Labelicious!

I work in a bookstore.  Didn't you know? Ever been in one?  You have, well, I'm sure you've noticed that a bookstore is nothing if not a house of labels.  We love to make distinctions between "literature" and "genre/popular" fiction and adjust categories to reflect a politcal correctness such as changing "self-help" to "self-improvement." 

Mostly, these categories are non-problematic but there are some that pose some serious questions.  I've written before about my reservations with the "ethnic" lit categories and, this blog, is an offset of that.

The other day, a young black lady came in asking for "Urban Fiction." I was pretty sure I knew what she was talking about but didn't want to make assumptions so I asked her to clarify.  Currently, there is no category called "urban fiction," at least not in the bookstores.  What she was referring to were the various authors whose storylines revolve around what, apparently, is only and urban phenomenon: thugs, drugs, strippers, crime, etc...

Currently, all what is unofficially labeled urban fiction is currently in, you guessed it, African-American fiction because, you know, apparently only Black individuals are "urban."  You see my problem?

What is labelled African-American fiction is already questionable in that why should it be so catogrized just because it is written by African-Americans? Now, the whole notion that anything "urban" is automatically black is also disturbing to me.  Last time I checked, although a vast majority of African-Americans can be found in said urban settings, more than just an issue of race it is one of class.  Not only blacks, but all races can be found in urban communities as well as whites. 

I suppose, in terms of fiction goes, all the "white" crime that deals with almost the exact same thing is considered "true crime" or just, hey, fiction. 

Frowney Face

I just finished reading Barbara Ehrenreich's new book, Bright Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking has Undermined America.  Firstly, I am not a fan of Ms. Ehrenreich.  I tried to be but, by only reading a chapter or two of her (in)famous investigatory piece, Nickel and Dimed, I developed a healthy dissaproval of her methodology. 

I'm not a fan of academics and journalists "going undercover" to find out how it really is living as somebody they are not.  In her case, she joined the seemingly destitute hoard of minimum-wage earning middle-class Americans and discovered that (insert sarcastic gasp here) many can barely support themselves living paycheck to paycheck.  Regardless of whatever valid points she may have made I found the entire endeavor patronizing and intrinsically flawed.

The biggest, most crucial part of those who are "(not)getting by in America" is the notion that they really have no chance/choice in overcoming their curcumstance.  It's a fatalistic consciousness internalized from (in my humble opinion) many local and national societal, cultural, and racial discourses. Many people grow up believing that they really CAN'T expect to do more with their lives than work themselve to death.  After all, there are so few instances in which "people like them" actually "succeed." 

More than anything it's this internalization--that they don't have an out--that dominates their existence and I find it extremely offensive that someone like Barbara Ehrenreich would presume to have ANY IDEA what it is like to live as they do because, bottom line, this is NOT her circumstance and she most definately has an out. 

Anyhoo, back to the book at hand.  I picked up Bright-Sided both because I always look forward to have another excuse to dislike Ms. E but also because I was intrigued by her title/premise.  I began to read it and found myself really liking it and, of course, hating her a little bit more because of it!  I hate it when people I am less than approving of do something that I genuinely enjoy/find interesting. 

I enjoyed it because her critical inquiry was derived from personal experience rather than some over-idealized notion of social justice.  Her research developed out of her experience with being diagnosed with breast cancer and, thusly, being inducted into its pink-ribbon culture.  Ultimately, she was astounded by the extent to which women with breast cancer were directed toward, or as Ms. E would suggest, coerced into a mindset that leaves little to no space for negativity. 

Ms. E was not just intrigued by the fact that women with breast cancer were almost not allowed to wallow in any sort of dispair but that pink ribbon culture propagated the notion that individual women, more than doctors, medications, and treatments were responsible for overcoming the cancer.  More so than that, however, was the unsaid but everpresent notion that if their cancer was not cured the fault would ALSO fall on the women. They were just not positive enough. 

Bright-Sided is fueled by Es experience with the positivist ideolgies of pink-ribbon culture and efficiently goes on a crusade to uncover from whence it came.  In her campaign for pessimism, her biggest adversaries are the myriad self-help gurus whom advocate the faux-scientific methodology of positive psychology.  Among the hoard are individuals like Rick Warren, Norman Vincent Peale, Joel Osteen, and, yes, even Oprah gets a shout-out in her book. 

She traces the roots of positivism to a backlash towards the unforgiving and unrelenting harshness of Calvinist dogma and documents its path from becoming simply a lifestyle choice to the practial mandate it has become today.  A large chunk of her research is done on the affect of positive psychology on corporate mentality and, adversly, the corporate mentality of positve psychology.  The latter being a critique of perhaps the largest propagators of positivism, the evangelical mega churches that have sprung up in the past  15 years or so.

