Why Johnny Can't (or just doesn't want to) Read Ulysses

April 15, 2009 01:03 +0000 | Culture Media Nifty Links 3

Cat sent this link to me some time ago and I've been meaning to post it here. Now that I have a few minutes, I'll take that time to share it with you.

Essentially, the whole piece is about how modern media is slowly replacing the novel, and more importantly, why it should. Here are a few good snippets:

A novel is not a grab bag of political opinions unless the author is a grab bag of political opinions. If you deduce a political message from a novel, it's because the author has been effective at showing you the consequences of a political position that he or she doesn't like very much.

...modern storytelling has incorporated every trick that once made the novel king of the sand heaps. Look at the collected works of Joss Whedon: continuity is lovingly maintained; wry character relationships are established and undermined with plenty of twists and turns; the fourth wall is broken; a mixture of serious emotional directness and all-embracing "comedy" is strived for. If you actually read the Harry Potter books as opposed to hating on principle those who actually read the Harry Potter books, you'll see that what's addictive about them usually isn't the escapist allure of being a boy-wizard, but the fact that J.K. Rowling is abnormally good at not telegraphing her plot points and at maintaining a strong sense of suspense.

If you fancy an interesting read, here it is: In College You Learn That There Are Vampires (or Why Johnny Can't Read Ulysses).

Comments

Lara
15 Apr 2009, 4:52 p.m. |

Did you read the article all the way to the end? I don't feel that the message was that modern media should replace the novel. The article was about the reason our generation (and younger generations) prefer non-serious books, movies and TV shows to reading a Serious Novel(TM). It is about the importance of storytelling and the ability to hold the reader/audience's interest. You have to *work* to get through certain types of novels whereas others (as well as movies and TV shows) are more supspenseful or gripping, and leave you wanting more, and that is why they appeal to a much wider audience. He is not talking about why novels are not read, either, since he lists novels that the masses do love to read. He is talking about the unpopularity of dry, serious literature. At the end the author goes on to offer suggestions on how to get those who prefer media or "cheap" literature into more serious novels that actually do (in his opinion) have the ability to grip the reader and hold interest, providing the entertainment factor he feels they are seeking.

Daniel
15 Apr 2009, 5:34 p.m. |

Heh. True to form, I hadn't read the whole thing when I posted this. I just thought that it was interesting so I shared it. You're right of course :-)