|
Kinda sorta makes sense to me. Sorta. Kinda.
Let me be a little incoherent:
For the purposes of a class, I can see why one would read Bellow along with Roth, if anything to compare and contrast.
A writer's background informs the texts. What's the big whoop?
In my experience, it's rare for a writer to be celebrated merely because of background. There are a ton of black writers, but not all of them get into the canon, nor should they. (I agree about the Hughes, by the way.)
The thing is, if the syllabus was just one big list of titles--no catagories--most of the authors would end up on the list anyway, I think (although I disagree with some of the titles: Roth has written better books since GOODBYE, and FALLING MAN is the worst thing Dellio's written in years,for example. Still, a good student of American lit can't avoid reading something by either writer).
"Niche" makes it sound like these minority writers aren't essential to the American Literature story. I strongly disagree.
The only problem I see is when a dumbfuck reader would say something like, "Oh, I don't care for Jewish American writers."
The Namesake dissapointed me, but only because her short story collections are outstanding.
I'm rambling.
|