More than anything, "Bright-Sided" is carried by the notion mentioned earlier, that there is an unsaid but ever-present message being relayed by positivist rhetoric that YOU are to blame for anything bad that happens in your life; from being laid off to being poor.  It's not until the last few chapters of her book do you finally and fully understand why Ms. E would feel so strongly about positivist ideology.

She sees within the doctrines of positivism an almost complete and unaffected advocacy for denial and lack of civil justice.  Ultimately, her argument is based somewhere along the lines that positivism promotes a sort of social darwinism by claiming that only the worthy, the positive, will succeed and that everybody else, the negative, are seemingly unworthy.  Also, according to E, it undermines any form of civil, social, and political justice by stating that "curcumstance" is such a minute part of overall happiness/success that to attempt to create any form of society, cultural, or political change really isn't important. 

Are You There Ayn? It's Me, Edgar.

Lately, I've been casually encountering Ayn Rand much more than I'm used to.  Perhaps it is my current residence in a far more conservative state than I've ever lived or perhaps it's the new biography done by Anne C. Heller.  Whatever the case, it has incited some converstions with co-workers about her philosophies and her literature.  My experience with Ayn goes a little like like this.

One day, in my "post-adolescent idealistic phase" I happened across "The Fountainhead" by Rand.  I can easily and unabashedly say it was one of the most influential pieces of literature I have ever read.  In truth, my experience with this book is the clearest example of how meaning often lies in the reader instead of the author.  The story of Howard Roark spoke to me about artistic integrity and non-conformity as nothing else I had ever read or seen.  As a young person who railed against such things throughout his life it was the most empowering story I had ever read.

Of course, I didn't know anything about Ayn Rand at the time I just read into the book what I read into the book.  Well, the book affected me so much that I did a little research on Ayn and let me just say I was SHOCKED to see how different, yet somehow in line with, my reading of the book was to the actual underpinnings of all her works and personal philosphies.  Being young and still rather egocentric, I still latched on to her concepts but eventually dropped them like I did most ideologies I had followed in my youth. 

I also read "Anthem" by her and, despite knowing more of her intent, I still was able to construct her themes as empowering.  I could not, however, manage to ever read "Atlas Shrugged." I have tried, really tried, several times and simply cannot do it.  Mostly it's because in AS her themes are applied to business and, well, it is much easier to see where her ideas are altruistically defunked when applied to businnes.  The FH revolved around artistic expresion which lends itself easier to support notions of indivualism. 

I still recommend "The Fountainhead" but make sure and tell people to read the book outside of Ayn's philosophies.  I don't think most people can really do that but, either way, it's still a great piece of literature. 

Ethnicity Now!

Over the past few weeks, I've read two of what you would call "ethnic" books.  The first was SENDEROS FRONTERIZOS by Francisco Jimenez and PUSH by Sapphire.  

First, let me start by saying I don't particularly approve of books that are relegated into ethnic genres like Latino, African-American, or (I would argue to include) Queer.  Mostly, my reservations lie in the fact that it is often only authors within these three ethnic/social groups whose novels, almost automatically, get categorized as such simply because they are Latin, African-American, and/or Queer.  I suppose it is ultimately a question of why their writing has to be catagorized a such when everyone else's writing is not.  A lot of individuals who draw heavily on their backgrounds/family histories (ie Irish, Jewish, etc.) are not relegated into an individualized category. 

What I read from all this labeling is that readers need to be "warned" that certain books draw too heavily on Latin, African-American, and/or Queer culture in the assumption that they will find the content at the very least not interesting or, at worst, distasteful. Frankly, I believe these non-genres (as I think of them) were created because their content often questions, if not openly challenges, dominant ideoligies. But hey, that's just me. 

SENDEROS FRONTIZEROS:

This book, above all things, was milestoner for me in that it is the first book in spanish that I have read. I've always been able to read in spanish but I've never done it because I simply cannot interact with the words and pharses the way I can with english.  It's a sad thing because, really, spanish is such a fluid and beautiful language. 

I bought this book on a whim from a dollar sale bin at a bookstore expecting a reaccurance of previous attempts to read in spanish but hey, it was a dollar.  When I picked it up, however, I couldn't put it down.  Warrented, it was relatively a small book and I kind of had to glaze over certain parts because I didn't fully grasp the subtlties, but the story kept me hooked.

