
I disagree with this statement. Although critics and publishing houses play a vital role in how writers are seen by the public, I also feel like the public themselves plays a part in determining who or what a writer is. The audience, or really just the reader themselves has just as much of an ability to spread the word and essentially market a writer through word of mouth, social media, etc. that could actually sometimes be more effective than that of critics or publishing houses.
Writers of color are rarely perceived as innovators who might establish trends that permanently shift literary culture writ large.
I agree and disagree with this at the same time. I think that in a way, the Western culture tends to look to the white male to provide and make changes that will impact the future, and most have almost been programed to think that anything or anyone outside of this is not considered to be innovative enough. That, I can agree with. However, I will say that from my own perspective, I have always looked at individuals from all backgrounds and have recognized the changes that they have made in the Western culture, especially in the field of literature. I find that gaining new experiences from people unlike myself is crucial in expanding my understanding of the meaning of life through the different lenses of those who I will never truly get a chance to become. I was born white and I will die white, but I want to know as much as I can about others and their culture through the use of writing. Clearly, not everyone feels the same way, but I would definitely describe writers of color to be innovators.
The effect is to signal to the reader that Julius is immersed in Western high culture, and that Western readers are entering a safe, well-appointed space in which their admiration for these same figures will be affirmed.
I agree with this statement. Early on in this paragraph, it is mentioned that the only two writers of color that are consistently mentioned are two authors whom seem to follow these sort of "Western culture rules" in which the characters live similar lives, have similar priorities, and in general appeal to Western readers. I think that this idea of creating a space that is specifically dedicated for a specific group is the main reason why there are so few authors of color that are being recognized in this genre. How is an individual supposed to grow and learn from the perspectives of others if the only information that they are being fed is from the same background that they have always known?
This distinction—between autofiction and autobiographical fiction—is important because of the way each genre is assessed by critics. Autofiction is at the cutting edge of literary innovation; autobiographical fiction is as old as time. When a critic invokes the phrase “autofiction” they are essentially arguing that a writer is helping to create a new kind of literature.
This really interested me because I can't say that I ever really knew the exact distinction between the two types of fictional writings, however, it now makes sense to me when discussing this topic. The idea of autofiction being this new and innovative form of literature is obviously intriguing for most and many authors strive to be apart of this. This article brought up a great point in that the only ones who have been given the opportunity to be apart of this new change are white authors, while black authors are stuck under the over-used genre of "autobiographical fiction." I never noticed this myself but I think that this is something worth mentioning.