Read on Twitter
I once told a friend that I was considering a trip to Prince Edward Island and he was like, "where?"
Me: "from Anne of Green Gables?"
Him: Never heard of it
and anyway I think about that any time anyone talks about how there's some literary canon we all "have" to know.
Me: "from Anne of Green Gables?"
Him: Never heard of it
and anyway I think about that any time anyone talks about how there's some literary canon we all "have" to know.
I grew up around nerds, and after a while I realized that in order to be considered a Serious Reader, I had to read what the (mostly white) boys were reading. But the inverse was not true; they could be Serious Readers without ever having heard of Anne of Green Fucking Gables.
Later, when I was in college, men would often recommend a certain book series to me because it had a "strong female character" in it.
Oddly, they were not at all interested in my recs for books by women authors, who can write multiple nuanced and complicated women at once!
Oddly, they were not at all interested in my recs for books by women authors, who can write multiple nuanced and complicated women at once!
They were, in fact, bewildered that I wasn't interested in their rec, because surely I couldn't just dismiss a book because of the author's gender?
Meanwhile they had no women to recommend, because they didn't read books by actual women.
There is no reciprocity in 'canon.'
Meanwhile they had no women to recommend, because they didn't read books by actual women.
There is no reciprocity in 'canon.'
Anyway. I understand that there are folks clutching their pearls about how people won't Get! References! And Allusions! If! They! Don't! Read! The! Classics! but that is not actually true, and to the extent that it is true, it's fine.
Like I didn't read The Odyssey until Wilson's translation came out and I had a mostly fuzzy understanding of the plot going in but I have still lived an entire life where I have understood references to The Odyssey. And if I missed any...so what?
The thing about references and allusions is, as a writer, it is your responsibility to make your work accessible. If people can't understand your book unless they've read everything you've read, that doesn't make them ignorant. It makes you an ineffective writer.
This tweet is a stand-in for a multi-tweet rant on Ready Player One and why it's trash, but apparently it did contribute something to the world: an example of how works that are all about Getting The References are usually trash!
And yet, there are other works brimming with references where you can enjoy the work without getting any of the references, because the authors actually know how to write.
Other folks have already covered in depth how You Must Read These Things To Get The References In Other Things is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is. And yes, it enforces systemic racism and misogyny by privileging certain works over others.
But also, it's not how writing works.
But also, it's not how writing works.
It's not just that giving kids books that at best bore and at worst dehumanize them teaches them that reading is a chore. Kids are aware that other books exist.
But if you tell them they can't be literate until they read the boring shit, they might believe you. And not read.
But if you tell them they can't be literate until they read the boring shit, they might believe you. And not read.
And it's bullshit! It's not how books are written and it's not how they're read. Literature is an ongoing conversation, but so is social media. But you don't learn to understand either by starting at the beginning and working your way forward. You dive in where you're interested.
If there are references or norms that everyone else knows, you pick them up as you go, and you don't need to know their entire history to understand them.
The "literary canon" is just a set of memes. People figure out memes every day without knowing their origins.
The "literary canon" is just a set of memes. People figure out memes every day without knowing their origins.
Anyway no you do not have to read the Scarlet Letter to be an educated reader, let alone to understand other books. You don't need to know whether Hawthorne was making fun of puritans. By all means, read it if it brings you joy, but missing it will not hold you back in life.
Actually the Scarlet Letter is a weirdly good example, because saying "but he's making fun of the puritans" is still presuming that Hawthorne's perspective should be important. In reality, the puritans are a niche interest. Most of us know very little about them and it's fine.
And far be it for me to tell people not to have niche interests--if puritans are your jam, enjoy that! Ready what you love!
But insisting that other people are "anti-intellectual" unless they are into your specific fandom is laughable.
But insisting that other people are "anti-intellectual" unless they are into your specific fandom is laughable.