It was,perhaps, your typical Mexican immigrant narrative. A Mexican family risks coming into the U.S. illegally in hopes of having a better life and lives under the constant anxiety that they will be found out and deported.  The book, begins, with this precise incident.  After several years of living as such, they are found out and taken by immigration and are deported.  The author and his older brother are allowed to return to the U.S. under working Visa's but the rest of the family has to stay in Mexico until they can come back legally. 

The driving force of the story is Francisco who strives so hard to educate himself and aspire to something more than the life that he is expected to live as a Mexican Immigrant.  The story is poignant in its simplicity.  What really drew me, outside of being able to COMPLETELY relate to Francisco, was the blissfull acceptance Francisco relays. 

Too often, these narratives are dripping with a sort of self-pitying or indignant tone throughout.  Although Francisco definately expressed these feelings in the story, his account of his life was simply that: an account of his life.  They lived in poverty and experienced a lot of suffering but, they had each other and, ultimately, lived a life like any other family. 

PUSH

PUSH by Saphire is an "African-American" fiction.  I've never really read African-American fiction because, well, I've been conditioned to not be particularly aware of it because I am not, in fact, African-American.  Despite all the opinions about the whole genre thing expressed above, I don't typically seek out this genre.  My one defense/excuse, is that I don't really read FICTION in general. So there. 

Much like SENDEROS FRONTIZEROS, I only got the book because it was an advanced reader at work but once I started reading it, I didn't put it down until I finished it.  Again, it was a relatively small book but still. 

The story is about Precious Jones, an illiterate girl who suffers through a lot, and I mean A LOT, of abuse and overall injustice.  Despite it all, she is an inquistive girl and ends up in a pre-GED class after she has already been kicked out of several schools for, of all things, being pregnant.  This class, more than just helping her to learn to read, exposes her to a whole new way of thinking; about herself, others, and the world in general.  It really is an awesome read, if many of the situations are extremely disturbing. 

More than the content, the writing style lends so much to its impact.  It writing in first person and the book progresses from the writing of illiterate Precious--misspelled words, awkward phrasing, innappropriate wording--to a literate, although not perfect, Precious. 

Anne McCaffery: Science Fiction AND Fantasy

Whenever somebody asks me what I read, I begin by saying SciFi/Fantasy, because that what everyone knows, but I make sure to say "mostly fantasy."  You see, although both are often categorized as one genre, they are most definately two. 

The key in the distinction is in the use of the word fantasy as merely a definition for subject matter or a category of content.  As simply a defintion, yes, SciFi is definately fantasty but, I would, so is any other form of fiction. The defintion of fantasy is imagination unrestricted by reality and in essence all fiction is such.  Sure, the genre that gets the official title of fiction is based on reality, it is no more real than and involves just as much imagination than any other genre.  Judge SciFi and Fantasy by their content and it is unwaveringly evident that they are different from each other. 

Simply, science fiction is, what I like to say, scientific conjecture at its highest degree.  You'll often find that SciFi authors take what we know as "real" science and simply take a leap into the what if.  While we physcially send rovers into mars to look for life forms which require to only be living organisms, Science Fiction authors take it to what if these living organisms were just like us, or like insects, or more than cellular organims.  SciFi, also, is often conceptual in nature.

Fantasy, on the other hand, often deals with what most people would consider the opposite of science: magic, and myth, and folklore, and fairytales.  In fantasy, Sorcerrers abound, fairies exist, witches live next door, and Gods truly do exist.  Some believe that magic and myth are as real as science. That, however, is a topic for another day.  Sometimes, all it takes for a work of fiction to be considered fantasy is to be set in a time in which such things are still believed to be real. 

In my travels through the lumpe together genre, I have leant toward fantasy because SciFi does not always give me what I want.  It is often too conceptual and lacks a certain connection with the real world which, ironically enough, I find more in Fantasy.  Also, despite SciFi/Fantasy having been fused to represent one genre, most authors tend to stick with one or the other.  An author who masterfully blends the two, however, is Anne McCafferey. (You thought I'd never get to my point, right?)

McCaffery is one of the most well know SciFi/Fantasy authors and she deserves all the recognition.  The single most characteristic that makes her worthy of her reknown is how well she blends both genres.  In her works, most of what we consider fantasy is based within science.  A common theme is a sort of regression of a technological world or, an abondonment of it.  In some of her pieces, we were forced to abondon our technology and survive in wholly different environments which, over time, allow us to develop into the fantastical beings with powers and such.  In others, said technolgies tap into our own minds and beings and bring out said powers.  In essence, they are usually based on both science and fantasy.