I mentioned Chad Harbach’s “The Art of Fielding.” Though I hadn’t read it yet, I’d scanned a dozen reviews extolling its virtues. James is a baseball player, and the novel is about baseball. After checking with a local librarian to make sure there was nothing too inappropriate for a rising high school freshman, I borrowed it and lent it to James. What could go wrong?A lot apparently, but when you start with the premise 'Here is a book other people think is good, check that out!' you shouldn't be too surprised. Oh, but surprised he is!
Read this baseball book, reviewers exclaim, and feel pride in your intellectual labor! There’s nothing wrong with “The Art of Fielding” if you’re merely seeking entertainment, but if you’re looking for even a little bit more, look elsewhere.TAoF didn't break into my top 10 books ever, but I read it and liked it. I don't think it is a particularly brilliant book but parts of it spoke to me. Harbach nails characterization, even if they are a bit 'standard character model' and is able to switch perspectives effortlessly. The main character, Mike Schwartz is more complex than Platzer believes, but ultimately it is just a better than average book that is trying really, really hard to be something more than what it is. I don't think it quite pulls it off, but A for effort.
Here is what fired me up about Platzer's article:
If the literary establishment wants our teenagers to fall in love with literature, it must stop cynically writing and imprudently reviewing books like “The Art of Fielding” as though they were examples of adult literary fiction.Ever since BR Myer's long form troll 'A Reader's Manifesto' was published, there has been this ridiculous 'US v Them' mentality amongst people who write about books, etc. Apparently 'We' just want to read something nice but 'They' keep trying to say that what we like isn't good. Frankly, I tend to agree to some extent. The NYTimes review of books is rife with back patting and argument from authority. But that doesn't mean they are automatically wrong. The Hunger Games is not an example of great literature, period. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read it or shouldn't like it but you should be able to recognize why it was written and what it set out to do. It was written as a page turner to sell books and make movies off of a brand. Period. It succeeded wildly, and congratulations for it. But don't say it is in the same zip code as McCarthy, Ellroy or even Steven King. These people are at least aspiring to create something bigger than a book or a story. They are trying to speak about the same things that literature has been speaking about forever: the human condition. The Hunger Games boils these things down to a krazy OMG what if pastiche of tropes meant to make people who didn't have great teachers think they are onto something larger. I mean for crying out loud, a main character is named Plutach Heavensbee.*
I don't know a thing about Platzer, I don't know what his background is or how old he is. Maybe I'm reading different reviews or interviews but I didn't see anything in what I read about how Harbach's book was meant to be a gateway for teens into the world of Real Literature. Ironically, it is all but written in Platzer's job description that he do just that. It is up to people like Platzer to help kids build a set of tools to answer these questions for themselves, to show that there is something quantitatively better out there than Harry Potter. Rather than engage the subject, he sees a book that is ostensibly about baseball that seems to be charting right now and offers it up. This is such a shortsited and misguided approach to anything, much less to education and literature. Maybe the problem, then, isn't the so-called literary establishment. Maybe it is that an eighth grade teacher can say:
I stole hours from James’ summer vacation when he could have experienced the same kind of pleasure watching a sitcom or thriller.and not feel ashamed. Worse yet, dozens of comments below the article agreed.
Now, I'm not a teacher, just a guy who reads a lot but immediately when I picked up TAoF, I saw a connection to an earlier book. Not only is it qualitatively better, it was written by one of the best living novelists and even has a pretty great Melville connection. Philip Roth's 'The Great American Novel' isn't one of his best, but it is the perfect gateway for a kid like 'James.' It is full of intelligent allusions to other great works of literature, it offers a counter history and is at its heart about people who love baseball. Also, instead of Plutarch Heavensbee, you get ace pitcher Gil Gamesh. That is just awesome. And if James liked it, Roth has dozens of other books to keep you interested. I know this because I read it, but even if I hadn't read the book a cursory glance at it would be a far, far better pick than TAoF and light years beyond The Hunger Games.
So instead of railing against a faceless group of reviewers for propping up a book that you don't think deserved it, instead of trumpeting that you are a philistine in the one place it matters most to have an ounce of integrity and instead of trying to tear down a book because it didn't live up to your nebulous and admittedly low standards, put in a modicum of effort and teach James something he can use. Namely: what we like isn't automatically good and what is good we won't automatically like.
*Be clear: I love me some genre literature. Warhammer 40K novels are absolutely amazing. I just won't argue the literay merits of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment