In my email today, I received a NYTimes: UrbanEye article entitled,
"Why Literature Doesn't Matter" I was intrigued not because I disagree, but because it may very well be true.
I was redirected to an article,
"Pop Culture in the Age of Obama" by Kurt Anderson. I thoroughly enjoyed the article despite my disagreeance with one argument, which we will get to later.
Anderson pointed out that it has been almost a decade since Time magazine has placed an author on it's cover. And while that is not the only gage of public sentiment, I understand the illustration. Has literature been evicted from mass culture?
Right now, I am leaning towards yes.
Well over 100,000 books are published in the US each year. This does not mean that any of these books are having a lasting impact on our culture. All it means is that in this day and age, more people want to become authors. Indeed, some people who want to write a book, specifically to tell their story, don't even read books themselves. So while the number of people authoring books remains steady, the number of readers steadily declines.
In my own desire to write a book or two, I have discovered how much it takes to crank out page after page of legitimate prose. And one of my greatest fears (am I alone?) is that authors spend their lifetime constructing the perfect line for an audience of one.
About a week ago, I stated that poetry doesn't sell. I think that Black Poetry can sell, but only if that person is an excellent performer and public speaker. All of the well renowned Black poets are no stranger to the stage. I think that there are many excellent Black poets whose work on the written page is astonishing, but I am afraid it will never reach the eyes and ears of other Black people, let alone the rest of America if the poet himself cannot raise his voice to speak.
So the next question is, should literature matter?
Should writing be solely theraputic? Or, should a writer devoted solely to craft remain unagitated when the world does not know of, let alone approve of, his work?
Or is literature meant to move culture forward as either a reflection of it, or in opposition to it?
In the end, I think literature is not much of anything if it does not at least aim to move the culture forward. (This is not to say that all art is political, or that all art is propaganda. But it is to say that even art for art's sake if great enough will have an impact.) Some art will be a reflection of the culture, while other art will rebel. But the aim of both is to have an impact.
We are living in unliterary times. This does not mean that writers should give up the pen. But it does mean that writers will have to go above and beyond to make their words mean anything. (What is a meaning that is never seen, spoken or heard?)
On a different subject, Anderson mentioned, "the steady blackening of American popular culture." I am going to have to meditate on how I feel about this statement. Hip Hop wasn't the first form of Black music, that white youth embraced. In the past, White Americans have embraced Rock-n-Roll (And what would America be with out Rock?), Jazz and the Blues. As a matter of fact, I can't think of anything that Black folks have created for popular culture, that white folks have embraced.
Just because white folks listened to Billie Holiday sing "Strange Fruit", doesn't mean that Black folks stopped getting lynched.
So, what will make this generation different? Obama's presidency that is for sure. But to attribute his success to the "blackening of American pop culture"? I'm not too sure Kurt, let me meditate on that for a little while longer.Retweet this